Bergrin Rule 33 Denied and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

On April 6, 2022 Paul Bergrin's Motion for a New Trial (Rule 33) was denied by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Of course I am disappointed to say the least. I have a lot to say, but will wait a few days. I'm posting the link to the Opinion so that you could read it if you're unable to find it elsewhere. Media usually just summarizes and this should be read in its entirety.

I am also posting a link to William Baskerville's denial on his Motion to Vacate {2255), which was issued in late August 2021. I have much to say about this as well, but didn't because of Rakeem Baskerville's death in BOP. I will offer my thoughts when I update this post in a few days.

Bergrin Rule 33 Appeal April 6 2022 

Bergrin Rule 33 Judgment April 6 2022 

 

Baskerville Appeal Ruling August 13 2021 

Baskerville Appeal Judgment August 13 2021 

 

See you soon!

 

 

William Baskerville Case: Evidentiary Hearing Update

I have discussed the William Baskerville case in numerous past posts. William ended-up with a bifurcated hearing – in other words the hearing was broken into two parts, with the second part perhaps unnecessary depending on the first part. We await the ruling of the Honorable US District Judge Peter Sheridan on the first part of the hearing. Judge Sheridan is expected to rule on August 8, 2019.

William Baskerville's attorney for the evidentiary hearing process is Bruce Throckmorton of Trenton, New Jersey. There was also an investigator on the case, but I will not name him yet. When Mr. Throckmorton was first appointed to this case, both William and I had our doubts, mainly due to the lack of communication. However, there are many attorneys who fail to communicate with clients early in a case and yet they are skilled at their job – which is being an attorney! Bruce Throckmorton fits this description!

When I read the brief linked below, at times I held my breath and at other times tears rolled down my face. Mr. Throckmorton has shown that he really does have a grasp on this convoluted case, which is not a simple task. This case is complicated by the voluminous Paul Bergrin case and the testimony of Anthony Young, who claimed to be the shooter in the Kemo Deshawn McCray murder.

No matter what happens on August 8^th when the Honorable US District Judge Peter Sheridan rules, Mr. Throckmorton has effectively represented William. As this brief shows clearly, exemplary research and writing skills are far more important than initial client communications.

I will not say what I think the outcome will be and in a sense, I am still holding my breath. The brief itself is 29 pages and the the remaining pages are the relevant attachments.

William Baskerville 2255 Defense Brief July 30 2019


UPDATE ON 7 AUGUST 2019 AT 1:10AM -
 
The government filed a brief responding to the defense brief linked above. They also filed two letters, one of which basically calls the judge's Opinion a farce. The government is in full threatening mode at this point and there's no telling what they're doing behind the scenes. As the government's case  against William Baskerville could easily be unraveled at this time, which also threatens their case against Paul Bergrin, this was to be expected. It is the reason my statement above was so short and really said nothing much.

The bottom line is that this case is one big farce - good word choice on the government's part, but applied differently from me. The additional documents:

William Baskerville 2255 Defense Letter August 5 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Brief August 5 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Letter August 5 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Letter no 2 August 5 2019

In government letter no 2, they state:

Dear Judge Sheridan: William Baskerville seeks an adjournment of Thursday’s oral argument because the Government submitted a 1200-page Appendix with its post-hearing brief. Baskerville neglected to mention, however, that the Appendix mostly contains trial transcripts from the Bergrin case – i.e., the very transcripts Baskerville cited in his § 2255 motion and Traverse and mentioned in his post-hearing brief. This farce has dragged out long enough. The requested adjournment should be denied.

So the government views the judge's Opinion and due process as a farce. But we already knew that, didn't we?


UPDATE ON 18 AUGUST 2019 @ 11:25AM -

Bruce Throckmorton filed a brief responding to the government's brief linked above and the government filed two letters. While the government's brief included everything but the kitchen sink, they chose to attack William Baskerville's attorney for including one (1) short telephone call transcript, referring to it as not within the scope of the hearing. The documents:

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Letter August 14 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Letter August 15 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Defense Brief August 15 2019


As far as I am aware, the judge will rule soon. There could be a second part to the hearing as it was bifurcated and all of this is about the first part. It is also possible that the judge will rule on the case and there is no need for the second part of the hearing. I will update as soon as I get more information.


 

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.

Paul Bergrin Transfer to ADX Florence

This short post is about exactly what the title says. Paul Bergrin is being or has been transferred to ADX Florence, the Supermax in Colorado. I admit to being stunned. I have been busy with life - some day I will tell you about it on my other blog - and then there was the hurricane mess as I live on an island off the East coast of Florida.

This document was entered by the clerk's office on September 28, 2016, and it is a handwritten motion to Judge Jose Linares. No attorney has been able to update me on Paul Bergrin's status at the CMU after he was placed under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) there at the time of my last post and when he went incommunicado. I just logged into PACER tonight and retrieved this document.

The Bureau of Prisons inmate locator shows Paul Bergrin to be still in Terre Haute, Indiana at the CMU, but in this case I have zero faith that the locator has been updated. Paul Was notified in late August that he was now designated to the Supermax in Florence, Colorado.

Bergrin Motion for Relief September 28 2016

I'm just horrified. Need to do some research and will post again in the near future. ADX Florence is known to be worse than Guantanamo Bay camps. Seriously. WTH.

UPDATE on November 2, 2016 @11:50AM:

As of today, November 2, 2016, Paul Bergrin is now in Florence, Colorado ADMAX, also known as the Supermax. This morning he showed as at this facility in the BOP inmate locator: Inmate Locator

So, Paul is now in the worst of all hellhole facilities that the US has created; worse than Guantanamo Bay camps. Considering that Paul Bergrin is about as scary as a kitty-kat and the entire prosecution was a major overkill engineered by those with an axe to grind and plenty to hide, I see that the government can get away with absolutely anything. History will absolve Paul Bergrin!

For more information on ADX Florence, read the Wikipedia entry, and update with Paul Bergrin's name if you are into updating on Wikipedia: ADX Florence

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 2255 Now Filed: Informative

 UPDATE on February 14, 2017: 

As a result of 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!

Paul Bergrin's 2255 was filed by the clerk's office on June 1, 2016. It is unlike any 2255 that I have ever seen and in total, with all exhibits, is close to 5000 pages. I have linked the 2255, Appendix and the first two Exhibits for your reading pleasure. It's definitely enough to keep anyone reading for a while and I will upload the rest of the Exhibits within a couple of weeks.

NOTE: I have titled everything as it is titled in PACER. If I didn't do it this way, I would be confused on the order of the docs. However, what the clerk's office titled as "Appendix" is actually the brief and what they titled as "Exhibit" is actually the Appendix. The first link titled 2255 is actually the 2255 form with checkboxes etc... as it is the government 2255 form that any inmate uses. The brief should be 428 pages. The Appendix should be 5810 pages in total.

Many of the Exhibits are shown as restricted on PACER and are therefore unavailable for me to publish, but there are many more that are available.

Bergrin 2255 27 May 2016

Bergrin 2255 Appendix 1

Bergrin 2255 Appendix 2

Bergrin 2255 Appendix 3

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 1

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 2

I will update this post when I upload the rest of the attachments. 

UPDATE on 3 June 2016 @4:25PM:

I need your help. I know that many people read this blog and are anxious to see Paul's 2255 and everything in it. I am extremely stressed and being pulled in numerous directions at the moment, but will definitely post the other attachments before the weekend is over - there are a few things in front of it (on my to do list) and that's the only reason it will take so long. Right now I need to destress and take care of me for a moment. Here is where I need your help...

Paul Bergrin wrote 464 pages and there are an additional 6000 pages of references and documents. Nothing should be restricted except under court order, so I have no clue why a long list of exhibits are restricted. Many are not restricted. I need someone to give me an actual page count of what is in the links above. I will need the same for the rest of the docs when I upload over the weekend. I am told that the figures do not add-up correctly. We need to know how many pages are missing that are "restricted". And then we must find out why.

For the moment, a page count on everything above (a total) is important. If anyone has time, please post your total or email me privately with it. Thank you for your assistance. We can't let them bury any part of this 2255 and its many attachments.

END OF UPDATE


UPDATE 3 JUNE 2016 @9:10PM

Apparently I am not the only one that is overwhelmed. The judge terminated Paul Bergrin's 2255 hours ago. Paul is being mailed a new copy of the basic 2255 document (as in the government form linked above - first link). Read it for yourself:


Bergrin 2255 3 June 2016 Order

Not sure what to say here, but I'll be back with the other docs I have and a statement on it.


UPDATE 4 JUNE 2016 @4:45PM

I am adding some more of Paul's "Exhibits" (Appendix included in the 2255) in the order they show in PACER:


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


So, there are a few issues going on right now. Really all I can say is that if you want a copy of any docs linked in this post, download all now. There are still more to upload, but it must wait. Oh and I no longer need any page counts and I thank the parties that reached out to me on this issue.

December 4 Now Retracted

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

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

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

Bergrin Trial Govt Letter 1 July 2013

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

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

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):

Government Opposition to Post-Trial Motions 12 June 2013

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.

Curry Wiretap Transcript

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...

Special Attention to the Notes

Recently someone mentioned to me that when reading motions, it's important to pay special attention to the footnotes. Often one will skip right past the footnotes, but that is usually where the explanations are found. In the recent post-trial motions filed by the Bergrin defense team and the government in this case, it is the notes that tell the story.

I refer to the latest defense brief filed on 26 June 2013, for this example of the importance of the notes:

Bergrin Defense Reply Brief 26 June 2013

I use as our example notes 1 and 2:

1. As noted in Mr. Bergrin’s opening brief, the Drug Enforcement Agency had recorded Hakeem Curry pursuant to a wiretap, but these recordings were not timely sealed, and therefore, inadmissible. See Tr (1/30/13) at 1384. Mr. Bergrin appropriately did not introduce that recording at trial, but it is nonetheless proper to consider it here, for purposes of determining whether the government’s contention is supported by any good faith basis.

Now carefully read note #2:

2. Moreover, in that December 4, 2003 conversation the evening after the bail hearing, Mr. Bergrin informs Curry that he believes he can obtain a 13- year plea deal for William Baskerville. This, of course, undermines the government’s reliance on Young’s testimony that the Curry organization only decided to kill Mr. McCray when Mr. Bergrin told them that Baskerville “was facing life in prison for that little bit of cocaine,” apparently shortly later that evening. GB 12 (citing 9T2252-52). The fact that Mr. Bergrin also tells Curry in this conversation that, “it’s an impossible case” because of the evidence against Baskerville, and Curry tells him to “fight Paul” likewise proves consistent with Mr. Bergrin’s defense that he would not have said “no Kemo, no case” in light of the strong surveillance and other evidence against Baskerville, and inconsistent with Young’s testimony that Mr. Bergrin hinged Baskerville’s freedom on preventing Kemo from testifying. 9T2253. It would be fundamentally unfair and completely inconsistent with the facts of record to permit the government to thus mischaracterize the contents of these tapes as evidence supporting Young’s account, particularly where the government knows it may do so without consequence. That is, as the government has vehemently argued, see, e.g., 12T3011, any challenge Mr. Bergrin makes regarding this evidence risks opening the door to the entire Curry wiretap.

If you do not read any other documents in this case, the one linked above should be considered most revealing. The entire brief filed by Mr. Lustberg will eventually result in a new trial for Paul Bergrin.

I do look forward to posting the transcript of that particular recorded call in the future. In the meantime, I think someone should alert William Baskerville as to the situation here - I am under the belief that the government did not turn over this recorded call to his defense in his trial.


Next: More discussion of footnotes and call recordings from the Curry and Baskerville investigations

Secrecy: A Discussion

I have an issue with statements made to me today by someone working with the defense on this case. To be clear, these sentiments are not Paul Bergrin's and as he is where I stated in my last post, I have no way to ask his thoughts on this issue.

Suddenly I am told that I should be keeping everything secret. According to this party, releasing the transcripts of the first trial allowed the government's criminal informants to obtain copies and may have damaged Paul. I absolutely disagree with this statement and positively know that the criminal informants the government presented at trial were coached, could have easily received copies of the transcripts from the AUSAs, but more than likely received copies from the agents that handled each. They all rehearsed their testimony anyway - that is a fact.

I was also told that these criminal informants have allies and stating Paul Bergrin's location on this blog could be a safety issue. He was sent to the Essex County jail by vindictive AUSAs and he shows in the system, so it sure as hell is not a secret. Beyond that, nasty criminal informants are only allied with the government workers (AUSAs and agents) anyway. I doubt that any one of them has any friends at all.

Publishing the first trial transcripts and the documents from this case was necessary to counter some of the total BS and lies that I have read elsewhere. Some idiot that runs a blog titled abovethelaw.com spreads misinformation and lies on behalf of prosecutors and other newspapers and a magazine have done the same. Even the ABA articles were a total fail. They frame the story exactly how the government wants it framed. I do not. You get the real picture here, whether you want it or not.

The statements made to me today are similar to government statements in relation to the Wikileaks document releases. I am a publisher and a blogger. Any documents published here are available to anyone with a PACER account. The transcripts are available to anyone that walks into the courthouse to read on a terminal or copies can be ordered from the court reporter - from both the first trial and this recent trial.

I am merely exposing the truth and the facts that are also available to every newspaper, magazine, or other publisher if they wanted to publish truthful articles. I intend to keep on doing what I have been doing. Exposing government lies by publishing documents is my First Amendment right. The world should know the truth about this entire fiasco.

Beyond that, the transcripts from this latest trial are not in any way damaging to Paul Bergrin; however, they certainly help to reveal a failed government scheme just as the transcripts from the first trial did.

UPDATE on 1 August 2013: All transcripts have been removed. If you would like a copy of a specific witness's testimony, please contact me privately.

Paul Bergrin Should Be Out on Bail

The so-called evidence used to detain Paul Bergrin without bail back in May of 2009, has never been proven. In fact, if Agent Shawn Brokos (Brocos, Brockus, Manson) had any evidence of the claims that she had another agent (Michael Smith) certify for Bergrin's detention, it would have been revealed long ago.

Paul Bergrin is currently being unlawfully detained and of course this is all a part of the attempt to break him in this absurd prosecution. Why do I use the word unlawfully? Because his detainment without bail violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the alleged facts presented to the judge are all false. The malicious lies stated by criminal informants are the statements used to deny bail.

If you read the Bergrin Detention Certification and have followed the trial, you'll know that the government does not even have the recordings of conversations they claim to have. They quote non-existent conversations in this certification. Perhaps they have the goods on Thomas Moran, at least according to what I am reading, but from what I know, there are no such damaging tapes to play for the jury in relation to any recording of Paul Bergrin. It's all lies.

For just one simple, but important, example, look at page 12 of the certification, letter "a" and there is a statement that one of Paul's clients, Norberto Velez, "stabbed his wife 27 times in front of their eight year-old daughter". The FACT is that the daughter, Carolyn Velez, was not even there, it was not close to 27 times from my recollection, and she was nine years old anyway. Even the reporter with NorthJersey.com caught the important fact that the daughter was not there when the stabbing occurred - see paragraph 3:

Bergrin Detention Certification (page 12 letter "a")

Witness in Nutley attorney's racketeering trial says he coaxed her to lie in prior case (paragraph 3)

For Agent Shawn Brokos to assert that the daughter was present and had actually witnessed this stabbing gave more credibility and importance to her as a witness than was true. The jury in the Norberto Velez trial did not acquit him based only on the daughter's testimony - she was not present when the crime happened!

A simple misstatement of truth easily results in the belief that Bergrin must have coerced the child. The fact is that no one needed to bother to coerce her and she testified only to her parents' tumultuous relationship at her father's trial, which is clearly true. Many of the other listed claims in this certification have been tossed aside and you will not hear from any witness, likely because most are false and/or fabricated.

The FACT is that the many claimed recordings of Paul Bergrin do not exist! This is outrageous, but we cannot blame Agent Michael Smith. As Smith states in cross-examination by Paul Bergrin's attorney at the time (Gerald Shargel), he took Agent Shawn Brokos's word for every single statement and this is a normal practice with the FBI and the DEA. One agent simply certifies another agent's allegations for such filings.

Continue reading the certification on page 14, with the heading, "RISK OF FLIGHT". There are many wild allegations, including offshore bank accounts, hidden assets, 5 fraudulent passports etc.... Sure, Paul Bergrin owned some real estate - Brokos mixes in actual facts with lies that she claims an unknown CI stated to her.

Mr Shargel's cross-examination begins on page 13 of the document:

Cross Exam of Agent Smith

If you have read the cross-examination document, you are now aware that no fraudulent passports were ever discovered, no offshore bank accounts were ever found, no hidden assets have been located, and Paul Bergrin's real estate transactions were legitimate. There was no corroboration of this CI-4's alleged statements (if CI-4 even exists) whatsoever.

How can Brokos and her pals the AUSAs claim there are 5 fake passports and never produce even 1 of them? How can they make a claim of offshore bank accounts, yet never prove it by naming an account in any other country? How can they not bother to corroborate anything that unnamed CIs state?

Mr. Shargel continues his questioning in relation to CI-6, another either non-existent or unknown confidential informant. On page 44 of this document Mr. Shargel questions Agent Smith in regards all other wild allegations in the Detention Certification and the agents admits that he had no part in the investigation and took Agent Brokos at her word.

After reading both of these documents, it is clear to me that Agent Shawn Brokos (Brocos in the docs) loses too many of her informants and she is in collusion with various AUSAs. The certification contains mainly hearsay, double hearsay, and even triple hearsay, if anyone at all ever made the claimed allegations.

By the time this trial is over, Paul Bergrin will have been held without bail for over 4 years based on false allegations sworn to by an inept FBI agent that often loses her informants! On top of that, she has managed to make DEA Agent Michael Smith look like a fool. What level of incompetence and downright lies will the feds promote in order to prosecute a person that is a whistleblower?

Summary of Recent Events

This is just a quick summary of the events in the Paul Bergrin trial yesterday and today. I will try and post a more thorough analysis late tonight and if I'm not able, then tomorrow. Really I am in the middle of cooking dinner at the moment and after that I'll be tired. Yeah I know... TMI.

Natalie McLennan (of New York Confidential fame) testified late in the day yesterday and returned to the stand today. I suspect this is a main reason that the clerk did not post the Minutes from 6 February until today, though I am not clear on why this went unreported in mainstream news by a reporter that is present in the courtroom daily. Needless to say, I smell a rat.

If I had known of specific statements by McLennan, the chances are good that I would have a lengthy response in time for her cross-examination today. There does seem to be an argument going on as to the definition of an "escort service" and a "brothel" and that is something I will address in my next post.

We must wonder if Natalie is supposed to be some sort of substitute for Jason Itzler as bringing him in from his prison in NY is unlikely to help prosecutors. Natalie did make a plea deal in her own case. Ah well, I'll refrain from further discussion until I have a better understanding of her testimony.

I posted a document titled, "Bergrin Trial Letters 7 February 2013," that is over 6MB in size and certainly worth reading. To summarize it quickly for you:

Paul Bergrin: I demand all of the exculpatory evidence that the government has hidden or has otherwise disposed of in relation to a list of witnesses and including conversations recorded in Hudson County Corrections involving Alejandro Barraza-Castro and Yolanda Jauregui in relation to a big cocaine deal they were attempting.

Government Prosecutors: FU. You will never see the exculpatory evidence that you are demanding and we will justify anything we do as we always do. Additionally, you will need to subpoena the recordings from Hudson County Corrections as we have no interest in any because they do not further our agenda, and good luck with that. Furthermore, we never gave any of our witnesses polygraph examinations because we already know they're all a bunch of no-good liars, career criminals, and criminal informants.


On that note, I must return to cooking dinner.


EDIT 8 February 2013 @1:10am EST:

I have been reading about this major storm expected in the Northeastern US, including New Jersey, and must imagine that there will be no court today. According to the news this looks like a bad one and people are advised to stay at home. *sigh* I miss weather like that, believe it or not. It was 80+ degrees here today on Florida's Space Coast and no change is expected in the near future.

I lived in the Lake Mohawk / Sparta area for some time after my acquittal back in 2003. I never intended to see Florida again; however, my son was born and raised in a tropical climate and hated it there - Winter of 2003 was a cold time, freezing temperatures, a blizzard etc...  I was not all that fond of Sparta and preferred Hackensack, where my friend had lived previously.

Driving in snow conditions was never an issue for me as I learned to drive in Germany, where they do not salt the roads because of potential damage. I learned to drive on black ice, literally. Still, it can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. I wish all readers and supporters of Paul Bergrin a safe long weekend. Charge your phones and devices, just in case, and stay safe.

Keeping this Case in the Sunshine

It is my intention to keep all proceedings against Paul Bergrin in the sunshine. In other words, as a result of misinformation often stated in various newspapers and in the New York Magazine article from June of 2011, all documents and information in Paul Bergrin proceedings that can be published for public viewing will be. We want you to know what has been done to Bergrin.

At this point it is not clear why DOJ prosecutors requested and were granted that documents relevant to government misconduct in this case be sealed. I can only assure you that these documents were not filed in camera or under seal by the defense. The document in question here is the certification filed by the defense of the private investigator's findings that lists many witnesses and includes their statements of government coercion and subornation of perjury in this case.

The defense certainly has no desire to hide these documents so damaging to the government from public view. The party that chooses to hide this information is, of course, the government. There is no valid reason for this certifcation to be hidden from public view. In the document, the defense identified witnesses by number and without gender so the government couldn't identify them and try to intimidate them for giving statements.

The main reason that I started this blog is to help prevent the government from being able to silently railroad Paul Bergrin, as much as is possible. I have just added more documents to the Documents page of this blog, including the Second Superseding Indictment that will apply in the upcoming trial as a result of the counts not being severed this time. I also included juror notes from the first trial and numerous other documents.

As soon as it's practicable, I will be uploading more documents, including the certification that is now sealed. Know that the defense and its supporters want to keep these proceedings and all documents filed available for the public to view without exception. The entire point of this blog is to present facts and truth and keep this case in the sunshine. Hopefully this certification will be unsealed soon.