Conflict of Interests

The plot thickens regarding Newark attorney Richard Roberts, known to most as Richie Roberts of "American Gangster" fame. Apparently Lemont Love was far from the only former Bergrin client that Roberts adopted for reasons yet to be confirmed. Take note that shortly after Paul Bergrin's arrest, Richie Roberts moved into the same 50 Park Place address, in the Robert Treat building, that was Bergrin's law office address.

Roberts also represented Albert Castro, a government witness in this case that was called during the first trial. For an idea of when and how he represented Castro, read this transcript from the first trial beginning on page 40:

US v Bergrin 10_27_11 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

Albert Castro was a true criminal and this may be a reason that he was not called to the stand in Paul Bergrin's second trial, or it could be related to Richie Roberts, because let's face it: prosecutors have given real criminals 'get out of jail free' cards in this case and have no issue with calling a parade of criminal informant witnesses to the stand to testify.

Other government witnesses in this case that were later represented by Richie Roberts, after Paul Bergrin was arrested, are Rondre Kelly and Abdul Williams. Kelley implicated Albert Castro, so there is no doubt that there were conflicts of interest. Richie Roberts also conferred with Yolanda Jauregui in a jail visit prior to her making a guilty plea in this case. From what I heard, he was soliciting movie rights.

Roberts was most likely the pollinator, like a bee spreading information from one cooperating witness to another. He definitely represented Albert Castro, Abdul Williams, and Rondre Kelley and then suddenly a new attorney would substitute. If you've read my previous posts, you're aware that he briefly represented Lemont Love, immediately after Paul Bergrin was arrested.

Lemont Love ended-up filing a civil suit against Roberts for various issues that add-up to ineffective assistance of counsel. The suit was filed under an incorrect action in federal court and was dismissed, but this is what he did to Love and I do not say 'allegedly' as it was clear to me before I even found the suit information that his representation of Love was a waste:

Love v Richard Roberts 2011

I have heard the term "privileged informant" recently. It is a reference to a confidential informant that is an attorney, clergy, or media-related. There is brief mention of the privileged informant in the FBI Confidential Informant Guidelines, which is a lengthy document that I was reading recently. I still have to learn more on the topic before I could dive into the specifics, but it's worthy of consideration here. Roberts convinced Lemont Love to plead guilty in his own case and the government witnesses noted herein that were represented by him pled guilty shortly after meeting him.

In the Lemont Love Affidavit filed in this case on 10 March 2013, the AUSA (Steven G Sanders) came-off as seriously indignant that Love had the audacity to question anything relating to Richie Roberts. Consider how these same AUSAs have pursued Paul Bergrin, allegedly as a result of accusations, and then wonder why such allegations made about Roberts are so quickly dismissed.

The question that remains is how many other government witnesses in this case have heard from Richard Roberts? He's an an interconnecting factor with too many witnesses already. He also discusses this movie plan too often for it to not be real. Was he after more clients for his law practice or was he pursuing movie rights? He's an old guy and I seriously doubt that he needs the money; he's made a lot of money in his working lifetime. He also fails to do much of anything for these clients when he does sign a contract with them.

Richard Roberts is definitely an interconnecting factor in this case, though precisely what he's up to has yet to be proven. Time will tell. One thing that is clear here is that the man has a variety of conflicting interests. 

In the Land of Make Believe

Prosecutors would like you to believe that Paul Bergrin is worse than anyone he ever defended, from gang members to drug traffickers to informants that claim to be hitmen to Jason Itzler and his group of tax evaders. The truth is that he had the simple belief that everyone deserves a fair trial. Paul Bergrin was one of the best attorneys in the US, and prosecutors anywhere, but especially Newark, are happy he is no longer in criminal defense.

Finding an attorney to fight for you if you are a defendant is no easy task. We live in an era of plea deal resolutions. The system has long been broken and broke and there is no room for trials. Prosecutors expect to try less than 5% of cases that come across their desks. Attorneys are taught to work within the system of compromise - i.e. plea deals - and if they do not, they quickly figure out how truly time-consuming trial preparation is.

Paul Bergrin is not much different in respect to his own time and his own situation. He was offered a deal in relation to the NY Confidential fiasco that allowed him to plea to what is classified as a misdemeanor in the State of New York. He pled to one count of "conspiracy to promote prostitution," a misdemeanor, in that case.

A misdemeanor would not stop him from returning to law following acquittal in this case, though I must imagine that Paul Bergrin has had his fill of criminal defense by now. Returning to law would be almost impossible as he could never actually trust or believe in a client again. A misdemeanor won't stop anyone from doing anything and is almost without consequence.

With a massive and voluminous indictment in front of him, Paul made the choice to get rid of that ridiculous case. Pleading to a misdemeanor does not translate to being guilty of the specifics involved, but any attorney would know that. Perhaps this post is for non-attorneys that manage to find fault with Paul Bergrin because of the misdemeanor plea. Last year I argued with one such person that claimed repeatedly that Paul was a convicted felon. I actually had to look-up the specific charge in New York criminal statutes to prove my point before he would stop calling Paul a felon. Just crazy.

Shortly after my own arrest on first degree felony charges in the State of Florida, I made an offer to plead to any misdemeanor, do up to 6 months in jail, no probation, and be done with the case. I wanted to keep my house and my life. The particular misdemeanor was immaterial to me at the time. My first attorney, that is now a judge, told me that prosecutors laughed at the offer. My response was that we would be going to trial because I'd never plead to a felony. And go to trial I did, but with a new attorney.

My willingness to plead to a random misdemeanor has no relation at all to guilt or innocence. I simply wanted to move on with my life and put a voluminous case behind me. I knew it would be a messy fight. Prosecutors would not hear of it, but I bet if you found the main prosecutor and asked him today, he probably wishes he took my offer. He is currently working as an AUSA, but outside of Florida. A big holler out to John Craft...

To summarize a long story, my prosecutor retired immediately after my trial, didn't do well in the world of criminal defense (go figure), tried to return to the State of Florida's Office of the Statewide Prosecutor, but was turned down flat by then FL AG Charlie Crist in a 2-page letter. I know - I read through his file. Someone fixed him up with an AUSA position in Texas. Good riddance and sorry for the defendants in the Eastern District of Texas.

Few people make guilty pleas to any charge because they're guilty of the specific charge. That's not how the system works. It is all a trade-off, except for the few defendants, such as Paul and myself, that take it to trial. It seems that there is little understanding of this practice in the general population and I do my part to educate, when possible.

I realize that I come on strong against informants, but the truth is that I do not blame any of them in this case or any other case. None created the system they're sucked into and everyone wants to survive and have a life. There is a new movie that will be in theaters on 22 February - Snitch - and it was inspired by real events. Consider seeing it to develop a better understanding of how the system actually works and what US prosecutors and federal agents are truly capable of. You need to know.

UPDATE on 17 August @545am:

Yes, this is the John Craft that prosecuted me:

John Craft Investigated for Racist Remarks