False and Misleading Evidence

A supplement to the defense letter dated 3 July, 2013, was filed on behalf of Paul Bergrin this morning. This is the first document in this case that was not filed by Bergrin's stand-by counsel Mr. Lustberg, and the reason for this is that time is of the essence. Paul Bergrin was found guilty on all counts by a jury deceived by the government; however, he has not been convicted.

An excerpt from the supplemental brief:

It is a sad day for our criminal justice system when the government pathetically and desperately submits a recantation letter such as the one of 3 July, and a letter with the contents contained in the one of 10 July; knowing they contain misleading, atrocious and blatant inaccuracies. Their misguided reliance on the December 4, date as the date of the meeting, proves they wrongfully pursued Bergrin and should not have relied on Young; a witness proven to be unbelievable. It further establishes that their underlying theory of the case and the fact pertaining to an alleged meeting on December 4, was absurd and misguided.

Read the entire brief here:

Bergrin Supplemental Brief 15 July 2013

Note that I have uploaded the brief to a new website that is not yet complete. When the site is finished soon, I will introduce it here.

Government Actors Without Conscience

Someone is angry; that's for sure. The government filed a scathing 3-page letter responding to Paul Bergrin's last defense letter and attached a telephone recording transcript to it dated November 25, 2003 - the date of William Baskerville's arrest. The letter:

Bergrin Trial Govt Letter 10 July 2013

The transcript reveals Bergrin telling Hakeem Curry that Baskerville was facing life and is intended to create doubt about the later recordings that state differently. Obviously, at least to me, Paul Bergrin actually believed that William Baskerville faced life as a result of government paperwork and statements on the day of the arrest and then by December 4, 2003, the date of the other wiretap transcripts posted on this blog, realized that this was not the situation and knew he could deal the case for a 12-13 year sentence.

A read of the government's acrimonious letter would make the unaware believe that they'd uncovered serious evidence contradicting defense statements on the topic of the Curry wiretrap transcripts. Actually, the situation is quite the opposite and the attached transcript reveals the natural progression of a criminal case in the US courts. At first glance, the case looked real bad for Will, but a week later it was just another overzealous US prosecution.

Furthermore, Bergrin certainly did not "cherry-pick" the calls included in the earlier defense letter. The specific call transcripts clearly reveal the progress of the case and that Bergrin clearly told Curry that he could get Will a deal for 12-13 years, nine days after the initial arrest. The calls also reveal that no meeting on a street corner was ever mentioned between Bergrin and Curry as of December 4, 2003.

The government letter also seems to threaten to provide transcripts of all of the 33,000+ suppressible calls. Take note that Paul Bergrin has nothing to hide and welcomes such a move. I do realize that the defense letter dated 3 July 2013, mentioned concern about "opening the door," however, Paul Bergrin did not compose it - perhaps Mr. Lustberg's secretary did. No telling who specifically composed it, but there is no fear of any proof favoring the government's argument in the content of any of these calls.

And how exactly is it that 33,000+ calls are suppressible in the Baskerville and Curry cases anyway? In that I know what the Oscar Cordova recordings went through, I cannot even begin to imagine what agents did to result in all of those calls being suppressed. I mean really - if you read the transcripts of Oscar's trial testimony, you know that most of the exchanges recorded between him and Bergrin were unintelligible and transcribed as U/I.

And then there's the fact that it was SA Shawn Brokos that transcribed all of the Oscar tapes to begin with. There was no real transcription of those recordings as they really are unintelligible for the most part. What happens is you hear a small part of a statement by Bergrin which results in the entire conversation being taken out of context. Even the expert knew there were serious anomalies with the tapes. Yet these recordings were not suppressible.

So what exactly makes 33,000+ recordings suppressible? The government makes statements about sealing being an issue. As if Oscar Cordova's recordings were properly sealed! Once the little creep didn't hand a recording to an agent for nine days, so let's not pretend anything Oscar the criminal informant did was monitored by agents; the situation was much the opposite.

But the worst part of the government's letter is the part that expresses a lack of concern as to the truthfulness of Anthony Young's testimony and justifies it with legal citations. They say that it doesn't matter whether Young's testimony was corroborated or not and his word alone is enough to convict Paul Bergrin. A violent career criminal informant makes a statement intended to assist the government agenda and call recordings reveal that it is a false statement about a street corner meeting that never happened and the government says that this is immaterial. Is this not "victory at all costs"?

Initially, Bergrin refuses to accept that “uncorroborated accomplice testimony may constitutionally provide the exclusive basis for a criminal conviction.” United States v. DeLarosa, 450 F.2d 1057 (3d Cir. 1971). Young testified that Bergrin came to a meeting at Avon Avenue and 17th Street after Thanksgiving in 2003 and effectively instructed the Curry Organization to murder McCray. 9T2249-54. That testimony, if credited by a rational jury, alone suffices to uphold Bergrin’s convictions for the McCray murder. See United States v. Pendleton, 636 F.3d 78, 84 (3d Cir. 2011). Whether other evidence supported or contradicted Young was for the jury to decide.

I thought that the government was supposed to represent the people. According to these government actors, the truth is immaterial. Their courtroom tactics and hand-picked judge sealed Paul Bergrin's fate, or so they believe at the moment. When they managed to get USDJ William Martini recused in this case, the victory was in close reach and all they had to do was fool a naive jury in a hurry.

Of course Paul Bergrin has a response to this scathing letter of misinformation and you'll hear it soon.

Government Reliance on December 4 in Closing

The way that I read each day of the Paul Bergrin trial transcripts was to send them to my Kindle, four at a time. There are a total of 37 volumes from this second trial and it's similar to reading 37 books. I argued to publish the transcripts with the hope that some sharp attorney or law student would discover important inconsistencies in the government's theories - yes, that's plural as they have numerous major theories, all based on the Kemo murder conspiracy, that Judge Cavanaugh allowed them to present as facts to the jury.

You will find that Volume 34 has the government closing presented by AUSA Minish; it has more, but that is as far as I made it before falling asleep. What did I discover?

The extent to which the government's case hinges upon the calls corroborating Anthony Young's claims is clear. It proves the extent to which the government erroneously relied upon the calls and the extent of how that erroneous reliance tainted the proceedings. They specifically cite the November 25 and December 4th calls. It also underscores how improper it was for the government to use the Pozo 404b evidence.

Gee - USDJ William Martini was correct to begin with! Are you surprised? You shouldn't be.

So, the government retraction of the December 4 reliance in the response brief and the false apology for advancing that so-called suggestion in the letter dated 1 July 2013, is the usual spin and straw man crap. The entire presentation by the government to the Court is built on the false testimony of Anthony Young. Really it is mind-numbing when you examine the uncorroborated reliance on Young, a violent career criminal, in this case as well as others.

AUSA Minish repeatedly refers to corroboration of Anthony Young's statements throughout his closing argument; however, none of it is real. In the closing it is claimed as fact, but in the actual testimony it was clearly questionable. I could refer to any specific government claim of corroboration of Young's testimony and easily dispute it.

It's better if you read the entire Volume 34, or at least the government's entire closing argument (pages 8451-8584) to understand the reliance on the recorded calls the jury never hears and Anthony Young's false testimony, but if you're short on time, read pages 8504-8508 in Volume 34:

BERGRIN 34 03_13_13 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

This entire case is mind-boggling. But you'll notice that the reliance on Anthony Young's testimony of the meeting on a street corner that never happened is disseminated throughout the case and has infected the entire prosecution of Paul Bergrin.

Defense Response to December 4 Retraction

If you have read the last several posts on this blog, then you're already aware of the importance of pinning the government to the date of December 4, 2003, as the date Anthony Young claimed the Avon street meeting took place and as they have asserted affirmatively in their last brief. 

The government took 9 years to state a date and previously it was "after Thanksgiving 2003," which is about as vague as they could possibly get. Young did claim in previous testimony that it was 3 or 4 days after Thanksgiving. In yet other statements, the government stated it as after Thanksgiving and before Christmas 2003, so we are crystal clear that it was not in February.

This is what happens when a witness (i.e. violent criminal informant seeking a 'get out of jail free' pass) offers completely false testimony of events that never occurred. They're forever trying desperately to make the date fit the timeline. In this situation, it's the government that is desperate to make the pieces of the puzzle fit together and they have failed miserably.

The government suborned perjury and knowingly presented false testimony. The assertion of the date to make their point in the brief also depicts the fact that they are intentionally deceiving the Court and thwarting the system of justice by attempting to strengthen that date by emphasizing it. They are caught in a web of lies. In their response letter dated 1 July, 2013, there is also mention of a total of 3 calls on December 4th. All 3 calls are transcribed:

Curry Wiretap Transcript

Remaining December 4 Calls Transcribed

Mr. Lustberg has written a letter to the Court that best describes the situation in its entirety:

Bergrin Defense Letter 3 July 2013

How much more will the Court allow the government to get away with? Time will tell. The defense awaits the Court's ruling and only possible resolution to this serious matter. Paul Bergrin was never on Avon Street advising a group of alleged gang members in the dark on any date. As an attorney, Bergrin's idea of fighting for his clients clearly involved zealous argument in a court of law, as it should.

Anthony Young = total fail and it's obvious that Paul Bergrin never conspired with anyone to murder FBI informant Kemo Deshawn McCray. Of course this taints the entire indictment for reasons that should be obvious to you.

And then there are so many questions remaining in relation to these tens of thousands of inadmissible wiretap recordings from the Hakeem Curry case. More on that soon... with documents of course.

Oh and happy Fourth of July --- mentioning freedoms and therefore the United States Constitution (and the Fourth Amendment in this case), if I find out that these whacks have anything to do with my missing snail mail (from business and personal addresses), well, as they're aware, I always loudly denounce injustice and always demand accountability. I learned long ago that there are few actual coincidences in life.

December 4 Now Retracted

What did I anticipate in my last post? The changing of the date of the meeting on a street corner that Anthony Young testified about. The last post: What the Curry WiretapTranscript Reveals

As if on cue, the government is now claiming the date referred to in the response brief has been retracted and they offer their heartfelt apology. Apparently, the infamous street corner meeting has now been returned to a vague period of time defined as, "After Thanksgiving 2003," if you can imagine that. Of course there is no possible way of tracking down the specific location of all men alleged to be at this street corner meeting in the dark on an unnamed date after Thanksgiving.

The lying perjurers have now retracted the real date stated by the AUSA. Clearly it was a huge screw-up to finally note an actual date. The are such liars. Read the lying explanation:

Bergrin Trial Govt Letter 1 July 2013

Did I call it or what? We all knew it would happen. They must have scrambled around like cockroaches after they read the defense motion and eventually settled on a quick apology to the Court and a retraction. Sick stuff.

GD f'ing cockroaches. You know there's a great book by Dean Koontz titled, "Dark Rivers of the Heart" - it's fiction, but AUSA John Gay reminds me of the Roy Miro character. A friend gave me a copy of this book not once, but twice - once in 2000, and again in 2003, in relation to my own agent cockroach. It's the Roy Miro storyline that's relevant here and not the Spencer background story. Interesting read if you have the time.

What the Curry Wiretap Transcript Reveals

The document discussed in this post is the Curry Wiretap Transcript from the telephone call recorded on December 4, 2003, starting at 7:13PM. According to the government, the heavily discussed meeting on Avon Street took place on December the 4th and according to Anthony Young, Paul Bergrin made the statement, "No Kemo, no case," as he addressed a group of men on a street corner in the dark.

You have read several variations of the, "No Kemo, no case" statement in documents and heard Anthony Young testify to this wild allegation during both trials. It never happened. The government was well aware that it never happened and this transcript proves it never happened. It's the non-existent statement from the meeting that never happened. All of Anthony Young's testimony was lies - in this case and in the William Baskerville case, obviously.

The government presented Anthony Young's testimony as truthful to the Court and the jury. Agents repeated this lie to various newspaper reporters to support the government agenda. The numerous variations of this statement have been promoted far and wide with the main purpose of turning public opinion against Paul Bergrin. For the most part, they succeeded and many of you fell for the government lies hook, line, and sinker like the fish that you are to agents and prosecutors.

So what does the transcript reveal?

Hakeem Curry asks Paul Bergrin what amount of time William Baskerville was facing and ultimately, Bergrin responded that with a plea bargain Baskerville faced around 13 years.

Recall that Anthony Young testified that Baskerville faced life and Bergrin advised the group on a street corner that Kemo had to die or Will would never get out.

If there had already been a street meeting (I anticipate the government claiming the meeting was before December 4, 2003), then why would Hakeem Curry ask such a question on the 4th of December? I believe that Curry was looking for a solid estimate of the amount of time William Baskerville faced.

In the recording, Paul Bergrin stated, "I will just do the best I can you know." If that doesn't prove that all Bergrin ever did or intended to do was his job, then what would? Do you hear anything in that sentence that says kill Kemo? Bergrin was an attorney. What do you think attorneys do? They defend clients!

Do you see any sign whatsoever that Hakeem Curry or Paul Bergrin had any plot to kill Kemo?

The recording ended with both stating their goodbyes and Bergrin telling Curry, "ANYWAY. I WILL SPEAK TO YOU TOMORROW. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE OKAY."

Does that sound like Curry and Bergrin drove directly to a meeting on a street corner?

It is unfair to judge Paul Bergrin just because he calls everyone (men anyway) bro. Paul is a friendly guy with a heart of gold and he treated his clients like friends. Don't blame him for being a trusting soul that interacted genuinely with people.

Next: More recordings