Smiling Faces Sometimes

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Misinformation and Lies: Final Post

The government's entire case is disputed on this blog and/or in documents and the trial transcripts. The Investigation Discovery production about Paul Bergrin is merely a repeat of the lies and misinformation spread by the government actors to various news contacts prior to and during the trials. I have made the decision not to waste my time disputing it all over again. If you want the truth, you will find it in the documents, transcripts and posts herein.

This post is more of a commentary on the show participants and the misinformation that each blurted during the television show. I was surprised, because I actually believed the crap I have watched in these so-called documentaries in past. ID channel spread fiction and called it nonfiction. Some of my comments are short and others not so much, but this is the final post.

Who in the hell is Dr. Wendy Blank? Through the first half of the show we were led to believe that she's had some sort of contact with Paul Bergrin, interviewed him, or at least encountered him at some point in time. This is completely false. Paul has never heard of, met, or encountered Dr. Wendy Blank anywhere at any point in time. Considering some of the trash that spewed from her mouth, I consider this unethical. She must be a pal of someone at the ID channel. Go hide under your rock where you belong Wendy.

Really the show should have stuck a disclaimer sign under her name that said...

DISCLAIMER: This woman has never interviewed or even encountered Paul Bergrin and everything she says is nothing more than her best guess based on the government script!

What is this "win guarantee"? Even the telephone call transcripts between Paul and Curry (William Baskerville's cousin) over the possible sentence for the drug sales states nothing like that - Paul estimates the sentence if losing at trial and if making a plea. There has never been any such thing as a "win guarantee" and anyone stating this is spreading false information. Paul was a great attorney, but he did lose sometimes and at other times, he assisted clients with plea deals just like every criminal defense attorney in the country. He was assisting William Baskerville with a plea deal when the government had him removed from the case, calling it a conflict of interest to get rid of him.

Was New York Confidential ever a nightclub? Of course not; they simply made that up. It was Jason Itzler's escort service that he operated from his loft. First time I ever heard it called a nightclub was on this show, and they illustrate the idea with tables, chairs, pole dancers and a fake club atmosphere. Weird.

Richie (Richard) Roberts pretends to be a friend of Paul's that watched him go bad. The truth is the opposite, at least in part. I'm not going to link the docs here, but I could. Look-up Richard M Roberts and see his disciplinary record with the Disciplinary Board for professionals in New Jersey. All sorts of stuff - admonished, censured, and even suspended at one point - and all for fraud and misappropriation of funds, which translates to taking clients' money and doing nothing or nothing much for it. He left defendants hanging and lied to them, often blaming his secretary or wife.

I was told that he's suspended again as of June 15, 2015, but was not able to locate the Opinion that's out there. I figure he must be appealing it and someone hid it. I have read the docs and even civil suits filed by former clients in past, and trust me - he is the worst sort of attorney a defendant in trouble could ever encounter. What a bunch of lies this man told on this show! I think it's obvious who he works for. Besides, he's almost as old as my mother. Time to retire dude, no matter how much you owe the State of New Jersey, and it's a lot from what I read. Just about everything that came out of Roberts' mouth during this show was a lie.

Paul certainly didn't meet Yolanda Jauregui through Itzler. Paul met Yolanda through his law office long before any relationship began. The contact was over her brother, Ramon Jimenez, who had legal troubles. It was several years before Yolanda latched onto Paul and became his girlfriend. The show creates a scene where Yolanda looks like a hooker in a hotel, which is also 100% false. Even Yolanda stated on the record that Paul was unaware of her cocaine deals, so when the scene turned to Yolanda and Paul with duffle bags full of cocaine, the presentation was a total lie.

The Oscar tape was not the government's "slam-dunk" in the case. This tape was tampered with, and I know that for fact as I had conversations with Oscar's ex-girlfriend some time back. She contacted me to inform me of how much of a frightening fraud Oscar the informant really was/is, and trust me - it's much worse than I have ever stated on this blog. She backed it all up by mailing an attorney assisting Paul the cellphone Oscar left behind when he disappeared after a major falling out.

If you read the trial transcripts, you'll also know that Oscar called-in a death threat against himself using a female voice in attempt to avoid testifying and the government had to bring him back to testify about that and his mental condition, including the list of drugs he was on during the time that he worked for the government. What a joke, but to present this sorry lie as a slam-dunk? Sick stuff.

And guess who transcribed this tampered recording? None other than Agent Shawn Manson-Brokos, the main agent and the agent that failed to protect her informant. A real, professional transcriptionist was unable to transcribe it.

Jack Arsenault must know about wiretaps that the government never included, because the wiretap transcripts that I have show nothing unethical or otherwise, and actually back-up Paul Bergrin's defense statements. Really Jack knows nothing much, except what the government claimed throughout this sorry prosecution.

Marc Jacobson thinks that attorneys are not supposed to represent clients that may be guilty. What planet does this quack live on? How on earth could the attorney know for sure the client is guilty? Does this oddball rule that Jacobson decided on apply to any attorneys other than Paul Bergrin?

Jason Itzler certainly was not Paul's "close friend". Why didnt the show pay Itzler a visit and ask? He has been out on parole from his 2012 (? there's so many) New York State case since February 2015, so no excuses! Paul was his attorney.

Larry McShane claims to be a journalist. Really this guy read right from the government script in this case, but he sure missed a lot. For example, in the government's application for no bond, back in the beginning (and linked in Documents section herein) there is a certification from Agent Michael Smith titled, "Bergrin Detention Certification" and also the "Cross Exam of Agent Smith" directly under it. He also missed the trial transcripts and the rest of the case.

Did this journalist bother to read either document noted above? Did he verify the so-called facts stated by the government? So where are these 5 passports and the rest of the bullcrap stated? Even Agent Smith admitted that he simply signed-off on what Agent Shawn Manson-Brokos claimed. Back in my day, journalists actually researched before putting pen to paper. What's this dude's excuse? Too many friends at the Newark US Attorney's Office perhaps.

So to summarize here, the general population has been exposed to the ID channel's fictional fraud parading as a documentary. We know they didn't think this crap up all by themselves, because clearly the producers are not that intelligent. Minor due diligence would have weeded-out the outright lies, but they neglected to even bother with that. I know I'll never view anything called a "documentary" the same way again.

I refer to this post as the final post for reason. If you want to research the truth about Paul Bergrin's malicious prosecution, the documents and trial transcripts are all linked on this blog. I have no reason to continue defending Paul or any aspect of this case and trial and it is now on you to read and research; the real information is all there for you. Unless something drastic (good or bad) happens, I won't be returning to post here.

I truly appreciate all of Paul Bergrin's supporters that I have met or encountered along the way. Sometimes I was not nice, and admittedly outright rude and lacked trust. I am sorry if I offended any one of you during this long journey. It has been almost 5 years for me as it started with one post on my other blog, deleted long ago. While I will remain in contact with Paul, I must say goodbye here. Please do not take it personally if I don't respond to comments here or emails - I'm just tired of this farce of a case.

UPDATE on August 11, 2015 @9:30pm -

A couple of other issues worthy of noting...

Richard Roberts made the statement that by representing himself in trial, he was able to testify uninterrupted through the entire trial. Nothing could be further from the truth, but don't believe me - read the trial transcripts. Judge Cavanaugh and / or his prosecutor team interrupted Paul every other minute. I have watched many trials, but never one wherein the judge participates in the questioning and stops the defense every time they're attempting to make a point.

Also important is that Paul sounds like he's really dragging and repeats himself at times. Want to know why? After trial each day he was thrown in the lockup and was often one of the last to leave the courthouse. By the time he returned to Brooklyn MDC for more lockup, search etc... he missed dinner and it was time for lights out. He rarely had time to review anything and then was awakened early in the AM for the trip back to Newark. Throughout this trial, Paul was lucky to get 2-3 hours sleep a night. We may be able to do well on 2-3 hours sleep in our 20s, but certainly not in our 50s. Paul Bergrin was starved and sleep-deprived for the trial months.

NOTE: If I am reminded of something significant that I have missed on the fictional documentary, I will update this post in the future.


Anonymous said...

I really believe you Vicky. To me Paul Bergrin in innocent. I read a lot and many
facts don't fit in his trial. For example, the fact that it was the FBI who is the
reason why that person that Paul is wrongfully accused of setting up is dead.
They used him as an FBI informant and when he asked to go into the witness protection program, they refused to put him in it! He was killed a month later,
they also gave him a cell phone that belonged to an FBI agent. So when people called
that cell phone, they got a voicemail message from an agent. Facts are very important and it appears that the government never wanted to pay attention to
all these facts, they only objective was to incarcerate Paul Bergrin for life not
giving him a chance to defend himself properly. That is absolutely not right.

Anonymous said...

It is actually very true that Richard M. Roberts is a very bad attorney, its all
over on the internet. His disciplinary record is a disaster. Recently, he has
worked as a movie producer to make CASH, and to sell his crap, he highly exaggerates
all his stories. So, to make CASH and attract attention and make us believe he is
a great producer he has made up this show WHICH IS NOTHING BUT SUPERFICIAL SHIT.

Right Vicky he should retire, this does not work anymore for him, we don't believe
in him and his crap.

Vicky Gallas said...

@the last Anonymous

Need to clarify something here...

What movie did Roberts produce? Not this one. This one is care of the ID channel. Also, participants in documentaries, even though this really was not one, are not paid anything and certainly not cash. It works like this (usually):

If the documentary has good reception at film festivals etc... a real movie production company, like Sony for example, may offer one or more or all participants a rights deal. They would do this with the intention of producing a real movie. If Sony (or whatever company) wanted any rights here, I'd be surprised. So while the participants thought they may have financial gain in the near future with such a deal, hopefully it will never happen.

The ID channel may also play movie production company - they're big enough, but none of the government participants really had anything to offer, simply repeated the government script, and there's plenty of info to contradict each, so this is doubtful. If anything, perhaps Barbara Bergrin will be contacted.

Anonymous said...

Whatever you say Vicky, I respect, but Roberts for sure had some interest in participating in this movie, he always has been jealous of Paul Bergrin that
was highly successful and it seems to be the same for these other lawyers. If
not why would they gossip on Paul that is suppose to be their friend. You don't
do that to a friend. You just don't participate in a fiction show like this one,
no one can oblige you to do it. That show is not what really happened Paul Bergrin
was too busy working as an excellent attorney and as a soldier for his country.
I don't believe this man was ever a pimp, so stupid to believe that crap.