Showing posts with label Defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defense. Show all posts

Saturday, November 16, 2019

If President Trump Is Intelligent

If Trump is an intelligent man he would add another name to the military men pardoned today; that name is Paul Bergrin!

Really it would only take a couple of good attorneys hours (not days) of research to confidently state that Paul is not guilty of any of the counts he was charged and convicted of. I am not a genius who knows more than everyone else, but I did do the reading and research. This case is all about corruption in the Newark US Attorney's Office – and that corruption goes way back in time and is far-reaching; as far back as Paul Bergrin's stint in the Newark USAO.

Paul was a trial attorney – one of the best in the country! The simple fact here is that Trump is going to need as many qualified attorneys willing to help him as possible in the not-so-distant future. He could take that statement to the bank!

Pardon Paul Bergrin, let him get his license to practice back, and have the most dedicated and qualified trial attorney in the country on stand-by!

Oh and have I neglected to mention that Paul Bergrin's legal problems began with the State of New York? That's right and this case could never have been charged as it was without that absurd misdemeanor count Paul made a plea to in New York state court. 


Pardon Paul Bergrin!!! 


Thursday, February 7, 2019

Everything You Want to Know About the Case Against Paul Bergrin: The Explanation

On January 16, 2019, a “letter” was filed on Paul Bergrin's 2255 petition. Paul has written it out for all to see, but it is not actually a letter. It is a certification that addresses each count in the criminal case against him and explains what really happened. If you have ever had questions concerning his innocence, your issue is explained clearly in the document. It is seventy handwritten pages and eight typed pages that are the “Maximum Hypocrisy” statement with a few added notes.

For example, an attorney with a grudge against Paul Bergrin has consistently posted in comments on this blog attacking Paul over the entire New York State prostitution case in relation to everything from Paul's plea (to a misdemeanor) to his alleged relationship with Jason Itzler and what he actually did related to NY Confidential. ALL of that is explained. Would it interest you to know that Itzler's longtime attorney was Mel Sachs (now deceased)? The state nor the federal government ever pursued Sachs.

If you are interested in the “Oscar the hitman” (Oscar Cordova) fiasco, every issue is dealt with in this certification. I still want to know who this so-called Oscar Cordova really is, because he's definitely not Lord Gino's (of Latin Kings fame) son. He was/is just a little whiny drug addicted dirtbag paid huge sums of money by the government in this case and many others.

Want to know about the Vicente Esteves story and how he had already made a plea deal and could therefore have had no interest in killing any witness? It's all there. Interested in Paul's military background and scope of his career in law? Read on.

Also included is the Maximum Hypocrisy statement already posted on this blog. Paul has added a few handwritten notes to the typed pages. For example, how Chief US Attorney John Fahy was found with a bullet in his head after agreeing to testify on behalf of Paul Bergrin. His death was ruled a suicide, which is a possibility, considering that he developed a conscience. However, it is also a possibility that someone with too much to lose had him murdered.

Most important, the certification tells the world who Paul Bergrin really is. He is definitely not what the government has painted him to be in this horrendous fiasco of a case. Don't skim this document as you will miss important parts; intended to be read in its entirety.

Paul Bergrin Certification


Additional letters and government responses filed on Paul Bergrin's 2255 case:
 







Happy Reading!

Friday, November 23, 2018

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:







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!


Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Maximum Hypocrisy: Letter From Paul Bergrin

This is a letter from Paul Bergrin that was written while he was in MDC Brooklyn awaiting trial. The letter was previously posted on the main page of the website I had up for Paul which was recently hacked by an unknown party and removed yesterday by me. The letter is exactly as Paul wrote it.


Maximum Hypocrisy - The Untold Story

By



PAUL W. BERGRIN


 
As a soldier, attorney, humanitarian, and human being, I witnessed violations of international law, treaties, inhumane conduct, and blatant, intentional lies by the highest levels of the United States government; by individuals who would condone human rights atrocities and then hypocritically and publicly condemn such actions.

I now realize why I am imprisoned and the vociferous attempts to impugn my integrity,
morality, and veracity. I have the ability to connect these atrocious abominations committed against Prisoners of War, Enemy Combatants, Insurgents, and even Civilians, to the highest levels of our national government and cause our enemy, foe, and ally to have significant contempt and disdain for our country. I could prove that North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and China’s violations of human rights pale in comparison to the precedent and actions of the United States America.

There exists not another human being, who has such unique vast and vital experiences, firsthand and indisputable knowledge, as well as information ascertained through copious investigative mechanisms. As an attorney and retired Army Major, I can eviscerate the alleged morality of a system and political idealism and prove the nexus to this realism. I can categorically and unequivocally prove the hypocrisy of our government leaders’ grave miscarriages of justice, which resulted in immeasurably and unjustified suffering with no benefits whatsoever.

The motivation to silence me and the rewards for achieving this objective is unparalleled history.

In March of 1987, I was recruited for employment at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Jersey, by United States Attorney Thomas Graulich and First Assistant Thomas Roth. I had a successful career as a State Homicide Prosecutor. Shortly after being hired as a federal prosecutor, the administration changed and the new United States Attorney was Samuel Alito, First Assistant Michael Chertoff, and Criminal Division Chief Paul Fishman. During these years, I excelled and was given one of the premier prosecutions in the office, United States v. Gerald Winters, et. al., also known as the Candyman Commercial Terrorism case. In or about 1990, the Office indicted and prosecuted Detectives Thomas Gilsenan and Ralph Cicalese, two Essex Country Prosecutor’s detectives, well known by us for RICO and corruption. As the result of my federal employment and knowledge of these defendants, I was as a defense witness and called to testify on their behalf.

My albatross and nemesis would be this testimony, as Alito, Chertoff, Fishman, and others attempted to coerce, intimidate, and even threatened me against testifying truthfully. They all attempted to suborn perjury and collectively warned me that I should get amnesia upon the witness stand. I was told that if I were to offer favorable evidence to the defense that the consequences and ramifications of it would detrimentally affect my position as a federal and employment in the office. I testified truthfully and to the best of my recollection.

During my testimony, Alito sat in the center of the courtroom, stared me down, attempted to intimidate me and when I would go to the courthouse to watch the trial, again attempt to intimidate me. Chertoff ordered Chief John Fahy to warn me against testifying and to inform me how disloyal I was being. Although I complained and repulsed Fahy’s threats to the and voiced my objection to my treatment, I knew I had made enemies for life. Subsequent to the jury’s verdict, I was in an office to the sixth floor of the federal building. I had no desk, secretary, telephone, files, cases, and was scorned by office personnel. There were no other federal prosecutors on this floor and my career with the Justice Department essentially over. I resigned as a federal prosecutor in 1991 and went into private practice in the District of New Jersey. I had met my obligations pursuant to a legally issued subpoena and knew there be retaliation.

In 1991, while this administration remained in power, I was falsely accused and indicted for conspiracy to tamper with evidence and tampering evidence, knowingly false accusations, devoid of any merit whatsoever. I remained under indictment for two years, despite conclusive proof of my actual innocence. It devastated my private practice, so the intent of this baseless case was achieved. Three days prior to commencement of trial, wherein I would have been vindicated, Chertoff’s good friend, Howard Shapiro, alleged conflict of counsel, dismissed all charges against me in the interests of justice. Their objective of destroying me had been but never over.

Samuel Alito would depart from his tenure as New Jersey United States Attorney and be elevated by the Republicans and Bush Administration to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Alito’s long term alliance with David Addington, a Federalist like Alito and arch conservative Republican, would be my nemesis. Addington became Chief of Staff and legal counsel to Vice President Cheney and lead Cheney and Rumsfeld’s personal war on terror. Addington, along with White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, would change history by re-defining the term “torture,” in clear contravention to humanity and law and promote memo upon memo wrongfully and unlawfully espousing Rumsfeld and Cheney’s position of permissible torture during interrogations. Furthermore, Addington and Gonzales would mislead agency heads on permissible interrogation techniques, with the approval of the White House; and when Chertoff served as Chief of the Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., he would wrongfully and also unlawfully support their position. Directors from the CIA and other intelligence agencies detrimentally relied upon Addington, Gonzales, and Chertoff in advising their operatives, agents, and soldiers in the field on permissible conduct, while knowing their opinions intentionally breached the American Code of Law and espoused what were in essence war crimes against humanity. As the lead counsel to Abu Ghraib , I learned of the actions by these parties and sought them along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Stephen Cambone (Deputy to Rumsfeld on intelligence), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as witnesses. All to no avail. They knew I was aware of their memos, orders to torture, which I publicly proclaimed my interviews with the media, especially Al-Jazeera, motions, and legal work.

In 2000, Alito, at the behest of Addington and the Bush administration, gave a speech before the Federalist Society. Alito would be involved in giving new and unprecedented powers to Bush and his administration.

Paul Fishman , my former Chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Criminal Division, would move into the Justice Department, Washington, D.C. and Chertoff, who was United States Attorney in New Jersey after Alito, would also be empowered with new appointments, from heading the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division from 2001-2003, to a Cabinet level as the Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to the end of the Bush administration.

My ardent, vociferous, and aggressive betrayal of the Bush administration in my quest to zealously represent scapegoated soldiers on the Abu Ghraib case, Objective Iron Triangle debacle, and my appeal of tank commander Staff Sergeant Leon Parker (who was being crucified and wrongfully charged with criminal negligent homicide) lead to my demise. The hierarchy of the men I challenged continued to rise to unprecedented power in our nation. They all knew and feared my tenacity and intelligence by observing my public display of discrediting the highest levels of our government. Most importantly, they knew it had to be curtailed at all costs. Consequently, here I sit in the Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn, New York, wrongfully convicted by the word of convicted felons, who were given benefits beyond comprehension, to accuse and testify against me; and facing life in prison with no parole.

I was the one who constantly and publicly publicized the fact that the United States violated international law, ordered the cruel and inhumane torture of men, women, and children in the name of national security, lied to the international and national communities as to our government’s knowledge of the conduct and actions which lead to legal violations. I took the lead and scrutinized our government’s actions. I brought further evidence our government’s attempt to desperately conceal such atrocities. It was I who challenged the Bush administration stop scapegoating the lowly soldiers and to finally tell the world the truth.

The knowledge I gained during the scope of my representation made me a threat to the reputation, integrity, and influence of the United States in the eyes of the entire world, among foe and ally alike.

I know about torture recommendations, murder of prisoners of war, water boarding, starvation, beatings, closed quarter isolation booth prisoners, especially Muslims, being forced into nudity, in the wearing of female garments to demoralize them for intelligence, threats with vicious dogs, sleep deprivation, hangings with chains, binding of wrists and ankles off the ground, all by order of the Bush administration. I knew in 2006, prior to the Obama ordering the release of such information, the infamous Bush torture memos.

I made telephone inquiries with the ACLU, a Constitutional Law professor at Seton Hall Law School, co-counsel on Abu Ghraib, Guy Womack, and defamed Sgt. Javal Davis of Abu Ghraib. I revealed that I was going to change military history and renew my attack on the American government and its war crimes; that I was moving to reverse the convictions of all Abu Ghraib case soldiers because the defense was denied crucial intelligence information, which I demanded, but was denied, and which would have proven the soldiers of Abu Ghraib were merely following the orders of the intelligence community. Prior to my achieving these objectives, I was indicted in New York in a case the federal government clearly had a hand in and would become a major part of my federal indictment.

Additionally, I demoralized the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office with my acquittal before a jury of Carmine Dente, Jr. in United States v. Carmine Dente. Jr., a case wherein the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorney’s Office sought a conviction to publicize the need to protect witnesses. As they prepared for their victory speech, the jury egg on their face with a not guilty verdict and it was I who gave the victory speech,

My ability to tie together all the personnel cases, criminal acts and conduct of our government set into motion the retaliatory indictment and case against me. What is also important to note is how I can reveal the relationships developed between federal laws, enforcement agencies, and the highest levels of government officials. I was a thorn to their continued deception and lies. While their Counsel Gonzales became United States Attorney , John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General, befriended a lowly attorney named Chris Christie, who later came to reward Ashcroft with a major monetary contract. The foundation of the Bush legacy was under attack by me and now all the power players had to depict their loyalty to Bush and guard his administration’s integrity or they would also potentially fall with him and be exposed. More importantly, they had to protect the criminal actions and conduct of our nation from being revealed.

Upon my retention in the Abu Ghraib in or about April of 2004, I lived the war on terror. There was not an investigation that was endorsed and conducted that remained unread. There was not a federal law enforcement or intelligence agency that I did not scrutinize. I incessantly read thousands and thousands of reports and evidence, included, but not limited to, from the Schlesinger report, Taguba report, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Army Criminal Investigation Division, Inspector General’s Office, International Red Cross reports and memorandum, Iraq’s Survey Group, Special Operation’s Command, Naval Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, State Department , United States Senate reports, Fay-Jones report, Task Force 121 reports, Army secret e-mails system messages in Washington, D.C. I ordered depositions of vital and seminal military commanders, and more.

Additionally, I interviewed every accused soldier in Abu Ghraib and Iron Triangle copiously and befriended them. They believed in me and confided their inner most thoughts and knowledge to me. I repeatedly made trips to Iraq, despite threats of death, capture, torture, severe bodily injury, and incapacitation by my own government under the guise of a hold-harmless letter. The soldiers knew I risked my life and liberty for them and would never betray them. They opened up to me. I traveled to the Abu Ghraib prison site on multiple occasions with an interpreter and both interviewed and video-taped prisoners. I observed first-hand the torture facilities and spoke to an undisclosed number of soldiers and civilians with intelligence, all the while gathering knowledge and first-hand knowledge of what was occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. I lived in the field with the soldiers to gain their confidences and even spent multiple days in the Green Zone, Iraq, where I confronted and spoke to unidentified government intelligence agents, who ended up warning me that there would be retaliation against me and that my name and actions are known by the highest levels of our government, who did not want what I learned disclosed. intelligence officers disclosed the murder of Iraqi General Manadel al-Jamadi at Abu Ghraib and told me that they also feared being scapegoated because they were ordered to extract intelligence information from Jamadi at all costs. They physically beat him to death.

During my trips to Washington, D.C., I and my investigator Sgt. Richard Russell read thousands of e-mails sent to the highest levels of our government, civilian and military, advising them of the worst scenarios of torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. So, I was acutely and innately aware that our government habitually lied about not condoning torture and being unaware it was occurring. I was the attorney who found and called Major David Dinenna as a witness and learned that as a commander at Abu Ghraib hr had pleaded for a cease or halt to the war crimes. He witnessed inhumane treatment of men, women, and children detained at Abu Ghraib. Dinnera complained about the contractors the United States hired that provided worm infested food, spoiled meals, and six (6) spot a pots of portable toilets for over a thousand prisoners, insufficient water, the imprisonment of children and women in order to potentially gain intelligence from a target, not interviewing detainees for years, killing of detainees, sweep and imprisonment of innocent civilians, the monitoring of the outside camps and its deplorable living conditions, including over-crowding, rapes, and much more. I confirmed all the messages read as I personally viewed and witnessed the Abu Ghraib facility and interviewed a plethora of individuals, including prisoners. My jaw dropped repeatedly as countless horror stories were of rape conditions to which our government subjected men, women, and children.
These conditions had to be endured. I knew I had opened a can of worms and Pandora’s box and why the International Red Cross was refused access to the prison and prisoners by the Bush administration. Now, I made myself a witness to conditions and treatment of human beings similar to the Nazis during World War II. Words cannot describe our mistreatment of human .

My relationship with the accused six soldiers in the Abu Ghraib case, my viewing of thousands of photographs, my covert conversations with intelligence officers, both civilian and military, made me a threat to our government.

Subsequent to Abu Ghraib, I played a major role in our soldiers’ defense in the case known as Objective Iron Triangle; the 101stassault on the Island of Samarra and an Rule of Engagement to kill every single military age male on the Island. In addition, I participated in liberating First Armor Division tank commander Leon Parker, who was accused and eventually convicted in the friendly fire death of young American soldiers. I knew our government was scapegoating all the accused soldiers and that the orders in the Objective Iron Triangle also came from the White House. My efforts to reveal the origination of the orders was stymied by the Commander, who revealed them while asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent. Our democratic and just government refused to grant him immunity; so I could him and prove Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld hands were dirty again.

For three years, my life was placed on hold to prove my theory that the United States government was scapegoating the young and low level soldiers, while the government escaped responsibility.

I was the attorney who incessantly spoke with Al-Jazeera news and attempted to bait our government into accepting responsibility for war crimes. I repeatedly challenged White House policy and the Bush legacy.

Through my efforts, I was able to ascertain that Israeli agents were involved in the torture and interrogation of detainees at Abu Ghraib. This fact would have driven the Muslim community ballistic and compelled our government to intentionally lie to key and strategic allies in its alleged war on terror. I was able to confirm the fact as I was the only Abu Ghraib attorney depose Brigadier General Janis Karpinski Commander of the 372Company and an Abu scapegoat. She personally spoke to Israeli agents at Abu Ghraib, but was warned to keep her mouth shut.

As I personally witnessed the dried blood in the torture chambers at Abu Ghraib, I literally cried myself to sleep as I envisioned and re-envisioned hysterical persons pleading for their release and my help. I uncovered the gory details of how United States agents beat to death General Manadel al-Jamadi and the indignant manner of how he was treated even in death. I spent hours with Army Specialist Sabrina Harman at Victory Base, Baghdad and in the Green Zone as she recounted his physical condition in a black body bag filled with ice as he was dumped at Abu Ghraib in the early summer morning hours. His blood soaked and badly beaten face and body cried for assistance as he pleaded for mercy. I later determined that the agents who criminally caused Jamadi’s death were being investigated by our government and federal prosecutor John Durham. I pleaded with standby attorney Larry Lustberg to ask if I could testify, but my efforts were thwarted. What a grave miscarriage of justice! I witnessed as Army Sabrina Harman was prosecuted for preserving evidence and photography General Manadel al-Jamadi while the government agents, who beat him to death and the same White House officials who ordered and approved the torture escaped prosecution and punishment.

As my experiences in Iraq developed, I learned about Ghost Detainees and hiding captured or seized prisoners and detainees by throwing them into Abu Ghraib unnoticed under a false number or by number. I was able to put together how this violated international law and exposed it during my depositions of Major General Barbara Fast, who was in charge of intelligence in Iraq and General Geoffrey Miller, who was personally sent and ordered by Rumsfeld to Abu Ghraib and Iraq to teach torture and inhumanity in the name of intelligence gathering. I mistakenly revealed my knowledge of war crimes as I took the lead in deposing the highest levels of our military command. The extent of my confirmations made during interrogations of our strategic commanders in Iraq opened me up to retaliation. I should have never demanded copies of torture memos. I made my knowledge public. Furthermore, my public revelation of Objective Iron Triangle’s Rule of Engagement opened me up to contempt and scorn by our government.

I further connected the dots when my visit to Abu Ghraib and Iraq revealed that Rumsfeld had been repeatedly visiting the Abu Ghraib prison, while our government continued to deny knowledge and involvement in abuse and torture. I learned from soldiers themselves that Rumsfeld was inspiring torture and abuse and motivating soldiers to violate international laws of .

As I delved deeper and deeper into what had gone wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as my compassion to save the life and liberty of our young soldiers increased, my old friend, Michael Chertoff’s name repeatedly popped up. I had known that Addington and Gonzales had redefined torture to only include permanent disfigurement and injury, but Central Intelligence agents informed me that it was Chertoff, who condoned inhumanity, while advising their Director. I read Chertoff’s confirmation hearing testimony for Secretary at Homeland Security, and now knew he lied under oath about his involvement and knowledge of war crimes in Iraq. I could also now see the intricate connection between the Department of Justice headed by Bush ally Ashcroft and then Gonzalez, Addington, Alito, and Chertoff. I could see how the FBI, who had agents at Abu Ghraib and throughout Iraq torturing prisoners and committing war crimes against humanity, and eventually Chris Christie, all had similar motives to thwart my integrity, existence, and scorn me as a public source of information. My demand for Albert Gonzales as a witness at Javal Davis’ court martial made my knowledge of the vicious circle and cycle .

As Ascroft left his position as United States Attorney General, he would use his strong connection to Bush and their devout friendship to get Chris Christie selected as United States Attorney. He would pass his baton of being the head federal prosecutor to Albert Gonzales, who continued to mislead the American public about America’s awareness and involvement in war crimes and international law violations; even if it meant false testimony under oath at hearings. But, I knew the truth and demanded accountability, as I repeatedly called for the testimony of individuals.

Christie’s allegiance to Ashcroft and Bush would be repaid in his pursuit of me and in his political patronage and reward of Missouri attorney Ashcroft with a forty (40) million dollar, no bid, no compete contract for legal work in New Jersey. At the time of my indictment, I had to further suffer Christie’s insolence as a powerful New Jersey governor, with ties to the FBI, DOJ, the White House; and aspirations of someday living on Pennsylvania Avenue. Christie had to lend love and support to the Bush administration for their confidence in appointing him. If he to ascend to the White House, this component of American history must never be revealed.

Through my efforts, I proved that the six (6) rogue Military Police officers as cried out by Bush on national television were not solely responsible for the inhumanity and crimes in Iraq. The photos clearly established that every intelligence agency under the command of our White House was superiorly responsible. Yet, the magnitude of the lies committed before our United States Senate Committee hearings, to the American and international communities, our allies and even foes were unchecked and undeterred. I tried to do this and make the difference. No other attorney in the entire Abu Ghraib or Iron Triangle case ever came close to my revelations, for discovery, and efforts.

The spirit of Abu Ghraib carried over to my legal representation in Objective Iron Triangle, as three (3) young enlisted men were being accused of premeditated murder. The military and the White House were seeking to imprison them for life. If I had not used the media to portray this grave miscarriage of justice, they would all be serving life imprisonment with no opportunity to ever be paroled. Factually, they were ordered to kill every military aged male on the Island Samarra upon contact. When they took prisoners, they were chastised and accused of disobeying orders. When they shot and killed the prisoners they took, they were called murderers. The White House again used the life again of the low level soldier to appease the Muslim and international community because Iraq’s soldiers were on the mission and cried out about the conduct. My legal work proved the soldiers were following orders and that they were scapegoated. We accepted minimal pleas of guilty to avoid the potential consequence of life in prison. The message we got out was the insurmountable amount of scapegoating against those incapable of defending themselves against the White House and the lies and fallacy about the cooperative military efforts between American troops and Iraqi soldiers. This blatant lie was proven as our soldiers refused to go on mission with Iraqi soldiers and the level of malfeasance and distrust was evident. In the Article 32 Hearing of the three Iron Triangle soldiers, I proved how our soldiers hated working with and going on missions with Iraqi Soldiers, proof the Bush especially lied to the entire world.

I opened eyes with my vigorous defense of our soldiers and brought the issues out in the open. Even attempts to deter me through the New York indictment did not hinder my representation of these kids. When the New York indictment did not slow me down, the Feds took action. When a million dollar bail in New York for non-violent accusations of prostitution and money laundering did not keep me incarcerated, the Feds stepped in to detain me without bail. I learned that New York authorities, specifically New York Police Detective Myles Mahady and FBI agent Shawn Brokos , were working hand in hand and communicated daily. A fact that remains uncontroverted even to today.

The attempts by our government to conceal the Rule of Engagement (R.O.E.) on Objective Iron Triangle would have been accomplished if not for my zealousness. This revelation lead to the liberation of these young soldiers and prevented a life of misery. All free as of today.

Leon Parker was a veteran soldier on his second tour of Iraqi and an exceptional combatant and leader by all standards. When a fellow tank crew man accidentally died during a combat mission, Bush had to blame someone and he became the scapegoat. When I visited him imprisoned in Mannheim, Germany and met his wife and seven infant children, I scorned with contempt the White House and our military for what they had done to this young hero; who was to die for his country. I called upon Stars and Stripes, the newspaper read world-wide by all American soldiers, to publicize our plight. They gave me front page photo and coverage and I Bush and his evil administration. That was the nail in my coffin of success as I followed it with the United States v. Dente acquittal and they followed with life imprisonment Paul.

My final links in connecting the dots was accomplished throughout my tours in luxurious Iraq. I spoke to at least fifty employees of Halliburton and their subsidiary contractors on all the outposts and military bases. I visited Victory Base, the Green Zone , Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, and Forward Operating Base, Mosul. Additionally, I staged several nights with civilian contractors and Halliburton employees. I met at Baghdad Airport, in their luxury facility at the Marriott Hotel, Kuwait. I learned that the average salary paid to them was over $130,000 per year, tax free, while the American soldier averaged about $30,000. It was rare when a civilian employee risked life or limb, but common for the soldier. Halliburton contracted with foreign nations such as the Philippines, for employees to work on American bases, paid these foreign nationals peanuts, yet billed the American taxpayer extraordinarily. It was one big joke to the civilian and comical as they put it. The money being paid by taxpayers made Cheney’s and Bush’s cronies wealthy, while the young soldier died, suffered severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or was maimed by bombs and small arms fire. When it was revealed that there never were weapons of mass destruction, we had no out strategy. The whole objective behind the Iraq war came to light. I was someone who could put into perspective all the profits made by the politicians and the elevations in states achieved by them. I also realized how powerful the indignant, self-proclaimed righteous men who rose to the highest levels of our society, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, , Chertoff, Christie, Fishman, amongst others, were. 


Maximum Hypocrisy 
 
 

Thursday, August 22, 2013

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.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Motion Point 1: The Kemo Murder Conspiracy Counts

The reader must only look around to understand how I feel about the lack of evidence against Paul Bergrin on any count related to the Kemo Deshawn McCray murder. I believe that I have been clear as to my position on Anthony Young's testimony. It's extremely hard for me to imagine the jury believing Young, but impossible to consider that the three experienced AUSAs in this case (Gay, Minnish, and Sanders) and Judge Dennis Cavanaugh actually thought Young's testimony was truthful, especially as it pertained to the Newark street corner meeting.

Considering the call recordings and lack of any corroborative evidence, it should be clear to anyone able to think that Young is full of crap and has an agenda. And don't forget his ex-girlfriend, Rashidah Tarver, or Ben Hohn, or well-known attorney Paul Feinberg - each contradicted the Young testimony. Consider all of the testimony that was contradictory to Young's testimony and read Point 1 of the Motion for Reconsideration:

I.  A MANIFEST INJUSTICE WOULD RESULT IF THIS COURT DID NOT RECONSIDER ITS RULINGS DENYING JOA ON THE MCCRAY COUNTS. THE GOVERNMENT HAS GROSSLY MISLED THE COURT ABOUT THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE RECORDINGS BECAUSE THOSE RECORDINGS PROVE BERGRIN’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF THE MCCRAY CHARGES AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT RELIED UPON TESTIMONY IT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WAS PERJURED.

The Court erred in adopting the government's intentionally deceptive allegation that Bergrin was "cherry picking" recordings in footnote three, (Opinion p. 8) and in finding that Bergrin would have opened himself up to other recordings that incriminate him.(1) The absolute fact remains that there is not a shred of credible evidence to support this contention. The Government has not offered sufficient facts about the content of from its review of the entirety of the recordings upon which this Court should base this conclusion. The Government’s claims are baseless and meritless. See footnote 1 herein. The July 15, 2013 supplement delineates the inaccuracy of this allegation and this Court must find that the recordings are diametrically opposed to Anthony Young’s testimony and prove Bergrin's "actual innocence" of the McCray murder charges.

The seminal point pertaining to the Curry Title III intercepts and recordings that has been ignored and repeatedly distorted by the government is that, from the date of William Baskerville's (hereinafter Baskerville) arrest on November 25, 2003, until the termination of the Curry wiretap, there is not a recording or scintilla of evidence to corroborate the underlying premise of the government's entire theory of the "Kemo" case, to wit, that McCray was murdered because Bergrin informed the Curry group or William Baskerville’s associates that Baskerville was facing life in prison and that Baskerville
would go free and Bergrin would win the case if McCray was not a witness.

More disturbing is that the recordings prove that Young falsely swore that the organization had absolutely no knowledge that Baskerville was facing a life sentence until Bergrin met with them on the streets of Newark, either before or after Thanksgiving, depending on Young's date of testimony and proffering. See footnote 1.

The ardent fact remains that the recordings clearly, unequivocally and categorically prove, without an iota of dispute, the complete opposite. None of Baskerville’s associates believed he was facing life imprisonment. Indeed, the recordings confirm the incredulousness of the government's sole witness against Bergrin and that the government knew or should have known that Young perjured himself as to Bergrin's involvement in the case.

As the Government is well aware, it is crystal clear from the recordings that Baskerville’s associates knew the evidence against Baskerville was overwhelming, independent of McCray, and that Baskerville was realistically and practically only facing between 12 and 13 years of imprisonment, not life imprisonment as asserted by the government. Based on the recordings, the government also knew or should have known the physical whereabouts of Curry almost at all times --arguably exculpatory alibi evidence which refuted Young’s claims-- and that there were never any meetings between Bergrin and anyone in the area of Avon Avenue in Newark, neither before or after Thanksgiving 2003.

To clarity the defense’s position: it was virtually impossible to scrutinize in excess of 33,000 recordings in the time allotted for pre-trial preparation and in the dysfunctional condition in which Pro Se defendant and his defense team received the recordings. Furthermore, it would have been impossible to listen to them in the time consuming manner the recordings were formatted -- many of which were unable to be opened when they were first provided -- along with the fact that the recordings encompassed a majority of hang ups, calls to voice mail and immaterial and irrelevant conversations. Additionally, the call files were not named, itemized or indexed, and complete transcripts were not provided. As such, it was impossible to identify the parties involved and would have been like trying to find the proverbial “needle in a haystack.” Moreover, defendant had been assured by others that the calls were not incriminating and that it would be a waste of time to review.

The government should have been candid and forthright to the defense and accentuated the magnitude of the exculpatory nature of the recordings, which clearly established that Young fabricated evidence and lacked credibility as to material facts. This is especially so because the only direct evidence upon which the McCray murder conviction and related counts were based was the sole uncorroborated and incredulous testimony of Young, a witness who gave three different contradictory accounts of the murder, all of which consistently contradicted the irrefutable and uncontestable evidence. Clearly, the prosecution knew or should have known Young’s testimony was perjured.

Yet, instead of upholding its constitutional oath to seek the truth and pursue justice, the government intentionally and knowingly attempted to deceive the Court in its reply submission by claiming that the alleged Bergrin meeting occurred on December 4, 2003. There can be no question that this was an attempt to subvert justice because the government believed and relied upon the fact that Bergrin had not and would not review the recordings. The fact remains that the recordings have now been reviewed post-trial and the interests of justice compel this Court to set aside the verdict.

This court is not powerless to act to prevent such a gross miscarriage of justice when presented with proof of actual innocence. Indeed, this court has a constitutional duty to ensure a fraud was not perpetuated upon the tribunal. Consistent with that purpose, this court should implore the Government to reinvestigate the facts that gave rise to the McCray murder charge against Bergrin and the exculpatory evidence set forth in the recordings. See Friedman v. Rehal, 618 F.3d 142, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2010) (addressing the question of actual innocence by urging the prosecution to reinvestigate case based on new and material evidence that established a reasonable likelihood that an injustice may have occurred because of proof defendant was actually innocent despite fact that the underlying legal claim was procedurally and substantively defective).


Footnote 1:

1 During the trial of United States v. William Baskerville, AUSA John Gay testified that Bergrin and other co-conspirators 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 statements in the Baskerville case contradict the Government’s claims other evidence existed beyond Young’s uncorroborated testimony of Bergrin’s alleged complicity in the McCray murder. 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)


What sort of mind claims to believe the testimony of Anthony Young? Or for that matter, who would believe jailhouse snitches like Eric Dock and Richard Hosten? All three of these liars have spent their days and nights plotting their way out of prison.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

A Motion for Reconsideration has been Filed

Today there was a Motion for Reconsideration filed in this case via hand delivery on behalf of Paul Bergrin, acting Pro Se. Mr. Lustberg is on vacation and as time matters, there was no choice except to go this route.

This is the beginning paragraph of the motion:

Defendant hereby submits this motion for reconsideration of the Honorable Court's Opinion and Order, dated July 23, 2013. Moreover, defendant hereby submits additional points for ruling and reconsideration. Please take notice that Defendant was not provided with a copy of this Court's ruling and opinion until July 30th, 2013.

These are the 4 major points covered in this Motion for Reconsideration:

I.  A MANIFEST INJUSTICE WOULD RESULT IF THIS COURT DID NOT RECONSIDER ITS RULINGS DENYING JOA ON THE MCCRAY COUNTS. THE GOVERNMENT HAS GROSSLY MISLED THE COURT ABOUT THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE RECORDINGS BECAUSE THOSE RECORDINGS PROVE BERGRIN’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF THE MCCRAY CHARGES AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT RELIED UPON TESTIMONY IT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WAS PERJURED.

II.  GIVEN THE COURT’S PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTIES ACCUSED OF MISCONDUCT IN THE CASE, A REASONABLE PERSON, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE FACTS, WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT’S IMPARTIALITY MIGHT BE REASONABLY QUESTIONED.

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.

IV.  THE GOVERNMENT’S UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO AND MONITORING OF BERGRIN’S COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT A COURT ORDER WERE IMPROPER AND CAUSED ACTUAL AND EXTREME PREJUDICE TO BERGRIN’S DEFENSE.


During the course of the next week, I will be discussing each point in a separate blog post. You can read the entire 11-page motion here: Motion for Reconsideration August 8 2013


Monday, July 15, 2013

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.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

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.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

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:




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


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.

Monday, July 1, 2013

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

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Notes and the Wiretap Transcript

If you have read most or all of the transcripts and documents in this case, you're already aware of the significance and importance of the Curry wiretap transcript linked herein. I decided that it was best to turn it into a PDF instead of copy / pasting into this post.

According to the government, this wiretap tape (and thousand(s) of others) were not admissible because of an alleged chain of custody issue or a claim that they "were not timely sealed". Why do I doubt the veracity of such a statement? Well, of course because of the 'Oscar the Hitman' tapes and the complete lack of concern over chain of custody and even validity of these recordings by the government in this case.

Recall that the defense did call an expert to testify in relation to the Oscar tapes and he was extremely limited in his testimony by the government and the Court. The expert attempted to testify as to the issues and potential anomalies with the recordings, but was cut-off and told that he was only allowed to offer limited testimony.

It's unimaginable to me and others that the government did not take proper care with the Curry wiretap recordings and I'd be interested to know if they were all inadmissible in Hakeem Curry's trial as well. At the same time, the government claimed there was nothing exculpatory on these tapes - an outright lie. Additionally, this particular recording was never turned over to William Baskerville's defense attorney, though I have no idea about other recordings.


Significance of December 4, 2003

Throughout the discovery process the government refused to state a specific date in which this alleged meeting with Paul Bergrin and numerous gang members took place on a Newark street corner. Anthony Young testified that he could not recall exactly, but that it was after Thanksgiving in 2003. Obviously an exact date would have been extremely important to the defense. How else would Bergrin be able to pinpoint specifically where he was and others were that supposedly attended this non-existent street meeting that Anthony Young testified took place?

The defense knows where Hakeem Curry was "after Thanksgiving," but again, that was too vague to dispute in trial. Thanks to the government, we now know the specific date they claim this meeting took place. View this document and scroll to page 12 (numbered pages within the doc):


Do you see the footnote (#2) on page 12? It states:

Phone records showed a call from Bergrin to Curry at 7:13 p.m. on December 4,
2003, 27T7544, and (according to Young) Curry said that evening, “My man on his way. Mr. Bergrin is on his way.” 9T2252.


The Curry Wiretap Transcript

If the meeting according to Anthony Young occurred around 7PM. they are locked into actual
perjury and suborned perjury with deception to the Court. But in any event, as the verbatim
transcript linked below shows, there was no meeting on December 4, 2003. There are no further
calls between Hakeem Curry and Paul Bergrin that entire night.



More Discussion of the Transcript

I intend to discuss specific statements in the Curry wiretap transcript and several other transcripts of recordings during the coming week. We intend to prove to you, the people, that the government's version of events in this prosecution and the two trials is worse than simply false. So stay tuned...