The Whittle Down Effects on the William Baskerville Case

I had an epiphany moment tonight. This came about after reading a New York Post article about Kim Kardashian West trying to help Julius Jones, an Oklahoma man who was wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death. I commented on the article on Facebook and several people pursued me, with one man refusing to go away. I decided he wanted me to go away too much so I did a bit of research on the Julius Jones case. My moment happened when I realized that the case had been whittled down to one somewhat minor point of a racist juror; minor in comparison to the truth and the case.

The man was able to convince everyone commenting except me that he is a friend to the family and hated to see them go through more pain over this murder and Jones possibly getting clemency thanks to Kim. The brief research showed me how the courts had whittled down the case to the one tainted juror and then denied Julius Jones any relief. I am copying my comment here because I am seeing a pattern of these whittle down effects and how they sway public opinion with it. I am coining the term whittle down effects as I have never heard it anywhere. Suddenly I realized that this is what Judge Peter Sheridan has done to William Baskerville's case. On a side note: William's friends and relatives need to reach out to Kim on Twitter to help him!

My comment:

This is mainly addressed to a man who is disparaging Kim's choice to help Julius Jones:

I do know something about these petitions and because you're arguing with anyone in favor of clemency here, this is directed to you. More often than not, last chance appeals come down to an issue that barely touches the actual case, which often has many issues. Somewhere some judge whittled the entire case down to one point, but that definitely doesn't mean there are not many more important points.

This is what was done in a federal case I'm close to. The government tried to get William Baskerville the death penalty, but the jury said no, so the sentence is LIFE. Problem is that William had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of the government witness in drug cases. The best point in the case is that the description of the shooter given by several witnesses, including the victim's stepfather who was walking down a Newark street with him when he was murdered, is of a light skinned man with dreadlocks. The government had a man who was dark skinned and bald claiming to be the shooter.

So how much sense does that make? Well, thanks to the last court decision, the case now comes down to an FBI 302 and a Brady violation because the government never gave it to the defense. But is the case actually about this one technical issue, with the government claiming the 302 was irrelevant and forgotten? NO. The claims in William's petition are many, but the court whittled it down, not William or one of his attorneys.

I'm seeing the same problem with this case. Julius Jones had many claims, but somewhere it was all whittled down to this one racist juror. And by the way, William's case also has a Batson issue, but every judge who has touched it has denied William on that claim too. I'm willing to bet that you already know all of this and are here to move public opinion against Kim and against Jones! You are doing this intentionally. Here's a quote from one article on the Jones case:

"At the time of Julius’ trial, the eyewitness description of the shooter did not fit Julius. Instead, it described his co-defendant who served 15 years and is now a free man. Julius’ attorney was an overworked public defender who failed to cross-examine Christopher Jordan, (Julius’ co-defendant,) on the six inconsistent statements he gave to police upon arrest. Christopher Jordan was later overheard bragging that he set-up Julius and was incentivized to testify for a shorter prison time. The evidence used to convict Julius was inconsistent and several eye-witnesses provided an alibi for Julius,” Oklahoma County One Commissioner Carrie Blumbert wrote."

I knew there was way more to this than you want anyone to see, so I looked. Kim Kardashian is involved for very good reasons!


From Kim Kardashian West's Twitter account (to help Julius Jones):

Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board
2915 N. Classen, Suite 405,
Oklahoma City, OK 73106
405-521-6600 (press 0) / 405-522-9227
Boardmembers@ppb.ok.gov

The Pardon & Parole Board Members are:
C. Allen McCall,
Larry Morris
Adam Luck
Kelly Doyle
Robert Gilliland, J.D.
Governor Kevin Stitt

The Office of Governor Kevin Stitt
Oklahoma State Capitol
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 212
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
405-521-2342
https://t.co/1wHtwyxO6X


So I am getting a better idea of why the court issued the November 2018 Opinion that knocked down almost all of William Baskerville's claims and then followed up with this ridiculous October 8, 2019 Opinion, leaving him a little bone. Interesting how things work. We learn something new every day!

And yes, this could also be referred to as cumulative effects but when the court looked at cumulative effects in the William Baskerville case, they only looked at the minor remaining claim, the only claim that wasn't outright denied. The whittling down effects happen before we get to the one claim remaining and they examine the cumulative effects of that one issue. Of course the cumulative effect of the one issue alone amounts to little. No one reading through the case is aware of the major claims denied previously. What a scam!!!


The Court Opinions:

William Baskerville Court Opinion November 15 2018

William Baskerville 2255 Opinion October 8 2019

Thanks for the Bone

The US criminal justice system and all of its many paid participants are nothing but trash, with a few exceptions of course. In the case of Paul Bergrin and case of William Baskerville, which is connected only by the murder of Kemo Deshawn McCray, the only judicial exception is the Honorable US District Judge William Martini. There are no government or prosecution or FBI exceptions. Defense attorneys are another subject and it's a mixed bag!

I know exactly what they all did to William Baskerville and so does William. Neither one of us was born yesterday. The entire evidentiary hearing was one big setup with the goal of easily disposing of his many claims in the 2255 petition. To know this, one must only look at the November 2018 court Opinion that gave William the evidentiary hearing. The Opinion whittled his long list of claims down to what amounted to a few minor points. The Opinion filed in PACER late on October 9, 2019, easily chipped away those few claims William was allowed to address in the evidentiary hearing. 

At the conclusion of the just filed Opinion, Judge Sheridan threw William Baskerville a bone. The issue is that William is not a dog and has no interest in their decaying bone. And don't think it is not easily noticeable that William was, once again, cheated out of presenting witnesses in his defense. The November 2018 Opinion whittled the witnesses down to only two: Hakeem Curry and Rakeem Baskerville. It was relatively simple to knock off these two witnesses in the hearing, but the reasoning behind knocking down the witness list to these two men is suspect to say the least. 

I did not speak openly about the court's November 2018 Opinion for reasons that should be obvious. William had won an evidentiary hearing, which is supposed to be a major accomplishment in our lousy, sorry excuse for a justice system. At that point we were unsure if it was a setup to get rid of all of William's claims or a real attempt to find truth. Now we know. 

Just let this post sit. I'm too angry to discuss this whittling exercise care of the US government and  the court right now and have been since the night of the 10th when I discovered the Opinion in PACER. This post is to let the perpetrators of this long game of injustice know that I know, and that William knows. Everything will be addressed soon.

The William Baskerville Case: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel AGAIN

I have discussed William Baskerville's case on this blog in past and its connection to the Paul Bergrin case. In my last post, I included updates and addressed the evidentiary hearing ordered by the court. I have the feeling that US District Judge Sheridan expected to move to the hearing rather quickly, but once again, William has an uninterested attorney assigned. However, this time no attorney will be allowed to sabotage his case. I believe that the letter was mailed to the court yesterday. William copied to me and I am publishing here as I believe that we need to keep this case in the sunshine, as we say in Florida.

The letter to the court:

William Baskerville

Date:

Reg. No. 25946-050

FCI McKean Medium

Honorable Judge Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J.

United States District Court

Clarkson S. Fisher Court And

Untied States Courthouse

402 East State Street

Trenton, New Jersey, 08608

RE: UNITED STATES V.WILLIAM BASKERVILLE        Court Appointed Attorney

CIVIL NUMBER 13-5881(PGS)

CRIMINAL NUMBER 03-836(JAP)

Dear Honorable Judge Sheridan,

I am writing to inform you of my various attempts to make initial contact with my recently Court appointed counsel Mr. Bruce Throckmorton. As of the date this Court appointed Mr. Throckmorton to my case, I have made several attempts to communicate with him via email dating from December 12/10/2018- January 14, 2019 which have been to no avail,( See attached Exhibit 1) I had family members continuous make calls to his office and cell phone some he answered and return back but as of late he has not responted, on January 10, 2019 I had the unit Counselor Mr. Miller send him a email to set up a phone conference, and on January 15, 2019 the unit Case Manager Mr. Nero gave me a legal call to try to reach Mr. Throckmorton which was also to no avail.

As a result of my inability to make contact with counsel and counsel's inactions with respect to contacting me I am now respectfully requesting that the Court implement the following solution, which is to appoint new counsel or allow my previous appellate counsel, Mr. Mark A. Berman to be reinstated as my counsel of record regarding my current legal proceedings. At this point I must mention that a potential conflict of interest may exist regarding Mr. Berman being that I previously filed ineffective assistance of counsel claims again him. However, I am willing to waive any potential conflicts of interest issues that may have existed.

It is my position that Mr. Berman is best suited to represent me because of, (1) his familiarity with my case, (2) his strong work ethic and open line of communication with clients, (3) his representation would save the Court valuable time and resources and allow my defense to proceed more fluidly, and (4) his willingness to accept input from me regarding matters pertaining to the case.

In the past I have dealt with lawyers who were unwilling to allow me to provide them with any input or who have litigated my case without informing me of their plan of action. Those experiences have lead to many set backs. I am a litigant who is very much involved in researching my own case and I am hands-on when it comes to the issues I believe should be raised. (Mr. Berman has affirmed these facts in his declaration. Doc. 16 pgs. 6-7 pars. 22-26) I very much would appreciated a lawyer who is going to respect that and allow me to participate in my own defense.

Respectfully Submitted,

UPDATED on JANUARY 24, 2019 with government response to William Baskerville's letter:

W Baskerville Govt Letter Jan 23 2019 


So it is beginning to look like the government shutdown is interrupting the intended sabotage of William's evidentiary hearing. We shall see what happens next.

Updates for Paul Bergrin and William Baskerville Cases

There are updates to Paul Bergrin's Rule 33 (Motion for a new trial) case and to William Baskerville's 2255 petition. I am linking the relevant documents herein and if you read the Opinion and Order the Court issued on William Baskerville's 2255 petition, you will see a part incorporated into Paul Bergrin's Rule 33 Defense Response. It is interesting to say the least, but I am not going to point it out; you will need to read everything.

The Opinion and Order from the Court in the William Baskerville case is a mixed bag. When I copied it to William, as he had not received it in the mail yet, my only statement was that it is good and bad. Most of the claims were DENIED, though with several, I see no valid reasoning for the denial. With most, I fully understand the reasons for denial as related to law. The few that were GRANTED are interesting, to say the least.

The Rule 33 Defense Response from Paul Bergrin's counsel Larry Lustberg is good and should get Paul a new trial. There are many new affidavits from witnesses attached that you should find enlightening. Apparently Paul does still have an active investigator working on the case; I was beginning to wonder. In a real Court of Law, the response would get Paul Bergrin a new trial, but thus far I am having a rough time viewing the federal courts in Newark as real because they are not going by law!

In my dying breath I will argue that the case against Paul Bergrin is 95% false and malicious. If you disagree and you have something with substance to say, then put your name on your comments and I will publish, but if you are a drive-by anonymous troll, take a flippin' hike, because it's obvious to me that you have an agenda that is not related to truth or justice.

I feel the same about the William Baskerville case in relation to the Kemo murder conspiracy, because if I didn't, I wouldn't be spending a minute discussing it as I have in past posts or mailing William documents to help his case.

Another situation that I have not mentioned, mainly because the case is completely convoluted, is that of Hakeem Curry and Rakeem Baskerville. After reading the case documents and the trial transcripts in past, I can honestly say that I have never come across any judge with as heavy a bias as the now retired Faith Hochberg (thank God!) or as much rhetoric and hyperbole as was used by the government AUSAs in any case ever.

Mr. Lustberg did indeed come through for Paul on this response to the government and while we (Paul's supporters) do truly appreciate that, I do have a bone to pick: There have never been any objections filed in any court in this country to the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that have kept Paul incommunicado in Florence ADX Supermax for over two years and three months now! Even the flippin' Boston bomber had objections filed on his SAMs quickly, in less than 30 days, so what in the hell is going on? Is there some big mystery in this case that no one else is aware of???

I hope that everyone had a nice Thanksgiving! Mine was complicated. As some of you are aware, I take care of my 88 year-old veteran mother, who is currently having a variety of complications, so between her and the heavy cooking necessary, I didn't think I'd make it. I'm doing much better today and figured I had better get these documents out there before I'm unable to. We never know when our day is going to come.

Here are the document links:

William Baskerville Order Nov 15 2018

William Baskerville Opinion Nov 15 2018

Bergrin Rule 33 Defense Response Nov 21 2018

Here is a document from the William Baskerville 2255 case that discusses the call recordings and issues involved. It is document #37:

W Baskerville Letter November 30 2015



Happy Reading!

Paul Bergrin SAM Renewed Again: BOP and Newark

US Attorney General Sessions has rubber-stamped Paul Bergrin's SAMs (Special Administrative Measures) for the Newark US Attorney's Office. It is now over two years that Paul has been held incommunicado at the US Supermax in Florence, Colorado, and with no end in sight. You'd think he was a terrorist or something. And apparently they're starving him there, so the plot must be a slow death, never lifting the SAMs.

This is the most recent letter to the court from Paul followed by previous documents that I neglected to publish:

Bergrin 2255 Letter August 22 2018

Bergrin 2255 Mem Letter June 29 2018

Bergrin 2255 Govt Letter July 24 2018

I sometimes make comments elsewhere regarding the situation with Paul, and this is one I posted today on an article from The Intercept on Facebook. Often my comments about Paul Bergrin on social media disappear, so on occasion, I will be posting comments that make a point here. I decided to just copy it here so it is verbatim:

The real problem is not necessarily "flipping" as Trump refers to it. Often the major problem is government prosecutors giving defendants the choice of a long mandatory minimum sentence or say what they need stated about a target. More often than not, prosecutors are well aware that the information is false and it takes LE / FBI / DEA feeding certain facts to these defendants so it all sounds viable when it's regurgitated repeatedly over a period of years if necessary. Sometimes the LE agencies collude with media to get the story they want published the way they want it and simply hand defendants a newspaper. When all of that still sounds questionable because it's a false narrative coming from the defendant, the agents and prosecutors will play the memory refresher game.

Need proof? Loads of cases, but one of the worst in history is that of Paul Bergrin. For whatever reason, The Intercept has always ignored the Paul Bergrin saga. However, I will attest to the fact that all it takes to dismantle the entire massive case against Paul is reading and researching. The Intercept and just about any other non-mainstream media instead finds it easier to ignore or skip. I get that because my reading and research on the case has continued for close to 8 years now and I frequently come across information I was previously unaware of. It's daunting, no doubt, but it cannot be glossed over or ignored by everyone.

Paul Bergrin has been suffering in the H-unit of Florence ADMAX with a SAMs designation for over two years now! It's like everyone forgot (conveniently or otherwise) who Paul Bergrin actually is and what he accomplished, and tried to accomplish, in the War on Terror. Why do you think he's incommunicado? It sure isn't for the reasons stated by the government!

Expect to see more posts on this blog regularly. I could never forget Paul or his immense suffering at the hands of US government agents and actors; however, this case or saga just goes on and on and it is depressing. I expect that my next post will be a plea to specific people for help – I've been working on it, but am not finished yet. Another post will concern potential new evidence – if it's not addressed directly to the court or in a motion by early October, I will be discussing it here. So, check back on occasion. 

Here is a link to a letter that Paul mailed to the court and was filed on September 25, 2018. The letter concerns gun evidence relating to the Kemo McCray murder:

Bergrin 2255 Letter September 25 2018




EDIT on October 1, 2018 to add a document.

 

The Government's Rule 33 Response is Themed and Outrageous

I have read the Rule 33 (motion for a new trial) response in its entirety and throughout the document and the many attachments, I recognized a theme. Of course there are also a few sub-themes, but it is the prevailing one that I will discuss at this time. At first glance, it looks good, but wait - reserve judgment until I add my thoughts, and a few screen-shots.

I would love to publish the response; however, there is far too much personal information contained within it, including but not limited to, many addresses, names, connections, telephone numbers. The Yolanda Jauregui 302s attached are outrageous and reveal a serious personality disorder, though also enlightening in a different way. She's worse than even I believed. You can always open a PACER account and download it yourself.

What is this theme I speak of?

Well, here is one sub-heading and the opening paragraph:

E. Bergrin’s Attempt to Suborn Perjury from Yolanda Jauregui and Her Brother If Anything Warrants New Charges, Not a New Trial.

Yolanda Jauregui cooperated with the Government and implicated Bergrin in drug trafficking and other crimes both in statements to law enforcement and in testimony at Trial One. Bergrin now claims that Exhibit 8A to his brief, an unsigned document that purports to exonerate him of all wrongdoing, contains Jauregui’s truthful statements. But Bergrin fails to disclose to this Court that he and his lackeys created Exhibit 8A without any input from Jauregui and offered her a bribe in an unsuccessful attempt to induce her to sign it. That scheme is set forth in a series of letters that Anna James and Brian P. McVan sent to Jauregui. Jauregui subsequently provided those letters to her counsel, who in turn provided them to the Government.

Now after reading that paragraph you may be saying to yourself, who are these people, so I will explain. Brian McVan is an old Army buddy of Paul's who is also an attorney and was trying to genuinely help Paul clear his name. I never spoke to Mr. McVan or his law partner (also his wife) because I limit contact with anyone involved in this case - I have been around long enough to know better. I do know that Paul wanted him to sign-on this case, but I heard the response was that he was too busy. Now we know why he's busy. This man's intentions were only good, admirable, and most certainly not nefarious.

As far as this "Anna James" is concerned, your guess is as good as mine, but I will give you a few clues. When I first encountered the person claiming to be Anna James, I believed that her (or him) and her pals from USP Tucson were scammers busy soliciting money and attaching themselves (like 5 to 10 of them) to Paul Bergrin. By the time she left a comment on this blog for me to contact her in email, I leaned more towards government agent, plant, saboteur.

If I were responding to the government's response, I would demand proof that the scheme claimed and done in his name was ever anything that Paul was even aware of. This James character tells Paul that Yolanda wants to tell the truth, to help him, and it all rolls from there. Anna James also uses the name Annegret Rouse and signs her many letters differently - a mix of the two names and sometimes including Esquire and other times Dr. Sometimes her writing is good and other times you might think she never finished the 6th grade. It's like different people were playing the part of Anna James. For the record, I don't believe she actually exists and I'd make the government produce her.

This is the comment she left for me on this blog:

What happened in USP Tucson?

You may want to read previous posts on this blog to understand how Paul ended-up in the CMU in Terre Haute, Indiana and silenced, which is exactly what the government wanted. When the CMU didn't accomplish the silencing mission, they used the USP Tucson problem to send him to ADX Florence. Now Paul Bergrin is truly incommunicado.

Paul wasn't in USP Tucson long before he was sent to SHU. Somehow he picked-up a group of new friends rather quickly and next thing you know, he was sent to SHU. I believe that's when some of his documents and his contact lists were stolen. Before long, various people on his contacts list were receiving snail mail from an inmate (Rouse) and also from Annegret Rouse AKA Anna James. A few of his contacts were really angry - like the producer Dan Gordon - and wanted no further contact with Paul because of the weird packets soliciting assistance in Rouse's child rape case and their fake (not registered) charity, referred to as Turtle Island Project Innocence (TIPI), which they used all over Facebook to solicit donations via PayPal.

But go back further than USP Tucson for a moment. Remember when Paul was in MDC Brooklyn after the 2nd trial? He was designated to USP Coleman 2 and supposed to be on his way in days when suddenly it was changed to USP Tucson. The only sort of explanation I ever heard was something about threats to his life. How could inmates in USP Coleman 2 know Paul was coming to threaten his life? They couldn't, and from that point forward, none of it made sense.

This is my initial response to the comment:

This is her response to me:

 

These are my responses to her that followed:

 

And:

And:

 The 2nd paragraph under the sub-heading in the response:

Beginning in about January 2015, James wrote to Jauregui and asked her to help Bergrin. James told Jauregui that Bergrin and his associates had negotiated a multimillion dollar book and movie deal with two prominent Hollywood producers, Daniel Gordon and Lee Daniels, but the deal was contingent upon them proving that Bergrin was innocent and the Government had coerced witnesses to falsely implicate him. James said, “Mr. Bergrin has an agreement with Dan Gordon which gives him power to direct all the money and decide who will assist with the production.” SA2267. James not only solicited Jauregui’s participation, but also said, “Paul Bergrin says that he still loves Ramon [Jauregui’s brother Ramon Jimenez, who also cooperated and testified against Bergrin at Trial One] and wants him to make money on the movie.” Id.

You see how it says Anna James says that Paul Bergrin says blah blah blah? So the scammers made-up statements from Paul OR it was the government to begin with, and I will go with the latter. Let's say that the government had a known informant in USP Tucson ready and willing to help sabotage anything and everything Paul did in his continuous defense in this case. It's more than a mere possibility. Oh and for the record, these packets and letters were also sent to William Baskerville, Rakeem Baskerville, and Hakeem Curry. Two of the three asked me what it was about and I simply said that I thought they were scammers and to watch out! As far as I am aware, none responded to James/Rouse.

 

The 3rd paragraph under the sub-heading in the response:

James said that a certificate (referring to what Bergrin later submitted as Exhibit 8A) “will be required from you prior to signing of contracts [that would entitle Jauregui and Ramon to collect proceeds from book and movie deal].” SA2269. James described the nature of the statements Jauregui and Ramon would have to claim were true in order to collect money from Bergrin: “the investors have read everybodies [sic] testimony including R’s [Ramon’s] and yours and are working on contracts and statements for you and him. This is paramount to the story to prove the cohersion [sic] and to prove the innocence of those parties involved. I cannot be clearer since I cannot be sure if this letter is handed to you as special mail [attorney/client privileged] or not.” SA2268. Similarly, James wrote, “Dan Gordon the producer really wants to interview Ramon, because he has a copy of his testimony and it is his opinion that the prosecutors suggested his testimony about drugs and the Kenner [Kemo] murder case. This is very important to the writers to support their position.” SA2267.

Do you see how it's more of the same James says that Paul Bergrin says blah blah blah? It is easy to believe that McVan had no clue what Anna James stated to various people and attributed to Paul Bergrin. How could he possibly know everything this saboteur was saying everywhere? He couldn't, yet the government has actually called him a part of the scheme; a scheme which I believe they made-up all by themselves.

I say that Anna James et al, is a figment of the government's imagination with the help of at least one inmate from USP Tucson. I could be wrong and they could just be a bunch of Native American scammers - the inmate Rouse and the rest that befriended Paul in USP Tucson are Native Americans. I'd demand that the government produce this person. They shouldn't be allowed to use he said /she said hearsay to make-up for their inability to actually respond to Paul's motion for a new trial - that is what they did throughout the trial! The writer of this response is a skilled manipulator.

So, you see how "Anna James" (the government in my opinion) tried to drag me into this fiasco? Well, they forgot who I am and what I suffered through with my own case long ago, but I will never forget. There's much more and I will get to it all eventually. For now suffice it to say that "Anna James" is not the first saboteur the government threw into this case.

Paul Bergrin Still Awaiting Response

The attorney who wrote this stupid post is not only in "SmallLaw" as he refers to it, he also has a small mind. It's funny  (not funny haha) how wording and context evolve depending on who's telling the story. According to Mr SmallMind, Paul Bergrin made the No Kemo, No case statement to a client. The government claimed he made it to a group of people, who all deny it with one exception, on Avon Street in Newark on an unknown date.. Paul's client at the time was William Baskerville, who was sitting in a jail cell. At least get the LIES straight!

A main reason that I am writing this post is that I am sick and tired of the lies, misinformation and spin in this case and the connected cases. So if you want to write BS in support of the government, better research first.

Article that I'm referring to:

The 5 Worst Types of SmallLaw Lawyers 

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/the-5-worst-types-of-smalllaw-lawyers/

Beyond that, there are 2 main types of criminal defense attorneys: plea bargain attorneys and trial attorneys. Of course there are also motion attorneys, appeal attorneys and attorneys who specialize. 

The writer of the article reveals his failure to research and is not an attorney I'd hire for anything. What a clown, but not really a funny one - a government tool used by prosecutors grasping at straws over their inability to respond to Paul Bergrin's Rule 33 as US District Judge Jose Linares grants their 3rd or 4th extension request, which reads just like the previous requests - except they defend it a little more and apologize an extra time or two in the latest one. For the record, Paul Bergrin would vehemently object to any additional extensions, because as he stated in a previous letter to the Court, the government has had years to get it together, BUT Paul Bergrin is currently in the Colorado Supermax and incommunicado.

The only one to ever claim that Paul Bergrin made the statement, No Kemo, No case, is the alleged Kemo shooter, Anthony Young. Young claimed he said it during a street meeting late at night in Newark, on Avon Street, with an audience of 4 to 6 people (number varies according to who is stating it). There never was any meeting on Avon Street late at night. The government fails to pin this alleged meeting to a date because if they did, the alleged participants could easily prove they were all elsewhere.

Young never in any way fit the description of the shooter and only claimed to be the perp to eliminate his legal problems and get into the federal witness protection program, start a new life etc... There is someone who actually did fit the description of the shooter though and he has since (recently - in 2016) admitted to being at the scene when Kemo was murdered. He was also identified by Kemo's other stepfather  (Spruill) as threatening him with a gun at the street memorial for Kemo days after the murder. Newark PD was investigating this person for the murder, but handed the investigation over to AUSA John Gay and FBI SA Shawn Manson Brokos. 

Who is the real candidate for shooter? Shawn McPhall, a Newark career criminal and probably an informant. Why do I say he's probably an informant? Because the documents revealed him to be a prime candidate for Kemo's murder, but the AUSA and FBI SA just buried the information. Neither William Baskerville or Paul Bergrin were given the documents in discovery prior to or during trial, or since for that matter. Now why would an FBI SA and an AUSA bury investigation information pointing to the real shooter? Yup, that's the only reason I can see. 

McPhall also fits the description given by Johnnie Davis, the only living eyewitness to the murder. However, the AUSA and the FBI SA also failed to show Davis an umage of McPhall and the Newark PD cannot be blamed as their investigation was turned over to the feds. The reports in question:

Spruill Reports

William Baskerville is still awaiting the ruling in his 2255 Petition. I will be posting about the connection of the Spruill Reports and the government's failure to turn over in discovery, which is a Brady violation, in the coming week.

EDIT on January 22, 2017 @11PM EST

From time to time I might add relevant information to this post below.

IMPORTANT NOTES

1. Oddly enough, both of Kemo's stepfathers look alike. Johnnie Davis was with Kemo when he was gunned down on the street. Christopher Spruill was mistaken for Davis when Shawn McPhall encountered him at the memorial days later.

The William Baskerville 2255 Case: Lawyers in Wonderland

This 2255 motion filed by William Baskerville is entirely about ineffective assistance of counsel. At every turn in this case, Mr. Baskerville’s attorneys exerted minimal effort, often completely ignoring his requests for specific investigation. These attorneys were like slugs going through the motions and frequently failed to bother with even the most obvious. The appeal attorney was equally ineffective.

Herman and Kayser have now both taken the side of the government to cover up their incompetent representation of Mr. Baskerville. Both have fabricated statements in certifications claiming that they made an attempt to challenge the government's evidence on the chain of custody issue of the drug evidence in the case. The court ordered both attorneys to produce proof of this challenge, but they failed to do so.

The government has pursued numerous inconsistent theories in this case, which are tied to multiple lies and discrepancies in testimony. If the information that we have today had been available early in the case, William Baskerville most definitely could not have been convicted.

I am including a link to William Baskerville’s 2255 Motion. There is such a high level of failure in every possible way that to discuss one or two issues here wouldn't scratch the surface. Mr. Baskerville is representing himself in the case and after you read it, you will understand why.

William Baskerville 2255 Filed on 2 October 2013

All documents in this 2255 case available to me and that I am able to publish are found on this page:

William Baskerville 2255 Documents

The Overwhelming 2255 and an Order

 UPDATE on February 14, 2017:

Due to the Paul Bergrin website being hacked a week ago, I have deactivated all links herein and uploaded the original documents to this page on my website:

Bergrin 2255 Case


END of Update!

This is somewhat of an update to my last post The 2255 Now Filed: Informative including an explanation and a discussion of the omitted documents. When the great majority of inmates file a 2255 only the form is filed to start with. The instructions on this government form must be followed - read that it states Do not argue or cite law. Just state the specific facts that support your claim under each section. The actual form that Paul must fill-in again, sign, and file ASAP starts on page 14 in this link:

Bergrin 2255 27 May 2016

Now I dated it May 27 as I saw something on the docket that showed this as the filing date; however, there is no docket report available on this civil case filing. The 2255 form, the brief, and the entire Appendix was actually filed on May 25, 2016. It was not filed with CDs as I was originally told; it was filed as a hard copy and had to be scanned in.

The clerk's office retitled documents, omitted other documents, and restricted other documents - as of this minute, no one here knows which documents specifically were restricted by the clerk's office, so I am only discussing what I can see and what was filed and entered in PACER. The titles I am using are the same as the clerk's office used and in the same order.

I have no clue why the clerk's office retitled the documents and entered with the new and incorrect titles in PACER, but they did. I also have no idea why the clerk's office omitted so many documents from the Appendix and restricted others, but they did. I will assume that the government asked a friend in the clerk's office to mix it all up, and they certainly did.

The entries titled Appendix are actually the BRIEF:

Bergrin 2255 Appendix 1

Bergrin 2255 Appendix 2

Bergrin 2255 Appendix 3

The entries titled Exhibit are actually the APPENDIX:

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 1

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 2

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 3

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 4

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 5

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 6

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 7

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 8

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 9

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 10

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 11

Now, on the 11 entries for the APPENDIX, Volume 1 is missing and Volume 6 is missing, You can look at the Table of Contents for Volume 1 (PDF pages 1-8 in Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 1) to see the list of documents the clerk's office chose to omit - a total of 488 pages (P1-P488).

I have most - the great majority - of documents that the clerk's office chose to omit from Paul's APPENDIX in Volume 1 and Volume 6. All of the documents included have some value in the Bergrin defense, but nothing that should be hidden from public view, so I don't understand why they were originally omitted from the docket entries in PACER.Also, they randomly throw in the first page of the TOC in front of numerous volumes.

However, I have been unable to retrieve anything from the NJDC in PACER since late Friday, June 3, 2016, about the time of the Judge's Order terminating Paul's 2255. When I say anything, I mean exactly that - I attempted to view other cases and nothing from NJDC will open in PACER.

Either 1) I have been blocked via my PACER login for NJDC cases; or 2) NJDC has been down since that time on Friday. I have not looked today, so the problem may have been fixed, but I cannot contact PACER until Monday. I will look tonight and update this post with results. To block me alone would be illegal. Two other people have told me they are having the same problem and thought PACER was down, but it is not as I had no issue retrieving cases from other District Courts. We shall find out what this is about soon.

If you see that a specific document is missing from Paul Bergrin's APPENDIX, please do inform me. I may publish some of the missing documents, but first must explore the situation from a legal perspective and then locate each.

The next issue is that Judge Linares "administratively terminated" Paul's entire 2255 filing. This could mean that it will all be deleted from PACER by the time the problem of accessing NJDC cases is fixed. This is the order made and entered in the file on Friday afternoon (June 3, 2016):

Bergrin 2255 3 June 2016 Order

To be clear, I do not blame Judge Linares for making this order. No one should be required to read all of this. That's not how a 2255 works, at least not in my experience. The inmate files the 2255 form, the government responds, the inmate responds with the brief, the government requests a list of documents if they do not already have them etc...

This is how it is normally done. But don't blame Paul Bergrin - he has been held practically incommunicado at this CMU for a long time now. They starve him in this CMU. The government has screwed with Paul Bergrin beyond anything that most people can even imagine. Apparently he wants the documents out there so the public can see what the government has done to him from the first minute this fiasco started so long ago.

This filing is so voluminous that it is close to impossible to deal with, especially the way the clerk's office mixed it all up.

UPDATE on June 6, 2016 @12:45AM

Tried PACER again and am still unable to access this case or any other case in NJDC.


UPDATE on June 6, 2016 @5PM

I was able to retrieve the last 4 available attachments from PACER and it seems that NJDC is back up. The attachments are titled Exhibit, but remember they are actually part of the APPENDIX:

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 12

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 13

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 14

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 15


UPDATE on June 29, 2016 @2:30AM

On June 20, 2016, the clerk's office received and filed the new 2255 local form from Paul Bergrin completed per the judge's instructions:

Bergrin New 2255 Letter June 20 2016

Bergrin New 2255 Form June 20 2016

I have the Motion for a New Trial filed on Monday, June 27, 2016 and the attached certifications. If you would like a copy, you will need to contact me privately and I will send to you as a PDF attachment in email. To contact me just post a comment stating your request and your email address - the comment will not be published and I will respond to the email address.

The Sentences

Yesterday was the day from hell and really we are only 3 1/2 hours into the next day, so it lives on. I tried to go to sleep, but couldn't and got up to watch a movie... Rendition. Wrong movie to watch at this point in time (yesterday or today) as Paul Bergrin was obviously whisked away to some secret US lock-up, though I suppose it's a plus that the secret location is inside the US. I suppose, but as I don't believe everything I see on tv, I really don't know. The US may indeed be the worst of the worst.

A few people have asked me if I intended to blog about the sentencing today. Of course I don't have anything nice to say and had previously decided to let this blog conclude with the "Eyewitness to Murder" post. I thought it was a good finale. But then one of Paul Bergrin's major supporters wanted the last post, stating the sentencing location and time, to be shared, so that altered the ending of the blog. I figure I may as well keep going, nice or not. This article by Barry Sussman is a must read on the sentencing:

Abu Ghraib Whistleblower Receives Multiple Life Sentences

What a fiasco charade this entire case has been. And it ends for the moment with Paul Bergrin being sentenced to 6 life terms plus around 100+ more years on the various counts. The government asked for 5 life terms and Judge Cavanaugh decided to show them some real love and gave them more, more, and more. I'd like to think we all know what side he was on from jumpstreet.

Did you know that Andrea True (Andrea Marie Truden) was an informant? Yup. I know a lady... well, let me introduce you to her. She's real nice and I think you'll enjoy her blog. She goes by the title of The Duchess of Hackney. So go read the truth about Andrea True:

My semi obligatory not quite obituary: Andrea True Connection RIP

The jury in the Bergrin trial should really appreciate Andrea True and her More, More, More, as after all is said and done, they convicted Paul Bergrin on all counts because there was just so much. There was more, more, and more lies that sounded good coming from the government asshats and they couldn't take the time to actually listen, discuss in-depth, and distinguish fact from fiction. Because we all know that volume and quantity is much more important than quality when it comes to trials, right?

And the judge turned out to be the biggest fan of the government of all. Have you ever heard of a judge handing out lengthier sentences than the vitriolic government asshats with their obviously false evidence and lying witnesses asked for? Well, I have heard of this sort of thing before, but it's rare; real rare. And let's face it - these particular AUSAs are the most spiteful and malicious of any in the country. They had an agenda and truth and facts were not going to get in the way!

This has been a real kangaroo court experience. I thought I had seen everything, but nothing has ever come close to this malicious vendetta with its various aspects and many participants.

Oh and for wayneook over on nj.com: I know you're connected to this case and prosecution. I think I know who you are, but as I ain't sure, I'll just offer initials: M.M. 

Dude, I saw your comments before they made all the comments disappear and we never "jousted". Just in case it skipped your mind, in an early point long ago, you falsely claimed repeatedly that Paul Bergrin was a convicted felon and threatened me with a "promoting prostitution" prosecution over my Blueprint books. I responded that you could give it your best shot. I subsequently, over a lengthy period of time, received email after email after email with some of the most absurd legally compromising questions that I have ever heard.

And wayneook, my dear miscreant, I wouldn't call that "jousting" by a longshot; I do call it criminal harassment. Go fuck yourself and take your many government sock puppets and tools with ya.

And now I have concluded this blog. 

Eyewitness to Murder

Let me begin this post by introducing you to Paul Bergrin. We will talk more about him over the weekend and who he really is. Paul Bergrin is NOT GUILTY and he needs your assistance. Please read on...

There is only one living eyewitness to the murder of Kemo Deshawn McCray. That witness tried to tell a list of agents and police officers, including Special Agent Shawn Brokos, what the shooter of his stepson looked like. That witness testified in Paul Bergrin's first and second trial and offered a clear description of the man that murdered Kemo.

The problem was that the witness's description of the shooter did not fit the government agenda. There had to be a cover-up. Why? Let's face it: Kemo was an informant and those responsible for his safety failed miserably. Rather than allowing the public anger to be focused on the parties deserving it and paying out a major settlement to the family of Kemo, they had to pretend it never was.

And then there was the trial of William Baskerville. Anthony Young testified in that trial as well and as a result of his false testimony and claim to be the shooter, Baskerville was convicted. Let's not pretend that William Baskerville was the only person in Newark that Kemo set-up for SA Brokos. The truth is much the opposite. Kemo set-up 17 other people as well - I have a list of all the names. Chalk-up one more vindictive prosecution and conviction by a jury fooled with misinformation and outright lies.

Anthony Young was sentenced to 30 years for shooting Kemo Deshawn McCray, but what the government neglected to mention to the jury in the Bergrin trial, is that Young will receive a substantial assistance letter for his testimony. Anthony Young expects to walk out of prison a free man with a new life in WITSEC before this year is over. Anthony Young owed people on the streets of Newark a serious amount of money, so he needed the protection. Young crossed the wrong people and did have reason to fear for his life, but in exchange for protection he had to tell a story. The government needed a flexible witness, willing to say whatever had to be said to get those convictions.

The one living eyewitness to Kemo's murder is Johnny Davis, his stepfather. A list of other witness accounts reveal that Young is a liar. Numerous recorded calls prove that Young is a liar. I thought we were all clear on that, but the jury failed. They ignored the eyewitness testimony of Johnny Davis and then they followed-up by ignoring the important testimony of Ben Hahn, Rashidah Tarver, and Anthony Young's original statement to SA Brokos when SA Brokos was called by the defense in this trial.

Let's have a look at the testimony offered by Johnny Davis, the only living eyewitness to the murder of Kemo Deshawn McCray, to the jury in this last trial. Mr. Davis testified on January 30, 2013, and his testimony is in Volume 7 of the trial transcripts:

Direct examination of Johnny Davis

From pages 1430-31:

Q. Okay. Did you tell the police department any reason

why you picked that photograph out, the one --

A. Because the kid was tall, muscular, and black,

dark-skinned, and had shoulder-length dreads, and he was the

closest thing I can come to identifying as the shooter.

Cross examination of Johnny Davis

From page 1466:

Q. You didn't hear any -- you know what you heard, you

know what you felt, obviously.

A. I grew up here.

Q. Yes, sir.

And when you turned around, when you made a

decision to turn around, there's no doubt in your mind you

saw a man with shoulder-length dreadlocks; correct, sir?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. A dark-skinned male; correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Heavyset; correct?

A. Yes, I did.

From pages 1469-70:

Q. And you never saw anybody with a New York Yankee hat,

obviously; correct?

A. Obviously, no.

Q. And the man that you saw, you were able to see his

hair clearly, so he didn't have a New York Yankee hat

either; correct?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

Now, there came a time that day when you said you

spoke to the detectives; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you wanted the person caught, obviously, that shot

your son and killed him in front of you; right?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you told them that the man -- they asked you for a

brief description so they could put out a bulletin to catch

the person; correct?

A. They could ask for a description.

Q. And you told them that it was a black male,

shoulder-length dreadlocks, and he went that way; correct?

I mean, that's essentially what you said because they --

A. That's all I could give them.

Q. And you gave it to them very fast; right?

A. No, I did not. They took me to the precinct and they

sat me and grilled me long enough so I can give it to them.

Q. Well, before you went down to the precinct, they

talked to you while you were at the scene?

A. No, they didn't talk to me at all. They sat me in

there, they treated me like I was one of -- they treated me

like I was one of their criminals.

Q. One thing that you did, you were honest with them in

this one statement; correct?

A. I was very honest with them.

From page 1474 - Defense investigators visit to Mr. Davis in 2011:

Q. So at the time that you gave the statement, Mr. Davis,

sir, you were trying to be as open and as honest as humanly

possible; correct?

A. If someone come to you and tell you that someone is in

jail for 30 years for killing your child, and you look at

their papers and you find that that might not be the killer,

because, you must understand, I said, black hair, dark skin.

Q. And dreadlocks, correct?

A. And dreadlocks. I said nothing about light skin. I

didn't say nothing about brown skin. I might be -- might

not have it all swift up there with the books and the

whatever, but I do got my brains and I do understand what

I'm looking at.

Q. Yes, sir.

So you were being as honest as humanly possible;

right, sir?

A. Yes, I was.

From page 1477 - Mr. Davis is shown a photograph of Anthony Young

Q. And Anthony Young was not the man on March 2nd of

2004.

A. I don't know Mr. Young. I can't determine what he --

who or what he was. So I don't know.

Q. But this is not the man who shot your son?

A. No, he's light-skinned.

Anthony Young is light-skinned and bald, but to make the story fit, Young claimed to be wearing a New York Yankees hat on the day he shot Kemo, presumably to explain away why the only eyewitness to the murder saw dreadlocks. SA Brokos needed the story to fit. Was the jury out to lunch when Mr. Davis testified, or what?

The government has no concern for truth whatsoever. Their only concern is flushing Bergrin down the proverbial toilet and watching him suffer for years while he fights this vindictive prosecution. The statement in a recent (August 16, 2013) motion says that Paul Bergrin is just too late with the impeachment evidence of the numerous call recordings:

"Initially, Bergrin’s reference to 33,000 Title III intercepts is misleading. While that is the entire universe of calls intercepted during the Hakeem Curry investigation, only a small fraction pertain to Bergrin. Significantly, moreover, Bergrin was represented by counsel when the Government produced in discovery all of the intercepted calls on July 1, 2009. As a matter of agency law, notice to Bergrin’s then-counsel (as agent) was notice to Bergrin (as principal). See In re Kensington Int’l. Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 315 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 9(3) (1958) (“A person has notice of a fact if his agent has knowledge of the fact”)). Thus, as a matter of law, Bergrin has had constructive knowledge of the contents of the suppressible calls since July 1, 2009."

"In fact, Bergrin’s counsel knew the contents of the December 4, 2003 calls a mere four months after having received the intercepted calls in discovery. In urging the Government not to seek the death penalty, Bergrin’s counsel argued, “Remarkably, the electronic surveillance never picked up any hint of the meeting described by Mr. Young or that McCray had been targeted at that time for death.” Letter from David A. Ruhnke, Esq., Nov. 30, 2009, at 11 n.10."

In fact, I have searched the file for months in each direction and there is no such, "Letter from David A. Ruhnke, Esq., Nov. 30, 2009, at 11 n.10" in it. This is more spin and lies from the government in this case. Paul Bergrin is not aware of any such letter if there was one.

The Court refused to offer defense witnesses immunity and as they were all too aware that the government was waiting to lurch, to hang-on to any word or sentence that they could possibly use against them, they chose not to testify. Do you blame them? I don't - I could personally attest to the fact that the government is scary is this case. They have painted the picture and they dare anyone to dispute it.

I have been informed that U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh will not allow Paul Bergrin to respond to the government's last motion dated August 16, 2013 and has already ruled in favor of the government in reference to Bergrin's Motion for Reconsideration filed on August 8, 2013. I was told that the ruling sounds like the government wrote it, but sorry - I won't be purchasing crap like that clearly biased opinion in PACER any longer. If you want to read the ruling, you'll have to pay for it yourself.

Consider this my demand for independent judicial review of both the Paul Bergrin and the William Baskerville cases and trials and for a DOJ investigation into a pattern of misconduct in the Newark U.S. Attorney's Office.

NOTE: SENTENCING WAS RESET FOR MONDAY 23 SEPTEMBER 2013 @10AM TO ALLOW PAUL BERGRIN TIME TO RESPOND TO THE GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM. THE GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING 5 LIFE TERMS FOR THIS INNOCENT MAN:

Bergrin Status Conf 26 August 2013


Images: Paul Bergrin in his U.S. Army uniform © 2013 Beth Bergrin. I am not aware of the date the images were taken, however, this is the first time either has ever been published anywhere and you must obtain permission from Beth Bergrin to use these images anywhere for any purpose.

Motion Point 3: Multiple Violations of Due Process

 To read Paul Bergrin's motion in its entirety, go to: Motion for Reconsideration

III. THE GOVERNMENT’S INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE DELAY AND COLLUSIVE MANNER IN BRINGING THE INDICTMENT WAS ORCHESTRATED TO ACHIEVE A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE WHICH ACTUALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED BERGRIN’S DEFENSE AND VIOLATED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

 On or about November 25, 2003, Bergrin was retained to represent William Baskerville in the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey and a formal Notice of Appearance was filed. It is alleged that, subsequent to Baskerville's Initial Appearance (Rule 5, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), Bergrin informed Hakeem Curry that the cooperating witness against Baskerville, was Kemo Deshawn McCray. Additionally, it is alleged that 4 to 9 days after Thanksgiving, Bergrin appeared in the area of Avon Avenue and either 16th or 17th Street, Newark, New Jersey, in the evening hours and supposedly informed Hakeem Curry, Rakeem and Jamal Baskerville, Jamal McNeil and Anthony Young, that Baskerville is going to spend the rest of his life in prison unless they get rid of McCray; and that if there is “no Kemo, there is no case.”

On March 2, 2004, in Newark, New Jersey McCray was shot and killed.

In or about May, 2005, William Baskerville was indicted for the capital murder of McCray and in April of 2007 stood trial, in United States District Court, Trenton, New Jersey. During the course of the trial, the government argued that Bergrin was as guilty as Baskerville for McCray's murder and this accusation was testified to by lead case agent Shawn Brokos of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Assistant United States Attorney John Gay. Baskerville was convicted of McCray's murder and sentenced to life in prison.

In or about January 2007, Bergrin was arrested and Indicted for offenses in New York County, which included conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, conspiracy to promote prostitution, promoting prostitution and misconduct by an Attorney. The offenses were alleged to have occurred between July of 2004 and March of 2005, in New York and New Jersey. A memorandum in the case of United States v. Bergrin, designated as J03166 and 03167, unequivocally depicted that there were innumerable communications and cooperation in the investigation and charging of Bergrin between New York County and the federal government. The memo proves that the New York authorities agreed to delay arresting Bergrin in order to further investigative and charging efforts by the federal government and for federal authorities to achieve strategic and tactical advantages in the

disposition of their case.

Both New York State and the United States Attorney's Office for New Jersey colluded, acting jointly and cooperatively in the prosecution of the prostitution and money laundering case. More importantly, the Jencks Act materials specifically prove that New York State and New Jersey federal law enforcement authorities strategized on the investigation, the timing of Bergrin's arrest and indictment and any plea offers in the New York case.

Bergrin has had continuous legal representation since his arrest in January of 2007 to the present.

In late April of 2009, the New York authorities offered to resolve the Indictments through a negotiated plea by way of offering to Bergrin pleas to misdemeanor charges. Bergrin was promised that all felony charges would be dismissed and that he would receive a maximum of one year probation. On May 4, 2009, Bergrin entered pleas of guilty to two misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to promote prostitution as a means to resolve all charges existing against him.

Within approximately two weeks of his entry of the New York plea, Bergrin was indicted, arrested and charged by New Jersey federal authorities with the New York prostitution accusations, the murder of McCray and conspiracy to commit murder of witnesses against Vicente Esteves as well as other charges.

In or about June 2008, Bergrin was retained to represent Vicente Esteves on a criminal Indictment returned against him in New Jersey Superior Court. Within weeks of being retained to represent Esteves the government induced, paid and procured federal informant Oscar Cordova to record Bergrin and persistently suggest to Bergrin that Cordova would kill cooperating witnesses against Esteves.

The government's delay in indicting Bergrin from the dates of the alleged commission of the offenses violates the fundamental concepts of justice, which forms the basis of our civil and political institutions. It is abhorrent to the community's sense of fair play and decency. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935), Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952). See also Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 526 (1973), Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941 ) and Herbert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316 (1926).

In United States v. Marion, the Supreme Court considered the significance for constitutional purposes the pre-indictment delay. 404 U.S. 307 (1971). The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals against oppressive pre indictment delay. Id. at 324. Actual prejudice makes a due process claim ripe for adjudication and a due process inquiry must consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused. Id. at 324-325. A "tactical delay" automatically violates the Due Process Clause. A Due Process violation might also be made out upon the showing of prosecutorial delay incurred in the reckless disregard of circumstances known to the prosecution, suggesting that there existed an appreciable risk that delay would impair the ability to mount an effective defense. Id. at 321, n 25.

The Third Circuit has held that pre-indictment delay, which is unreasonable and inexcusable, violates the Due Process Clause when it prejudices the defendant (the time between the crime and bringing the indictment) and the delay was motivated in order to obtain tactical advantage or to harass. United States v. Beckett, 208 F.3d 140, 150-51 (3d Cir. 2000), United States v. Arakelyan, 2008 WL 1849126(E.D.Pa., 3d Cir. 2000).

Although these cases did not find unreasonable delay to achieve a tactical advantage, their facts are incomparable and not analogous to Bergrin’s case. Of utmost importance is the finding by our sister Circuits who opined that the government violated defendants’ due process rights when they delayed indictment in order to bolster their case. "The desire to gain such a tactical advantage is not a sufficient reason for trial delay."

In the case sub judice, the pattern of the government's delay can only be interpreted in one light: that the delays were intentionally caused to gain a tactical advantage on behalf of the government and through the manipulation of constitutionally prescribed prohibitions which caused actual prejudice to Bergrin.

The government colluded with the New York District Attorney's Office to make Bergrin an extraordinarily lenient plea offer so that he would accept it and they would have proof to meet one of the two predicate acts for the RICO charge. It is of no coincidence that New Jersey authorities delayed charging Bergrin until subsequent to his New York guilty plea; and that Bergrin was indicted immediately thereafter for charges that originated and terminated in 2005. What is just as atrocious is that the date of Bergrin's arrest and indictment in the case at hand was delayed through coordination between both offices so federal authorities could bolster their case against Bergrin.

The prejudice suffered by Bergrin in defending against the charges as a result of the government's delay in charging him with the McCray murder for five years is immeasurable. The delay resulted in unavailable evidence such as EZ Pass and other records, which would have provided proof Bergrin was not at the location alleged by the government's only witness; the loss of witness Stacey Webb, who died in 2013 and would have contradicted Young's false testimony; dissipated memories of witnesses who were unable to recall events that occurred years earlier; the loss of records detailing Bergrin's whereabouts at given times, which would have exculpated him; and the inability to locate multiple key witnesses who moved to different locations since the alleged incident occurred.

Additionally, the delay in charging Bergrin with the prostitution and money laundering charges strategically crippled Bergrin's ability to make an intelligent and informed decision as to resolving the New York case and inhibited Bergrin's ability to defend the federal charges.

The government further bolstered its case and obtained a significant tactical advantage through their unreasonable delay in charging Bergrin by procuring, inducing and hiring confidential informant Oscar Cordova to obtain recorded statements from Bergrin. Despite the fact that multiple prosecution representatives accused Bergrin of being complicit in the McCray murder case, at least three years prior to him being charged, they unreasonably delayed charging him to achieve a tactical advantage and to usurp their obligations pursuant to United States v. Massiah and United States v. Henry. Bergrin was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and the Esteves charges are innately similar to the McCray charges and indeed were used as 404(b) evidence for the jury to consider in weighing the McCray evidence. The Government’s pattern of manipulation and usurpation was used to avoid the constitutional restraints of Massiah and Henry in violation of the Due Process Clause and the progeny of the cases delineated there from. The Government’s actions abused and violated the aura, tenets and principles espoused in Massiah and Henry.

Moreover, the Government’s representations during the United States v. William Baskerville trial show the intentional and deliberateness in the Government’s decision to delay charging Bergrin with the McCray murder. The government clearly sought to gain a tactical advantage and harm Bergrin’s ability to effectively defend against the McCray charges by delaying charging Bergrin with the 2004 murder. As is clear from the trial testimony of lead prosecutor AUSA John Gay, the Government intentionally delayed pursuing the McCray murder charge to bolster the other charges in its 2009 indictment.

Specifically, during the trial of United States v. William Baskerville, the Government’s lead prosecutor AUSA John Gay testified during the penalty phase. AUSA Gay stated that Bergrin and other coconspirators were not charged because the Government did not “…feel we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.” (May 8, 2007, transcript pages 6277:1 to 6277:25).

Moreover, AUSA Minish's argument to the jury suggests that the Government doubted Bergrin gave the advice Young claimed in his testimony. Furthermore, it shows that the Government misrepresented to the jury the evidence of when this alleged advice was purportedly given by Bergrin in the United States v. Bergrin trials and that the Government grossly and knowingly exaggerated Bergrin’s role. There, AUSA Minish stated:

…Let’s put an end to this Paul Bergrin thing. Defense counsel’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is this: Paul Bergrin gave him bad legal advice, that if you kill this guy, somehow or another you’ll get off so, therefore, the fact that he actually did it should be excused; that because he made a decision, which by the way, we have no idea if that was the advice, there is zero testimony to say that was even advised prior to giving up the name, prior to the defendant making a call to Rakeem Baskerville, but somehow or another, having bad legal advice is to excuse this act? Or the fact these other men have not been charged yet...This is a full three years after the crime was committed...while John Gay is my boss, I can tell you right now, it doesn’t matter a whole heck of a lot to whether or not he’s convinced what he believed…whether back in his office he believes or in his personal opinion he believes people are involved does not get you a conviction. {emphasis added}.

(May 10, 2007, United States v. William Baskerville, 6707:17-6709:3). Moreover, AUSA Robert Frazer noted, “…others responsible for contributing to the death of Kemo have not been charged with murder or any other crimes associated with this murder….John Gay told you why. Because we only charge people that we can prove - - where we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt…Anthony Young told us about the other co-conspirators and the whole plan and their roles, but Anthony Young by himself, by himself does not equal beyond a reasonable doubt. If we had come in here without Eric Dock, Rick Hosten and Eddie Williams and all the others, just put Anthony Young up there, could we have expected you to vote this case beyond a reasonable doubt based on Anthony Young’s lone testimony? No….We’re not going to put one person up there without corroboration. {emphasis added}. (May 10, 2007, United States v. William Baskerville, 6660:16-6661:10)

As a result of the delay, Bergrin’s defense was actually and substantially prejudiced in the 2011 and 2013 trials in numerous ways including, as set forth above, the unavailability of key witnesses and documents, destruction of physical evidence as well as pretrial publicity.

Since delaying the charge violated Bergrin’s due process rights and denied him a fair trial, the conviction must be vacated and the McCray-related charges in the indictment dismissed with prejudice. See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307,324 (1971) (noting that the statute of limitations does not fully define a defendants’ rights with respect to the events occurring prior to indictment and that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires an indictment’s dismissal if the pre-indictment delay caused substantial prejudice to the right to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused) and United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783,795-796 (1997) (delay in filing charges amounts to a due process violation where there is actual prejudice and prosecutorial intent to undermine the defendant’s ability to defend against the charges where Government gains a “tactical advantage”).

For the aforementioned reasons, the verdict must be vacated and the indictment must be dismissed as violative of the Due Process Clause. United States v. Ismaili, 828 F.2d 153, 167-68 (3d Cir. 1998), United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 at 789-90 (1977).