Paul Bergrin is Alive: The Handwritten Response to the Government on His 2255 Petition

Paul Bergrin has been keeping busy by writing a book about every aspect of his case. I will venture to say that by the time the Court gets about halfway through this near 400 handwritten pages response to the government, someone will be demanding that Paul be given a computer or word processor to type any additional communications. It is a total of 413 pages, with almost 400 written by hand.

It is Maximum Hypocrisy on steroids and covers every part of his original 2255 petition, including the parts that the government conveniently ignored or glossed over. I have only made it to page 44 thus far and it will probably take a week to read. If you are interested in Paul's malicious prosecution, the two trials, and his decade long quest for justice, this is a must read! 

This is how he should have addressed the government's case from the beginning. It is the sign of life that I have been searching for since 2010, and it was entered in the file on February 23, 2018.

Not only will the government wish they'd allowed him something to type on, they will also wish they never took away his communications. The 10 people keeping Paul Bergrin busy with mostly pointless emails no longer exist and haven't since Paul has been held incommunicado in the Colorado Supermax with the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) designation. These are strings that the Newark US Attorney's Office will be sorry they pulled in this puppet game they play.

This response to the government is everything that you want to know about this warped, vicious, and false case. I initially skimmed the document and came across evidence discussed that I have not seen since the early days; stuff that I was not even sure Paul was aware of. Paul has stepped up to the plate!

To fully comprehend the injustice that Paul Bergrin has suffered requires a thorough read, so don't skim. I won't hold you in anticipation any longer:

Bergrin 2255 Response to Government Feb 22 2018

Happy Reading!

The Government's Rule 33 Response is Themed and Outrageous

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

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

What is this theme I speak of?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened in USP Tucson?

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

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

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

This is my initial response to the comment:

This is her response to me:

 

These are my responses to her that followed:

 

And:

And:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

The William Baskerville Case: Where is the Evidence

 According to the government, when William Baskerville advised his attorney of the name of the informant who set him up for the FBI, it was the first step in the conspiracy to murder Kemo DeShawn McCray. The government pursued the death penalty in this case with no actual evidence whatsoever. There would be no video or audio recordings in this far-reaching prosecution that is completely dependent on the word of career criminals turned informant to escape their own lengthy sentences. Nothing, nada, zilch, except for the word of violent criminals with something to gain.

Let that sink in for a moment - The government attempted to kill William Baskerville with no actual evidence whatsoever, only the word of jailhouse informants and Anthony Young, career criminal. There is no video or audio evidence of any murder conspiracy. In fact, the lack of audio evidence at a time when the FBI and the DEA had everyone involved in connected case drug transactions and their friends and families from the Curry prosecution under wiretaps and surveillance speaks volumes. Something like 44K wire intercepts, yet not a single word that implicates William Baskerville, Paul Bergrin or anyone else in Kemo's murder. 

From Paul Bergrin's 2255 Brief:

Contrary to the claims and insinuations which have been propagated for more than twelve years, there is not--nor has there ever been in existence--a recording (sealed or improperly sealed) in which Petitioner says the now infamous, Hollywood-movie worthy and fictitious phrase “No Kemo, No case.” No such evidence exists or has ever existed...

The Drug Buys

When William Baskerville was originally indicted in November of 2003, it was for drug sales to Kemo. His attorney in the case was Paul Bergrin. This is the case connected to Paul Bergrin's count on the murder conspiracy of Kemo. The act that set this alleged conspiracy in motion? William stated to Paul Bergrin, who was acting as his attorney at the time, that he knew who the government's confidential informant (CI) against him was.

DEA agents would later claim that the fact that Mr. Baskerville knew who the CI was, revealed the level of sophistication of the Curry drug organization. The truth is that the government's complaint listed the specific, and small, amount of drugs for each sale and Mr. Baskerville did not participate in any drug sales on a regular basis, so the identity of the informant was all too obvious. The government may as well have put Kemo's name in neon lights.

A criminal defense attorney should have been called to testify by the defense in this case. The expert attorney should have explained why, under the circumstances of this case, it made no sense that anyone would have been advised or anyone would believe that this witness was key to the case.  Usually witnesses in controlled buy cases don't testify because the agent monitors the transaction the entire time and because of the recordings.

But most importantly, an expert  was needed to educate the jury that: (1) that he was not a necessary witness; (2) that there was nothing illegal in disclosing the name of a witness to an attorney, friends or family; and (3) that asking about a witness (as Paul Bergrin did) to non-client is part of a normal criminal defense attorney's job and duty to investigate.  Any attorney worth his salt would have tried to ascertain the identity of the witness and investigated his credibility.

The jury needs a context from which to conclude that this was not a client directing a lackey do-what-you're-told attorney to relay the name as some part of criminal conspiracy.

And here, the facts prove there was every reason to investigate and why such an investigation is necessary to defend in the case.  If the defense had known about the witness' manipulation of the evidence and lies to the agent during that same time period, they would have challenged the drug evidence and filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence. If that had happened, the case, the drug charges, would have been dismissed.

The jury was never even told that there was nothing illegal about disclosing a CI's identity and investigating them. The jury cannot be presumed to know that there was nothing illegal about this. Making them understand this was key to having them give a balanced view of the facts of the case.  They needed to understand that there was no nefarious intent by the client or attorney.

Yet another fact that the jury was never informed of during trial is that long before the government moved to have Paul Bergrin removed as William Baskerville’s attorney in the drug case, Mr. Baskerville consulted with an attorney named Marcia Shein in the Atlanta, Georgia area. Ms. Shein was going to take the case and even went so far as to contact Paul Bergrin and inform him that she would be first chair and he would be second chair. After receiving Ms. Shein’s phone call, Paul Bergrin promised William Baskerville that he would actively pursue his defense, and he subsequently filed a motion of vindictive prosecution in the case. 

Mr. Baskerville reached out to Ms. Shein because Paul Bergrin had been doing nothing at all on the case. Had William Baskerville chosen to have Marcia Shein represent him in the drug case, there never could have been a murder conspiracy case for him or for Paul Bergrin.  

On March 2, 2004, Kemo was shot dead on a Newark street in broad daylight. The government admits that Kemo setup 17 people besides William Baskerville for federal agents. We have no idea how many people Kemo setup in state cases as there was no information on this turned over in discovery.

A Theory is Born 

The government's theory of the conspiracy case initially was that on the day William Baskerville was arrested, (Nov. 25, 2003), Mr. Baskerville and his attorney (Paul Bergrin) were both informed that he was facing life in prison. Based upon this lie, they claimed he initiated this alleged conspiracy by informing Paul Bergrin of the name of the informant in the case and told him to pass this information off to “his crew” through his cousin (Hakeem Curry) to find the informant and get rid of him or else Mr. Baskerville would spend the rest of life in jail.

The evidence that the government used to prove this theory was a slew of jailhouse witnesses / informants consisting of testimony from Anthony Young, Eric Dock, Troy Bell, Ramaine York, Richard Hosten, and Eddie Williams. This was the only evidence that the government could gather together to prove their alleged theory.

The conspiracy hinged primarily on the false hearsay and speculative testimony of Anthony Young, because through his testimony the government made the ridiculous connection between William Baskerville the other alleged co-conspirators.

The Jailhouse Snitches

A list of jailhouse snitches were presented as witnesses in trial to connect the dots in the government's absurd murder conspiracy theory.  

While housed at the Hudson County jail in 2004, Eric Dock, after reading a newspaper article, informed Troy Bell of the information in the article and then commissioned his assistance in plotting the story that Mr. Baskerville was telling both of them that he had people out there looking for the informant in his case to have him killed. The two of them created what they called "The Log" of alleged conversations between the two of them William Baskerville. Both Troy Bell and Eric Dock are career criminals. Troy Bell was actually committed to a mental hospital and said he would “hear voices talking to him”.

Another jailhouse informant, Ramaine York, who was also housed with William Baskerville at the Hudson County jail in 2004, contacted the government and falsely alleged that Mr. Baskerville told him that he had someone out looking for the informant in his case.

Kemo had also setup Richard Hosten and both were in the Marshal's lock up on the day that William Baskerville was arrested as they were arraigned together. Hosten would later claim that he asked Mr. Baskerville if Kemo informed on him and the response was that yes, he did. When both were transferred to the Hudson County jail, Hosten would later claim that Mr. Baskerville made a call from the phone in the holding cell they were in and he overheard him tell the other party on the phone that he was “in jail behind an f’ing bum”  (McCray). In fact, the telephone in the holding cell did not work as it was not allowed for inmate use.

The final jailed informant, Eddie Williams, who was William Baskerville’s cellmate in Hudson in 2004, falsely alleged that Mr. Baskerville informed him when government agents came to see him, he told them that he didn't have anything to do with the McCray murder, but then admitted to him that he had him killed. No such conversation ever took place.

Who Killed Kemo?

Before Assistant US Attorney John Gay and FBI SA Shawn Manson Brokos were involved in the murder investigation there were several persons of interest, and one likely candidate. What we do know for sure is that Anthony Young was not the shooter. The Newark PD homicide detective was on the correct trail, but the investigation and all notes and reports were turned over to AUSA Gay and FBI SA Shawn Manson Brokos. We know that for fact as a Newark PD report recently surfaced. 

There were numerous witnesses willing to testify that Anthony Young's account was a lie; however, Mr. Baskerville’s trial attorneys would not call any of these witnesses in his defense. Rashidah Tarver did testify in Paul Bergrin's trials and she was Young's girlfriend at the time of the shooting. Each person Young claimed was at the nonexistent Avon Street meeting was willing to testify.

William Baskerville’s trial attorneys (Herman and Kayser) refused to put him on the stand. Mr. Baskerville wrote US District Judge Pisano a letter concerning this major conflict. Both attorneys considered the life sentence a major victory, which is only understandable if they considered their client guilty. Indeed, if Mr. Baskerville was guilty of conspiracy to murder Kemo, life instead of death would be a victory. However, these attorneys neglected to even bother with an actual investigation in this case. 

We know from Bergrin's 2013 trial that Ben Hohn tried to testify via video conference from the Four Seasons in Kingston, Jamaica, but the court claimed a technology failure. Mr. Hohn would have testified that Anthony Young went to his auto body shop in the Fall of 2004, with the intention of getting assistance to melt a gun. Mr. Hohn was 100 % sure that the visit was in the Fall, not in March of 2004. Bergrin's defense submitted a sworn affidavit from Ben Hohn. Young claimed to visit Mr. Hohn’s shop within a couple of days of the March 2, 2004 murder for this purpose.

For the record, Anthony Young's so-called life sentence for being the shooter was over a couple of years ago. Young definitely planned to be free and in witness protection long before that day though, as Rashidah Tarver  (former girlfriend) and two other witnesses who were both discovered long after William Baskerville’s trial could testify to today. I am aware of the witness names and have copies of statements from both, but am unable to state the names publicly. 

There was another witness to the shooting - Stacy Webb Williams - but he died 10 years ago. 

The only living eyewitness to Kemo's murder that I am aware of, other than the perp and the driver waiting for the perp, is Johnny Davis. Kemo actually had two stepfathers, and back in 2004, they looked a lot alike. Mr. Davis was with Kemo when he was killed. Kemo's other stepfather, Christopher Spruill, was at the street memorial a few days later and was threatened by the perp, who thought he was Johnny Davis when he pulled a gun on him.

IThis is excerpts from an earlier post on this blog describing the shooter. Keep in mind that Anthony Young is light skinned and was bald at the time of the shooting:

Eyewitness to Murder 

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?

In Conclusion

Consider this post on behalf of William Baskerville my appeal to US District Judge Peter Sheridan. You see, Judge Sheridan has Mr. Baskerville’s 2255 in front of him now as Judge Pisano retired from the position to go into private practice some time ago.

US District Judge Peter Sheridan has the opportunity to right a wrong, or rather a grave injustice. He will be ruling on William Baskerville’s 2255 on September 6, 2016, and I want him and everyone involved in the ruling to understand how very important it is. At best Mr. Baskerville should have his sentence vacated and walk free. If the government actually believes its own allegations in this case, then there should be a new trial. At the least, William Baskerville must be allowed an evidentiary hearing. 

You see, I have come to know Mr. Baskerville over the last several years. During Paul Bergrin's first trial in 2011 on the Kemo murder conspiracy in front of the Honorable US District Judge William Martini, I wondered why the government didn't call William Baskerville to testify if the events they claimed actually happened. I only recently found out that the government did attempt to make a deal with him in exchange for testimony against Paul Bergrin, but he refused to lie on the stand for them. I believe that the offer on the table was for 20 years, which would have given him a release date in the not-too-distant future. Still, Mr. Baskerville was not willing to lie.

I have assisted Mr. Baskerville with gathering information, trial transcripts, and documents for several years now and I am 100 % positive that he was never involved in any murder conspiracy. Please consider this post a plea for justice.

There will be a Part 2 to this post around the middle of September 2016.

If you would prefer to read this lengthy post in PDF:

The William Baskerville Case: Where is the Evidence

Career Criminal Rondre Kelly Strikes Again

Shortly before Paul Bergrin's second trial, Rondre Kelly was sentenced to 14 years for his heroin trafficking case in Pittsburgh. Kelly received one more of those 'get out of jail free' passes apparently via motions filed by the government after he testified (or rather testilied) against Paul Bergrin in February of 2013.

According to this article published in December of 2014, we know he was free at that time:

Forks Township man chases girlfriend with knife, says jail worth it for 'dismantling' her face, police report

So here is a government witness that was given extensive time off across numerous jurisdictions (NY and PA) over his heroin and cocaine trafficking that began decades earlier and was never charged at all with his drug trafficking in New Jersey in thanks for his "cooperation" against Paul Bergrin.

Rondre Kelly, career criminal, was facing numerous (4) charges in the attack on his girlfriend (Kyaysha Weatherington) of four months and thinks that jail time was worth it. Well, he only thinks that because he knows he can get off with a minor sentence or no jail time at all by dialing his contact in the Newark US Attorney's Office. Rondre Kelly is a friend to the US government and the US DOJ loves him.

Will this career criminal walk on charges AGAIN? When I call this idiot a career criminal, I mean it. The jury in Bergrin's second trial actually believed this POS! Don't just believe me on his life of crime, read his testimony in the trial transcripts as it is fed to him by prosecutors in this case:

BERGRIN 13 2_07_13 - Rondre Kelly testimony on Direct begins on page 2854 and concludes for the day on page 2914.

BERGRIN 14 02_11_13 - Rondre Kelly testimony on Direct begins again on page 2968. Paul Bergrin's Cross-Examination of Rondre Kelly begins on page 3037.


In answer to my own question above, yes, Rondre Kelly walked again! For the attack on his girlfriend he received 12 months probation. What a bad joke the US criminal justice system really is. No wonder all of these crimes are "worth it" to Kelly! Read the docket sheets and the summary and see for yourself:

Rondre Kelly Docket

Rondre Kelly Docket 2

Rondre Kelly Court Summary


I couldn't even make this crap up. His ex-girlfriend should be filing a civil suit. Oh, and thanks so much to the jury for believing this career criminal. May he one day move next door to anyone that had the audacity to give him one of his many free passes.

For the record, if not for an attempt to post an extremely hateful comment on this blog by a person claiming to be Rondre Kelly's brother, no one would have bothered to look at this career criminal again. After a thorough reread of the above-linked trial transcripts, I realized that the brother would be one Floyd Kelly, also a career criminal given free passes for Rondre Kelly's testimony against Paul Bergrin and other defendants along the way. So, thanks for bringing this matter to our attention Floyd.

And Floyd, you may want to actually read these trial transcripts because brother Rondre didn't enter into a real estate transaction to buy your mom a house, at least not according to his own testimony. Of course your comment was not published as it violated my comment rules.

To the people of Pennsylvania: Good luck; you're going to need it with Rondre Kelly stalking the streets.
 

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.