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

No Time for Justice

The jury selection process went quick for Paul Bergrin.

Paul Bergrin's court allowed less than three days for jury selection in an extremely complex case. George Zimmerman's court has allowed nine days and a jury was finally sworn in at the conclusion of the ninth day. The Zimmerman case is simple in comparison and with much less evidence admitted and many fewer testifying witnesses. There is also only one count charged.

Everything about the Bergrin trial was rushed and the defendant stifled in his questioning of witnesses to the point that he anticipated being told to hurry, hurry, hurry with each witness. If you have read the transcripts from this trial, then you're aware of how rushed Paul Bergrin was at every turn.

What you do not know is that after the slow trip from Newark back to Brooklyn every day, Bergrin was often left sitting in the vehicle for some time. By the time he made it back to his bed to sleep, he would have 4-5 hours at most before he had to do it all over again. Of course Bergrin was his own defense counsel to add to his limitations. How much time do you believe he had to prepare for the next day in court?

I have no clue how anyone else is, but if I do not have 8 hours sleep, I'm not all there. If I have 4 hours sleep, I'm almost non-functioning. You may recall the one juror that spoke to the news after the trial (Tad Hershorn). He described Bergrin in the last paragraph:

Juror in Bergrin trial talks about verdict and a case he'll never forget

Now if you read the first 22 pages of the first day trial transcript, it's clear how USDJ Dennis Cavanaugh ran jury selection. Mr. Hershorn tried to get off of the jury and even brought a doctor's letter to the court, but the judge refused him:

BERGRIN 1 01_22_13 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

In Florida there are only six jurors unless it is a capital case, which the Zimmerman trial is not. There are twelve in a capital case. There are twelve jurors in a federal trial. The number of alternate jurors would be at the judge's discretion and is dependent on various factors. In the Zimmerman trial there will be four alternates and in Bergrin's trial there were six.

Before 3pm on day three of jury selection in Bergrin's trial there were 18 jurors sworn in. Read the trial minutes for 7, 8, and 9 January 2013, for an understanding of what took place in those three short days in preparation for this complex trial with so many witnesses testifying for the government:

Bergrin Trial Minutes 7 January 2013

Bergrin Trial Minutes 8 January 2013

Bergrin Trial Minutes 9 January 2013

Judge 'no time for justice' Cavanaugh was more concerned with rolling the docket. He is retiring this year. He could not care less. 

The Blind and Unbridled Ambition of a Narcissistic FBI Agent

KEMO’S CHOICE: If you don’t become a Government informant, I will arrest your mother.  
   
No exaggeration. That was how Kemo DeShawn McCray came to be a confidential informant.   
   
To say Special Agent Shawn Brokos was “ambitious” in recruiting Kemo to work as a CI doesn’t quite cut it. Just before Brokos recruited McCray, she was coming off the high of basking in the heavenly glory of formal commendations for her successful investigation into street gangs. 
   
Seemingly starved for more recognition, Brokos set her sight on new opportunities for advancement. Her unbridled and narcissistic ambition led her straight into the home Kemo shared with his mother. 
   
In her testimony in the U.S. v. William Baskerville case, Brokos shamelessly described how she schemed, manipulated, lied and forced Kemo into the dangerous life of being an informant. But don’t take my word for it. Here are her own words straight from her testimony in the Baskerville case:

…I had worked with a long-time informant by the name of …and…he suggested to me on several occasions that…Kemo McCray might be very useful to use because he has some very good inside knowledge as to this set of Crips we’re looking at…[we] spoke at length about Kemo helping us out in this investigation.  In the midst of these discussions, we weren’t sure how to approach it, …called me and said Kemo is hiding a gun in …apartment.  That very day I got some agents...went to the apartment…the gun was exactly where … said it would be. 
   
…Initially, Kemo denied that the gun was his and (his mother) tried to say that the gun was hers.  So we went through several different interviews trying to ascertain whose gun this was, knowing full well it was Kemo’s…Kemo actually ran out the back door and…we could not find him.…I spoke to (Kemo’s mother) … and told her that if Kemo does not come forward, we’re going to have to charge her because she was saying the gun was hers and we knew it wasn’t…

…we (actually) weren’t certain whether or not we could charge this as anything because it wasn’t a federal crime…it was a very weak case…
   
…So I explained (to Kemo’s mother to) tell Kemo we just want to talk to him about this gun and see if he’ll come in…convince Kemo to do the right thing. 
   
…She brought him to our office, we sat down with Kemo…He said he would like to help himself out…He admitted the gun was his and from that day forward we began our working relationship…and…he started his work with us…(and we told him) we would do everything we could to protect his safety.

 A “working relationship.” Really? I am not sure I would call it a working relationship. She threatens to file criminal charges against his mother, charges she knows there is no legal basis to file and then tells a jury that Kemo said he “would like to help himself out.” Does that make you want to vomit or what?  
   
I wonder if Kemo’s family knew the federal government never had any intention of charging Kemo and that Brokos was flat out lying to manipulate Kemo into being an informant.
   
In his first six months on the job, Kemo bought drugs from about 15 gang members. All of them were arrested. Like most confidential informants, Kemo never had to testify in the prosecution of these individuals. Hence the term “confidential informant” (as opposed to confidential witness) their identity is almost never revealed in drug cases. Usually cases are dismissed before a prosecutor will disclose who a CI is. This is such common knowledge that it makes the claim Paul Bergrin made the statement “no Kemo, no case” completely moronic. But hey, John Q. Jurors bought it, so who am I to say?
   
After Kemo scored big for Brokos in just six months, Brokos didn’t even let the poor kid rest. She was worse than Kathy Lee Gifford with her slave-driving child labor sweatshops.  
   
In January of 2003, Kemo began buying drugs from William Baskerville while wearing a body wire. All of these buys were surveilled by the FBI and recorded by video or audio. There were at least 35 tapes capturing Baskerville selling drugs to Kemo.
   
Forgetting the promise to protect Kemo and showing her gross incompetency and total disregard for Kemo’s’ safety, Brokos had Kemo buy drugs in smaller quantities than what Baskerville regularly sold. Big mistake and one that would cost Kemo his life.
   
Second big mistake. Brokos was impatient. Kemo didn’t have a phone one day, but a buy would have to be made. So instead of getting the kid a new phone, she gave Kemo her fellow agent and boyfriend’s cellphone number to leave for a dealer to call him back on. I am sure the dealer was just a little concerned when the phone he expects Kemo to answer goes into a voicemail greeting, “This is Agent so and so of the FBI…”
   
Can you imagine the conversation between Kemo and Brokos when that faux pas is discovered... Oops! OMG Kemo. Sorry about that. Oh well! No biggy. Don’t worry about it. You’re going to be toast soon anyway. In the meantime, do me a big one would ya? Let’s get out there and squeeze in a few more buys so I can get me some more of them good ol’ commendations. Thanks a mill’!

And that brings us to November 25, 2003, the day the FBI arrested William Baskerville. The arrest complaint might as well have had Kemo’s name in neon flashing lights. With one read, Baskerville immediately knew it was Kemo who had set him up. He knew it because the quantities Baskerville sold Kemo were so little. Big mistake Brokos. Big. 
   
Baskerville tells his attorney who the CI is as any reasonable drug dealer who was just arrested would do. And the attorney who happened to be Baskerville’s attorney, as we all now know, was Paul Bergrin.
   
After court, Bergrin called Baskerville’s cousin Hakeem Curry and told him, “Will said the guy’s name was K-Mo.” That’s the big recording??? That’s the act that set into motion the execution of a federal witness. Really? No wonder they didn’t charge Bergrin when they indicted Baskerville in 2005. They needed to throw in a whole bunch of other accusations they could find over a ten year period to throw them to the wall at once to see if they would stick like spaghetti. Tragically, it worked.
   
Getting back to Kemo, while Baskerville is being set up, Kemo began using the money Brokos was giving him to use and deal drugs on his own. At some point after Brokos found out, she fired Kemo as an informant. This convenient firing of Kemo for being a drug using drug dealer just happened to occur after Baskerville’s arrest and after word was out on the streets that Kemo was working for the feds. 
   
After being hunted on the streets for a few months, Kemo pleaded with Brokos for protection. Brokos must have given him a, “Yeah, I’ll get right on that as soon as I am done dusting off my medals.” At the Baskerville trial, she claimed some nonsense as having gotten tied up in red tape and unable to get Kemo into protective custody quickly enough. Why she did not just arrest Kemo for his drug dealing and keep him safe is beyond me. Wasn’t he such a necessary witness???
   
But maybe it wasn’t the red tape. Maybe it was that Brokos didn’t need Kemo anymore. They had 35 tapes. Why did they need a witness when they had 35 Tapes of Baskerville making drug deals? 
   
Instead of taking Kemo into safety as Brokos promised Kemo --- as she looked into the eyes of Kemo’s mother and promised -- she let him be hunted on the streets like an animal. After three months, that hunt came to an end. On March 2, 2004, Kemo was executed on the street by a black male with shoulder length dreadlocks. 
   
Here’s the horrific truth folks: This ruthless agent threw Kemo to the wolves because he was no use to her anymore. He lost his credibility. There would be no more commendations that Kemo could help Brokos earn. He was dispensable. He had served her purpose and she could not be bothered.     

Brokos’ dispensability of Kemo reminds of that famous quote from Arthur Miller in Death of a Salesman. “A man is not an orange. You can't eat the fruit and throw the peel away.”
   
Someone needs to tell Brokos that CIs are not orange peels that can be thrown away when they are of no use to her anymore.

One wonders how she sleeps at night. Probably doesn’t lose a wink. Cops like Brokos don’t care if they get people killed in their quest to wear a few more medals on their chest. When they get caught, they blame someone else. They use people like Paul Bergrin as a scapegoat to hide their despicable conduct. Thank God, the majority of law enforcement agents and prosecutors really do work to protect society from the bad guys out there. 

Regardless of whatever is written about Paul Bergrin, history will be a much harsher judge of Shawn Brokos. It’s the Shawn Brokos’ of the world people in every part of the globe worry about. These people will stop at nothing to win at any cost and abuse their power. And they make the good guys who deserve to wear the white hats look really, really bad.


NOTE: It should be obvious to anyone that's read much of anything I have written and/or knows me that I did not write this post. The party that did is anonymous to anyone except me. Why should it be obvious? I sure do not believe that any of the government people involved in any of these cases wears a white hat or are the good guys in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, I have exactly zero trust for anyone in law enforcement in this country. The US system is a sham. Additionally, I do not believe that William Baskerville was ever a danger to Kemo or anyone else. There is solid evidence that he was wrongfully convicted on everything related to the Kemo Deshawn McCray murder.

The Stephens Certification

The Stephens certification is also referred to as an affidavit and a declaration in various documents in this case. Louis F. Stephens was Paul Bergrin's private investigator in this case and the certification included defense witness statements and referred to each witness as DW-1, DW-2, DW-3 etc... and not by actual names. Of course the reason for listing the defense witnesses this way was a real fear of government retaliation against the witnesses.

In my last post, I stated that the Stephens certification was not filed in camera by the defense. I must correct that statement as it was indeed filed in camera. The certification was filed by Mr. Lustberg, the defense stand-by counsel; however, Paul Bergrin did not intend for it to be filed in camera.

Think about it for a minute. Why would the defense want this certification with witness statements concerning outrageous government misconduct filed under seal?

It will eventually be unsealed in the appeals. By that time, the leverage with it is lost. I honestly don't know what legal basis exists for it to have been sealed in the first place. I could see if it was filed ex parte for the court's eyes only for purposes of ruling on the motion so as not to give away the defense work product to the government, but the affidavit was given to the government the day it was filed.

The sealing didn't protect the defense; it hurt the defense. The result was disclosure of the defense's work product while keeping the government from being exposed for conduct that was not just outrageous and unethical but illegal and which mirrored much of the conduct the government accused Paul Bergrin of. The allegations in the affidavit offered the court a preview of what the defense's witnesses would have offered in a hearing.

I am surprised that none of the journalists following the case and trial raised hell about why the affidavit was allowed to be kept under seal. Isn't the public entitled to know the truth? Isn't the public entitled to have an opinion as to whether Judge Cavanaugh did the right thing when he ruled the way he did, denying the defense an opportunity to bring witnesses in front of the court about whether the prosecution was tainted? Where is the transparency?

Scroll to page 11 of the opinion and see the heading entitled, B. Bergrin's Motion to Convene a Hearing on Prosecutorial Misconduct:

Bergrin Order and Opinion 19 September 2012

For a better understanding of the specific content of the Stephens certification, scroll to page 31 and read through page 37 under the heading, III. The court should hold a hearing on the government's misconduct in this matter to determine whether the charges should be dismissed or other sanctions imposed:

Bergrin Omnibus Motion Defense 21 August 2012

In so far as Mr. Lustberg filing this certification in camera is concerned, I must imagine that there was prior discussion with prosecutors and this was their request or demand. At any rate, there is no reason for the certification to be sealed today.

The court should have granted a hearing to see if the government engages in its own acts of witness tampering, encouraging - not just suborning - perjury, and obstructing justice. Instead, when it was presented with very serious allegations rising to the level of criminal acts, the court closed its eyes. In doing so, the court shirked its duty to ensure that a fraud was not perpetuated on the court and on the jury. I guess justice really is blind. Willfully blind in this case.

 

Ends of Justice: Seeking karmaiab

The comments that are the topic of this post were made by someone using the alias of "karmaiab" on three different New Jersey newspaper articles. The comments were just discovered this month (May 2013). The comments raise questions that there is proof of an actual vindictive prosecution and a tainted indictment based on coerced statements.

Where in the world is karmaiab? Who in the world is it?

She was watching this story since 2009. She was rather anti-Paul Bergrin in 2009. Then she seems to have changed her tune in 2011. It seems like she really doesn't like Yolanda Jauregui's family. We don't know who Ramon Jimenez's ex-girlfriend is. We now know based on comments blogger she has in-depth knowledge of the family. The comments are exactly as posted on the article.

Look at the second comment in particular. Who would have known this stuff in 2011 to post it? The third and last comment:

She is a lying manipulating bitch. Her whole family is a bunch of criminals... and getting deals from the prosecution to lie. The worst thing is that Shawn Brocos of the FBI is the one initiating it all. She has a personal vendetta against Paul Bergrin and wants to save face in court. She will do whatever is needed to railroad him.....

October 24, 2011, 12:32:36 PM EDT

The second comment:

Not only is RAMON Jiminez related to his ex-girlfriend, but her FATHER was arrested in connection to multiple kilos of cocaine.... directly linked to this case. The FBI, specifically agent Shawn Brocos, has evidence that Yolanda orchestrated a scheme to forge documents, including falsifying birth records, adoption papers etc for 2 children in her families custody that are not related. Shawn Brocos PERSONALLY helped the biological mother get DNA testing, and verified she was n where near NJ when docs were forged. (Yolanda even signed the mothers name incorrectly spelled) Shawn Brocos lied and promised to return the children to the mother, BUT....instead used all of it against Yolanda Jauregui to get her to testify against Paul Bergrin. The FBI agent seems to have a personal vendetta against Paul Bergrin and will stop at nothing to railroad him. I wish someone would bring the TRUTH out in court

October 24, 2011, 10:49:22 AM EDT

The first comment:

If people knew the whole truth about this man and his girlfriend, and the things they have done, no one would defend them.... very soon you will be hearing more about them, and I hope they both rot in hell

July 9, 2009, 2:13:47 AM EDT

The Stephens certification

Does the Stephens affidavit offered any corroborating facts that Special Agent Shawn Brokos had dealings with the mother as those described by the blogger? The Stephens certification (also referred to as affidavit) is all about outrageous government misconduct. Even I am unable to read it as the court sealed it at the request of the government. It was not filed in camera and the defense wants the information released to the public.

Some of the information in "karmaiab's" comments in reference to the adoption became known to the defense in 2012 and then was brought to the court's attention in the September 2012 motion. While the contents of the affidavit are not yet publicly available, the existence of the affidavit is public knowledge.

The judge did not grant the motion to have a hearing on outrageous government conduct despite more egregious offers of proof than what is relayed herein. If these comments are true, and we have reason to believe they are, the second superseding indictment is tainted because it is based upon Yolanda Jauregui's lies, which were coerced. When she no longer was a cooperating witness they found others to lie and stand in and testify to support these statements in the indictment. They needed proof so they wouldn't come up empty handed. That is what we believe happened. Eugene Braswell was never a CW (confidential witness) until after the second superseding indictment. Why did they need him to make their case? Where were they coming up short?

We need your help karmaiab

If you are the person that posted on the NJ newspaper articles using the name "karmaiab" please contact me as soon as possible and I will put you in touch with a defense investigator. You may leave me a message at 407-584-7869 and we will contact you. Leave a message with enough information so that I know it is you or someone with real information to offer. Leave the telephone number including the area code that you can be reached at.


EDIT on 1 June 2013 @5:45pm: 

After reading various documents and having numerous discussions, I realize that the Stephens certification was indeed filed in camera by Paul Bergrin's stand-by counsel, Mr. Lustberg. Paul Bergrin did not want it filed under seal as the defense has no reason whatsoever to hide statements concerning outrageous government misconduct from journalists or the public.

 

Getting to Know Paul Bergrin

I haven't deserted this blog or Paul Bergrin and have spent more time behind the scenes of this case than I did previously. I won't tell you a lie - the verdicts were extremely distressing to me. I still cry when I think about it, so I avoid doing so at times. I have spent more time getting to know Paul and understanding his interactions with people and beyond that, my health is poor and I'm limited in time as a result.

Paul's post trial motion was filed on the 16th of May (an omnibus motion) and he awaits word from the court at this point. You can read the hefty brief here: Bergrin Omnibus Motion 16 May 2013

I will tell you that there is information that the government has hidden in this case, but I imagine that you already guessed that much. With a case like this, the dirt is bound to come out in the wash eventually - we knew it would - and some of it is worse than I thought it could be. I hate secrets and I hate the fact that I can't just spill it here and now, but it is what it is.

If you have arrived at this blog after searching for information on any specific government witness, perhaps not even knowing the party was a witness, this is an appeal to you. We need more information about some of these sleazy government witnesses / criminal informants involved in this case. Contact me and I will put you in touch with the right person.

Paul Bergrin was never a stuffy corporate lawyer and many of you may not be able to identify with him because of that fact. An article that I read online some time ago described Paul as "a courtroom brawler" and that's true. He fought for each client he ever had in a court of law if it was at all possible. Sometimes it wasn't possible as the evidence against the particular client was overwhelming and he utilized his knowledge as a former prosecutor and made the best deal possible.

I asked someone with the defense a question about Paul the other day. The question concerned a tape that prosecutors played for the court - a conversation between Paul and Rakim Baskerville, I believe. Sometimes the discovery was so overwhelming that it was easy to mix-up names, but I think the conversation was with Rakim without spending the next week sifting through transcripts to be 100% sure, but it could also be Rakeem or Hakeem Curry that I'm referring to:

Me: He called him "bro". What's up with that?

Defense friend: Paul called everyone "bro". Nothing unusual there.

Me: Really? Paul referred to clients as "bro"?

Defense friend: Yup, that's Paul. That's who he is.

I realized more about Paul Bergrin from that short conversation than I did reading through documents for an entire month. He was a street lawyer. He identified with his clients. He treated his clients as he did his friends. He's the type of man that would give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. He was the type of attorney that the government needed silenced. It was Paul's background that made him what he was in the arena of law.

By now you've already read enough about Paul's background that I do not need to repeat it here except to say that it was how he grew-up, his home life as a child and teen, and his military background that made him the man he is. Paul's one major weakness, in my eyes, is women. He loves all women and trusts that none will do him any harm. That and now he has turned religious on me. Please don't start rambling religious nonsense at me in emails because that would stop me from responding in the future. I respect your right to your religion as long as you don't expect me to listen to it.

So when was the last time that your attorney called you bro? Sometimes I make excuses for attorneys that are really stuffed shirts. I realize that a certain level of distancing from clients is necessary - this case proves that 10x over - but I have always detested attorneys that consider themselves above the rest of us, and I have encountered many over the years.

Shortly after the verdicts in this case, I contacted a certain law office in my area to ask a question for Paul. Paul needed to know how the attorney worded his FOIA requests in the Antonino Lyons case because most of the documents are not available in PACER. Prior to this attempted contact, I had a high opinion of this attorney and his law offices, probably because of the Lyons case more than anything else, but now consider them nothing more than stuffed shirts and need to remove them from my recommended attorneys list on the other blog. A question so simple and he couldn't manage to attach a doc and email it back or even respond. That's the type of attorney that you don't want. He's above us.

Paul Bergrin was the type of attorney that you do want. His courtroom brawling and ability to deal with everyone on their own level and equally without regard to money made him the man he is today; well, minus the weird religious stuff lately. Never change Paul - because it's not you; it is the government with the problem.

We need more attorneys like Paul Bergrin in the arena of law in the US, because, well, it is indeed an arena. Make no mistake - this fight is far from over and this is the gladiatorial combat of our time. My bet is still on Paul.

While Out on Bail

Upon Yolanda Jauregui's arrest on May 20, 2009, she made bail and was released. On May 21, 2009. Her lover Alejandro (Barraza-Castro), his brother Lorenzo, and Yolanda's father were arrested when 53 kilograms of cocaine were delivered to 710 Summer Avenue. Paul Bergrin remained detained from the 20th of May 2009, to date.

Upon Yolanda Jauregui's release and subsequent to Alejandro's arrest, Abdul Williams surrendered to federal authorities and was incarcerated at the Hudson Cty Jail in Kearney, NJ with Alejandro, his brother Lorenzo and Yolanda's father. Yolanda visited Alejandro at the facility. The transaction was arranged on the telephone according to Yolanda. It had to be between the time frame of May 2009 to November 2009, when Yolanda was rearrested after she sold a kilo of cocaine to Maria Corriera.

The defense specifically asked for the recording of the transaction but it was never provided. Yolanda Jauregui informed the FBI that the transaction occurred and never equivocated. She described it in methodical detail of the arrangements and how Abdul Williams's cousin met with her and Castro's brother Pelon and the 7 kilos were placed in the trunk of the cousin's car. There is no way anyone could have copiously described the event without it occurring.

The defense never received the recording and Bergrin pleaded with his investigator to get it. Their position was that Abdul Williams used other peoples PIN numbers to make calls and made hundreds of calls from the jail during this time frame and they did not have the time to review. Williams denied the transaction to the government, denied that he ever gave Yolanda money when they met when she was out on bail and before he surrendered, and denied an intimate relationship with her. Bergrin found out from Yolanda Jauregui's daughter Ashley that Yolanda was sexually involved with Abdul Williams also.

What is of most importance is that Yolanda vehemently denied ever engaging in drug transactions with Paul Bergrin and that Abdul Williams worked for them as a courier and delivered drugs for Bergrin or her to customers and was paid a fee based upon that as Williams claimed. That is why they never called her as she would have disputed the testimony of Abdul Williams, Rondre Kelly, and Eugene Braswell. If Paul Bergrin had called her as a defense witness, she would have invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Paul Bergrin begged on multiple occasions to voluntarily take a polygraph or to have their witnesses be given one and the government refused.

You are going to see a nauseating pattern in this case if you have not already. The cooperating witness who knows that Bergrin is innocent, that the government presented false and perjured testimony, and was told by Yolanda that both Bergrin had no drug dealings with Castro and her, and that Bergrin was aware Oscar was an informant is Maria Corriera.

Maria Corriera sent SA Shawn Brokos an email stating that Paul Bergrin knew that Oscar was an informant. However, because Maria Corriera embezzled $22K of FBI funds, solicited Albert Castro to falsely testify against Bergrin in the first trial, and had open bank credit card and other fraud cases, she would have also invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Paul Bergrin was shit out of luck. The government kept all the cases open of potential witnesses who

would have exculpated him so he could not use them as defense witnesses. Even witnesses whom they knew would never be called such as Alejandro Castro, Alonzo Castro, Jose Jimenez, Yolanda Jauregui, Ramon Jimenez (Yolanda's brother), and all of the people that were allegedly at the Anthony Young / Paul Bergrin street meeting whom they never charged, and so many others like Corriera.

In short, the government AUSAs are definitely aware that they presented a false case to the jury and Judge Cavanaugh. Does that matter? It certainly should and it would, if the goal of this prosecution ever involved truth and justuce. 

Above the Law: Abdul Williams

How can the government permit someone like Abdul Williams who has 15 violent and major felony convictions, is a prime suspect in two murders, dealt 7500 bags of heroin a day in Bradley Court in Newark for years, ran that location with violence and next to a school, and polluted our system with 1000's of kilograms of heroin and 1.5 kilograms of cocaine per week, which in one year amounts to 70 kilograms, and was involved in at least 4 admitted shootings be given any benefit for his fabricated testimony?

Abdul Williams has already been given the benefit of NOT BEING CHARGED WITH ANY HEROIN DISTRIBUTION, only up to 5 kg of cocaine, and none of his murders and shootings. More importantly, while at the Hudson County Jail he set up a 7 kg cocaine transaction that he conducted with his father, cousin, and Yolanda Jauregui about which he perjured himself and denied.

You have to be infuriated that he should be given any benefit and walk the streets again. He has already been given the moon. How can the government call him a truthful cooperating witness when he is completely inconsistent with Yolanda and Ramon Jimenez whom they put on the witness stand and vouched that they were truthful and honest in the first trial?

Yolanda Jauregui completely denies in her FBI statement that Abdul Williams ever delivered cocaine for Paul Bergrin and herself or that he was ever paid by Bergrin or her to make deliveries, which is a main reason that the government never called her to the stand during the second trial.

Abdul Williams is above the law thanks to prosecutors in this case. If Williams gets the 5K1 letter that he expects in exchange for his false testimony, he may be living next door to you under an alias and in the WITSEC program. 

Integrity of Investigation

First I would like to pose the question: Could we even call this an investigation?

This post requires reading of one document and short parts of a transcript for better understanding. Volume 7 of the trial transcripts beginning on page 1386 at line 22 refers to a letter filed by the government on January 29, 2013:

BERGRIN 7 01_30_13 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

Bergrin Trial Govt Letter 29 January 2013

You are hopefully aware that the lead agent in the pursuit of Paul Bergrin is FBI SA Shawn Brokos, also known as Shawn Manson and Shawn Brockus and Shawn Brocos in various documents. SA Brokus interviewed anyone that she could find and everyone on the government's witness list in this case. SA Brokos is the one that gave SA Michael Smith the information that was certified in this indictment and detention request. The other agent took her at her word and did no further investigation as is a common practice at the FBI.

If you would like to refresh your memory on the absurd allegations certified by SA Michael Smith in the government's request for detention in this case, read:

Bergrin Detention Certification

If you need to refresh your memory in reference to the cross-examination of SA Michael Smith, read:

Cross Exam of Agent Smith (begins on page 15 with special attention to pages 23-26, 29, 31-32, 44-47, 55-58, )

So now you are aware of the allegations made by SA Shawn Brokos via SA Michael Smith that resulted in Paul Bergrin being held without bail in this case as a so-called flight risk.

Now I ask you...

1. Were any overseas (notably in Japan or the Dominican Republic or really anywhere for that matter) assets that belonged to Paul Bergrin ever identified in this case? Hell no.

Now see page 75 of this cross-examination lines 4-11.

Now I ask you...

2. Have any passports in other names ever been identified or located by anyone involved in this case? The one passport that Paul Bergrin had was in his own name and in the possession of the US government. So where are these other 4 passports that he was accused of holding by SA Brokos? They DO NOT exist!

Now take a look at the testimony of Johnny Davis in Volume 7, beginning on page 1401. The part relevant to this next question begins on page 1424 line 2 through page 1449, the end of the government's direct examination. Mr. Davis describes the man that he saw tucking a gun in his waistband immediately after his stepson Kemo Deshawn McCray fell to the ground on page 1425 lines 23-25 and again on page 1431 lines2-4 and yet again on page 1432 lines 5-6.

Now I ask you...

3. Did Johnny Davis, the only actual witness to his son's murder, describe a light-skinned and bald Anthony Young? Hell no - he described someone dark-skinned and with shoulder-length dreadlocks!

Now look at Paul Bergrin's cross-examination of Johnny Davis that begin on page 1450. On pages 1450-1452, Bergrin makes it clear that both SA Brokos and prosecutors met with Mr. Davis and they were all clear on the description that he gave of the shooter of his stepson Kemo. Mr. Davis again describes Kemo's killer beginning on page 1466 line 10.

Read the cross examination in its entirety and you will know that the one witness to Kemo's murder was treated like a criminal by detectives involved in this case prior to the feds taking it over. Once SA Brokos entered the case, as Kemo was her informant, she went with detectives from Newark P.D. to Mr. Davis's home and treated him like he was a criminal. He describes the scene as the detectives looking around and searching his home, while Brokos spoke to his daughter on pages 1471-1472.

On page 1477 of Volume 7, Mr. Davis again makes his description of Kemo's shooter clear as a sunny day. He never pretended to be able to identify a photo of the shooter as he did not see his facial features, but was positive that the shooter was a heavy-set, dark-skinned, man with shoulder-length dreadlocks. Anthony Young was light-skinned and bald at the time of the shooting.

This is by far not the only evidence submitted by the defense in this case that the Anthony Young story was entirely false, but it is enough to make my point at the moment. When I get to defense witness testimony, the rest of the evidence will be discussed.

Now I ask you...

4. Could we actually call this an investigation?

5. Does what you've read here give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about SA Brokos, her investigative skills, and her integrity?

Enough said for now. While I have no clue about her integrity in her personal life or in her other investigations, she has totally failed in this major prosecution. She lost me way back in the detention certification. So why is it that the prosecutors in this trial hold her in such high regard? That is a question that you will be asking yourself before the last post on this blog is posted.

Velez Family Inclusion

If there are any counts that definitely do not belong in this indictment and trial, they are the counts related to the Velez family. I recall reading a newspaper article online during the early part of the trial that stated Marilu Carmona Bruno (Norberto Velez's former wife) was stabbed 28 times and must imagine that the information came direct from an AUSA's mouth. The testimony of Dr. Patrick Hinfey reveals that much.

Dr. Hinfey's testimony begins on page 647 in Volume 3:

BERGRIN 3 01_24_13 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

While I will be the first to agree that Marilu did not deserve to be stabbed, according to the testimony of Mr. Velez and Dr. Hinfey, it did not happen as she described it. I also feel that she victimized her daughter, Carolyn Velez. Carolyn was 9-10 years old when this happened and she was called to testify in her father's defense. The wild allegations against Paul Bergrin over his representation of Norberto Velez in the attempted murder case and then the tampering with a witness case are right out of the twilight zone.

For AUSA John Gay to repeatedly state that Bergrin "brainwashed" Carolyn Velez at the time of her father's trial is beyond the limit of prosecutor misconduct. Of course I would have thought the jurors could see through this farce of a presentation, but as we are all aware, they did not.

In so far as I am aware, only a psychiatrist could actually determine to any extent if a person had been brainwashed. We do not hear the AUSA mention any psychiatrist or offer any explanation as to how he made this wild determination. In fact, the AUSA has offered an expert opinion on a topic that he clearly knows nothing about, which violates the rules of evidence.

I have already stated my thoughts in earlier blog posts on this completely irrelevant inclusion in this indictment, but that was before we heard from Mr. Velez, called as a defense witness in this trial. You will find Norberto Velez's testimony in Volume 30, beginning on page 7949:

BERGRIN 30 03_07_13 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

Mr. Velez clearly states that Paul Bergrin had minimal contact with his daughter Carolyn while he was awaiting trial as there was a restraining order in place - the man had supervised visitation, so let's not pretend that he frequently brought his daughter to Bergrin's office. His testimony describes much more in relation to what really happened on the day of the stabbing and the relationship between Yolanda Jauregui and Alejandro Barraza-Castro.

On cross-examination, AUSA Minish treats Mr. Velez like a third-class citizen, accusing him of attempting to murder his former wife, one of the charges that he was acquitted on in trial, and belittles him throughout. I find it ironic that AUSA Minish has no respect for the system that he works in. Mr. Velez was found not guilty on the charges by a jury and his daughter's testimony in his trial had little to do with that as she was not a witness to the incident.

This situation that the government includes as "witness tampering" in this trial should never have been included. There is not the minimum standard of proof that it ever happened.

Sadly, the last time Norberto Velez saw his daughter was back in 2001. If anyone "brainwashed" Carolyn Velez, it was her mother, Marilu Carmona Bruno.


UPDATE on 10 April 2013 @4:15pm EST:

It's important to read Paul Bergrin's cross-examination of Carolyn Velez. The part relevant here is in Volume 6 and begins on page 1099 at the top:

BERGRIN 6 01_29_13 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

Carolyn Velez clearly states that Paul Bergrin never asked her to lie or coerced her in any way in the video that she made for Essex County prosecutors after her father's trial and acquittal. Overall she is extremely hostile towards Bergrin and for no real reason whatsoever. She claims to have lied in trial testimony, she claims to have told the truth in the video after the trial, and claims to tell the truth in testimony in this trial, but it took Bergrin an inordinate amount of time to drag the truth out of her; so much so that Bergrin is repeatedly admonished by Judge Cavanaugh for not hurrying through his cross examination.

Carolyn Velez also states much the opposite on direct questioning by the AUSA, and consistently uses the term "your lies" when responding to Bergrin on cross prior to him revealing the truth. She has been coached to despise Paul Bergrin - that much is clear to me - even though he did not instruct her to lie or coerce her in any way, shape, or form. This is one angry young woman, but her anger is misdirected at Paul Bergrin. I do not even believe what she says about her father and feel that she is repeating what other family members have told her to say.
 

Government Out of Control

When a case such as this one is allowed to proceed to begin with, one must question those in authority at every level of government. Paul Bergrin was a criminal defense attorney, a guardian of the gate, the one that stood between freedom and incarceration for the many that sought his assistance in War on Drugs cases more often than not. He defended soldiers fooled into joining the farcical War on Terror only to have it slammed in their faces when they followed orders from a much higher authority, and he did it pro bono. He defended your brothers and your sisters no matter what the accusations entailed.

For prosecutors to claim that there was no benefit paid or gain promised to the testifying criminal informants is an insult to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. It's a play on words at the least and certainly intended to deceive the unaware. While major time off of a long prison sentence was probably not promised, it was definitely alluded to. There are few absolutes in this world, but if the government prosecutors developed a reputation of not assisting the criminal informants in exchange for testimony, there would be none to testilie. Of course each had something to gain - freedom holds a much greater value than money, and then some were paid in $cash too.

Blame the faux War on Drugs

If not for the seriously long prison sentences in this War on Drugs in the US, there would not be criminal informants. It's a scam cooked-up by so-called academics, government actors, and government workers and representatives a long time ago. It keeps the lot of them in money and feeds the system of incarceration in the US. Why do so many Americans accept this today? I admit that I do not understand, but then I was not born and raised here. From the age of 16 onward, I was driving or taking the train to Amsterdam to party at the Melkweg with friends. Few nations dole out sentences as draconian as we do here over drugs and I would not want to live in any that do.

When a person involved in the sale of drugs is threatened with 20 or 30 years in a cage, that person is likely to say anything at all to get a reduction of time. Our drug laws are set-up to incarcerate for what remains of a person's life for such offenses, unless that party agrees to play, of course. As much as I am disgusted by the lies told on the stand by a lengthy list of criminal informants in this case, I also am hard-pressed to find fault with most because I am acutely aware of the decision each faced.

The criminal informants in this case did not create the system that oppresses each. While the participating government workers also did not create this system of injustice that incarcerates so many over drugs, each is complicit in its existence from the lowly participating agent or prison guard to the POTUS that refuses to enact real change by abolishing mandatory minimums and promoting real change of drug sentencing ranges, or even ending the War on Drugs in its entirety.

Kafkaesque origins

The system that creates these criminal informants and places each in a situation in which the only choice is decades in a failing prison system or turning over other Drug War victims is indeed Kafkaesque in its origins. For that matter, this case against Paul Bergrin certainly involves a disorienting complexity - ask any one of the jurors.

No matter which choice the Drug War defendant makes, he will suffer for it. Choose to be an informant when threatened with decades in a cage as Kemo Deshawn McCray did and someone(s) somewhere will want you dead. Choose to tell the story that the government demands and live in fear and suffer mentally for your participation for the rest of your life. Choose the cage and languish year after year in a planned system of enslavement wherein solitary confinement at some point is a given and torture is more than a mere possibility. There is no winning choice in this game.

Of course this is all on the backs of the US taxpayer and with his permission. It wouldn't be possible if everyone denounced it. While Oscar the criminal informant collects $4K for his testimony immediately after testifying, the slave wage workers and the poor will never see that amount of money altogether in a lifetime, unless the lottery or some other anomaly comes to fruition, of course. As I sit here with $200 to my name, I could testify to that. Participating in the entrepreneurial system we are supposed to live by is also out for me, the acquitted, yet forever tracked, defendant. What some of us wouldn't give for that $4K today, indeed.

And then there are the Vincent Esteves defendants of the system. Oscar offended him by dropping only $20K towards his defense costs. Do realize who paid that $20K for the Esteves commissary tab and defense costs: you, the American taxpayer. Do realize who foots the daily bills accrued in this War on Drugs with its many, many criminal informants that live on the edge.

I encourage you to read Paul Bergrin's summation. It begins on page 8586 in Volume 34 of the trial transcripts. I do intend to discuss various points that he made as soon as I am able.

The First Mistake

The counts in this prosecution of Paul Bergrin should never have been thrown together to begin with. In an early post on this blog, I thought it could still work and I'm not sure if that was my attempt at being positive or my over-confidence in the ability of jurors to process the information throughout the trial and follow the judge's directions when deliberating.

Clearly, severing the counts as Judge Martini chose to do was the only fair way to try Bergrin. I realized this during the trial, after reading a comment made by an attorney based in the Newark area on an online newspaper article. The comment referenced a belief that Bergrin is guilty based on the volume of evidence - he stated that there was just such a volume of evidence that guilt was obvious. Of course I argued that point because volume will never equal substance and quality.

Ironically, the one juror that was interviewed following the trial referred to the volume of evidence in an interview with a Star-Ledger reporter. This is an exact quote of the juror's statement to the reporter:

"As to how he viewed Bergrin’s guilt, Hershorn said, "I think the accumulation of evidence and witnesses and exhibits and the (prosecutors’) presentation was important … in terms of blending into an overall scope of the story.""

Source: Juror in Bergrin trial talks about verdict and a case he'll never forget

There would have been no "accumulation of evidence and witnesses and exhibits" if the jury had followed the judge's instructions. Innocence or guilt on each of the 23 counts was supposed to be weighed separately per instructions for the specific count.

I knew there was a serious problem when the jury reached verdicts as quickly as they did. I expected the jury to deliberate for a minimum of two weeks. To be honest, I expected a hung jury on most counts and acquittal on the rest. There was one count that I considered it possible for the jury to reach a guilty verdict and that count did not involve the testimony of criminal informants or jailhouse snitches.

Why would I expect deliberations to last a minimum of two weeks? Well, let me break that down for you:

The jurors were at the courthouse for an average of 8 hours a day. An hour each day was spent for a lunch break and then according to statements from the judge, there were early breaks, which I believe to be smoke breaks because of the one jury note referencing a request for one. In general, one cigarette is not going to be sufficient for a smoker all day and I believe there was more than one smoker on this jury.

So, out of that 8 hour day, we can assume that around 2 hours were used for breaks. That leaves 6 hours to discuss the case each day. There was also a wait over the Anthony Young transcript as is discussed by Judge Cavanaugh, Paul Bergrin, and the prosecutors. Yes, they argued over what to purge from the Young testimony (sidebars, rulings, objections etc...) before the Young transcript was handed to the jury.

The jury actually only deliberated for 11 hours or less to determine innocence or guilt on 23 serious counts. That, dear reader, is less than 30 minutes per count. Think about that for a minute and then think about the one juror's statement to the Star-Ledger reporter.

In my opinion, the jury did not even bother to address each specific count. I would have thought discussion of each count would take at least a half of a day and more likely a day or more. I expected this jury to deliberate and discuss Paul Bergrin's fate for 3-4 weeks, but no less than 2 weeks. In the last trial that was only on the one count related to the murder of Kemo Deshawn McCray, the jury deliberated for a couple of weeks and could not reach a unanimous decision.

This jury reached a unanimous decision on each and every count in less than 2 days, or really less than 11 hours. They were in a serious hurry to be finished with this trial. The judge congratulated all of the jurors for their hard work and thanked them at the end of the trial - he should rethink that statement.

If an attorney can view this trial as a volume of evidence instead of broken-down by individual count, it should have been easily predicted that the jury would lump it all together too. This was the first mistake with this trial. I will be discussing some of the other mistakes from my perspective in the next month.

These people (the commenting attorney referenced and the jurors) do not think like I do. I tend to rip everything apart, piece by piece, and consider one part at a time. This is an investigative technique that I learned long ago and then later used in viewing and investigating each witness statement and testimony in my own trial. I consider it to be related to critical thinking skills.


UPDATE on 26 March 2013 @6:30pm:

To refer to the specific jury instruction described in this post, view the jury instructions linked below. The relevant instruction is on page 32 of the document itself, but shows as page 38 on the PDF. The heading is:

SEPARATE CONSIDERATION - SINGLE DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH MULTIPLE OFFENSES

Jury Instructions

Each offense should be considered separately. Really I am being generous with my statement on the minimum deliberation time being two weeks - really generous. How can a jury discuss the count, list the evidence, and discuss the pros and cons of each piece of evidence and each relevant witness testimony, and then come to an educated decision in less than an entire day per count IF following this instruction?

UPDATE on 28 March 2013 @1:15am
 

I have decided that the best way for me to discuss the transcripts on this blog is to address the testimony of government witnesses that I have not already discussed on this blog, link to those previously discussed when necessary, and include defense witnesses that dispute the government's described plots. The racketeering counts are so vague that approaching this count by count would involve repeated discussion of the testimony of a long list of government witnesses.

It is my opinion that the government obscured the counts as related to the witness testimony to purposely confuse jurors. As Hershorn stated, "the accumulation of evidence and witnesses and exhibits" resulted in a mountain of evidence, though the quality of this so-called evidence is severely lacking when closely examined, and especially after reading Paul Bergrin's cross-examinations of each government witness.

It is almost as if the jurors plugged their ears to facts and truth revealed in Bergrin's cross-examinations and the entire production began and ended with the government's direct examinations. I have read through only 6 days of transcripts at this point, yet there are so many examples of clear witness impeachment that it undermines the entire case.

(> _ < )  ( > _ <)  (shaking head!)
 

Bergrin Trial Judge Saved the Day

As stated in a recent post on Paul Bergrin's unexpected transfer to the Essex County jail following the verdicts, U.S. District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh was NOT the one to order Bergrin be sent to Essex County and placed on suicide watch and in protective custody. Judge Cavanaugh sure did undo what vindictive prosecutors arranged though.

Perhaps Judge Cavanaugh is coming around. In a statement made to Jason Grant at the Star-Ledger, Judge Cavanaugh stated “it’s really not over … this guy is fighting for his life; I think it’s fair that he has the chance to do his best”.

Source: Judge orders Paul Bergrin transferred from Essex jail back to Brooklyn federal facility

Mr. Lawrence Lustberg deserves our thanks for all of his hard work throughout this case and certainly for Paul Bergrin's transfer back to MDC Brooklyn in short time. Sometimes it is easy to forget the standby counsel and if I rarely mention Mr. Lustberg, it is only because he is quietly in the background and we have no contact. I do appreciate his letters and tireless work on Bergrin's behalf as do all of Paul Bergrin's supporters.

Have I been too rough on Judge Cavanaugh?

Well, let's not go that far, but it's possible that the judge has seen the light, and the government's case for exactly what it is: a farce built on false statements by witnesses with something to gain. I, for one, hope to see many more fair and impartial orders and rulings from Judge Cavanaugh before this case is over.

Now if only the US Marshal Service would stop dragging its feet with all that is related to Paul Bergrin - Just joking guys; we all know where your orders come from. *smile*

UPDATE on 23 March 2013 @8pm:

As of right now, Paul Bergrin still sits in Essex County jail. I am wondering if the government intends to abide by the court's order to return him to MDC. Will they cause as much time to pass as is possible to prevent Bergrin from having the time he needs to work on his post-trial motions and appeals? What will the excuse / reason be for the delay in his return to MDC? Have they read his notes and gone through all of his legal papers? Will all of his legal notes and papers still be there when he makes it back to MDC, if he does?

There is more going on than meets the eye here - definitely some sort of defense shake-up or clandestine actions by someone that is supposed to be assisting Paul Bergrin. I do not know anymore than that at the moment, but when I do, I will post about it.


UPDATE on 26 March 2013 @6am:

Paul Bergrin is finally back at MDC Brooklyn. They have had 8 days alone with his legal notes and papers, so we shall see if it's all still there.

 

The Dirty Truth

The government failed to call key cooperating witnesses because they completely disputed the ones that testified. For instance Yolanda Jauregui swore that she did a 7 kilogram cocaine deal with Abdul Williams, his father and cousin while Williams was incarcerated at the Hudson Jail and that Paul Bergrin never knew she was dealing with Rondre Kelly and Williams. She would have proven these witnesses as liars and the defense could not call her because she would have asserted her Fifth Amendment right and the Government refused to grant her immunity.

Ramon Jimenez admitted that he never did business with Eugene Braswell and that the Government coerced and threatened him to lie against Paul. They failed to call him and because of the same reasons as Yolanda, the defense could not call him.

The defense had proof that the Government suborned perjury through the Government witness Maria Corriera and that Paul Bergrin is completely innocent of the Kemo murder and any drug dealings but they refuse to grant her immunity and the Judge would not hold the trial open to transport her to New Jersey; after the Government relocated her so she could not be found.

The defense attempted to call Jamal Baskerville and McNeil who gave sworn defense statements that Paul Bergrin is innocent and that there never was a meeting with Anthony Young, nor did Paul ever say the words "No Kemo No Case". But they would not testify at trial because of their drug dealing and fear of prosecution and retaliation by the Government.

Thomas Moran got his father involved in official misconduct for trying to unlawfully influence arresting police officers of him from Monmouth and Hudson County. This was held over his head and that is why he lied so vehemently.

Paul Bergrin pleaded and begged for a polygraph examination from the best examiners in the FBI and to administer the same test to the testifying cooperating witnesses. He pleaded repeatedly, but the government refused. They knew that the cooperating witnesses perjured themselves and this would have proven it.

Most importantly. Paul Bergrin argued in his summation that he knew Vincent Esteves had confessed to drug trafficking, and had incriminated his own flesh and blood; his brother Caesar Cubiero, and had completely given up all his contacts in the United States, Mexico, Colombia and Dominican Republic. He confessed to his entire drug operation including the methods and means of operation, every aspect of how he did business and got the drugs into the Country and even his future plans of operation globally and his Netherland contacts. Esteves swore to this during cross examination by Bergrin and the transcript on page 6127, line 14 to 17 proves this.

UPDATE on 25 March 2013 @9:20pm: Page 6127 is found in BERGRIN 22 02_25_13 (really enlightening reading and proves exactly what is stated herein) (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

If Paul Bergrin knew that Esteves had confessed at the beginning of his defense representation of him, as the transcript reflects, then you know there is no way Paul would intend to do anything with Oscar or Esteves as falsely alleged. That is why AUSA Gay in Paul's summation objected and lied to the jury about Paul knowing this, when the Governmnet knew that Paul did. Also take into consideration the fact that the Judge refused to allow Paul to correct AUSA Gay's lie to the jury and that is what this injustice is all about.

Paul also knew that Oscar could never be believed when he stated that his father was Lord Gino and running the Latin Kings and communicating all orders about what to do from the Supermax facility in Colorado. He said his father had a cell telephone and that he was sent to New Jersey to meet Vinnie's connections (which were non existent). He also claimed to have been sent from the Ochoa's and Herrera's - the largest Cartels. Why would he need Esteves' non existent connections if the Cartels sent him to New Jersey and he claimed to be able to get kilograms of cocaine for $4000?

The whole Chicago hit man case is comical in its entirety and Paul Bergrin is being crucified because he risked his life defending soldiers in Iraq in Abu Ghraib, Objective Iron Triangle, and the Parker case. The Justice Department knows that Paul has information proving the highest levels of the White House, FBI, and CIA committed criminal offenses.

This is the absolute truth about this prosecution.

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.

Unconstitutional Actions

Take a guess where Paul Bergrin is. I will tell you where he isn't first: He isn't in the same cell he's been in at MDC Brooklyn for the last four years. If you do a search on the BOP website "inmate locator" it tells you that Bergrin's status is RELEASED as of the 18th of March, but don't think he has actually been released.

Some vindictive party in the US Attorney's Office in Newark had Paul Bergrin sent to the Essex County jail and put on suicide watch and in protective custody. He is in solitary confinement. His legal papers and other belongings stayed at MDC Brooklyn. It was court-ordered, but Judge Cavanaugh did NOT order it. Paul Bergrin is also not in any way suicidal and just wants to be reunited with his papers so he can get the appeals show on the road.

Additionally, separating Paul Bergrin from his legal papers is in fact a violation of his right to counsel. This has now become a constitutional violation (Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution). Remember - Paul Bergrin is his own counsel.

So who is the asshat in the US Attorney's Office in Newark? Well, any one of the AUSAs could have initiated the action, but Paul Fishman had to know about it. Fishman was all over Paul Bergrin from the minute the verdicts were announced. Realize that Bergrin used to work in that same US Attorney's Office, until he testified on behalf of a friend, and then he was ignored until he left. He has been despised for his testimony ever since.

Imagine the level of vindictiveness it took to put him in solitary. I do not understand how the Court has allowed this to happen. He has been in general population for 4 years and clearly poses no security threat. It's also clear to anyone that has spoken to Paul that he certainly is not suicidal. So is this something they make-up when they really want to screw a person and prevent him from working on his necessary legal paperwork?

He has NOT even been convicted. Yet they are punishing him before sentencing to gloat and exact revenge. The court has just let the venomous reich have a free for all with a man who just (for now) lost the battle of his life while the government pays Anthony Young's commissary tab every month. How warped is that?

If you look-up Paul Bergrin in Essex County Corrections, you will see that the Detainer Information states that it was issued by NJUSM0100. Some knowledgeable person could define that.

I also know that there is a sentencing and time served issue involved. Sentencing law is extremely complicated and a specialty area, though I have attempted to interpret BOP's time calculation guidelines in past. I do recall that not all time served is necessarily time served the way it is calculated and it depends, among other issues, on what type of facility an inmate was held in.

More tricks and abusive games from the champion tricksters at the Newark US Attorney's Office, indeed. However, in this situation, the actions are unconstitutional.


UPDATE on 20 March 2013 @7:45pm: I am adding a link to the letter composed by Paul Bergrin's standby counsel Mr. Lustberg in reference to the current situation. Bergrin is still in the Essex County jail with no access to his legal notes and papers:

Bergrin Trial Defense Letter 20 March 2013
 

Not in My Worst Nightmare

Yes, I realize that I am the one to have said not to knock the jurors no matter what decision they make on any count in this case. To my credit, never in my worst nightmare did I imagine that 12 jurors would believe violent criminals seeking time off their lengthy sentences. Sure, I could imagine one or even ten people buying every word the prosecutors said just because they're prosecutors, but never all twelve.

The only thing these jurors wanted was the Anthony Young transcript. After reviewing it, they made their decision. As if anyone would believe that Young was truthful! I am indignantly angry at the pure stupidity of these 12 gullible people. Either they were all in a major hurry to get out of the long jury duty or they're all just plain gullible.

They bought the uncorroborated testimony of criminal informants and jailhouse snitches hook, line, and sinker. They believed that a nine year-old (Carolyn Velez) could recall specific words of her father's attorney more than an entire decade later at age 21. They believed that Norberto Velez's jury acquitted the man based entirely on the word of a nine year-old that was not a witness anyway.

They believed that Paul Bergrin would stand on a Newark street corner in the not-so-safe part of town and instruct a gang to kill Kemo. They believed that Anthony Young was Kemo's killer even though he was bald and the only witness to the shooting said the killer had dreadlocks. They believed Young even though he lied numorous times on the stand in past and admitted it! They believed a couple of jailhouse snitches that were convicted of fraud and lying under oath in the past.

They believed an informant that claimed to be Lord Gino's son and that was on serious mind-numbing prescription drugs even though the actual tapes were never transcribed by a professional or certified by anyone. They believed that Bergrin believed Oscar the informant was a hitman that claimed to smuggle cellphones for his father into ADX Florence the Supermax prison in Colorado. They believed Oscar, the total idiot that called-in a death threat to the US Attorney's Office against himself, using a female voice and admitted it on the stand two days later.

They believed Richard Pozo, the major drug trafficker that made $20K-$30K a week on his illegal enterprise and then made a deal for a get out of jail free pass in exchange for his testimony against Bergrin. They believed Lachoy Walker, a violent career criminal also given a get out of jail free pass in exchange for his testimony.

They believed prosecutors that did not even call Yolanda Jauregui, Alejandro Barraza-Castro, or Ramon Jimenez to testify all while a judge repeatedly limited a pro se defendant's questioning of the government liars and refused to wait for inept US Marshals to get other defense witnesses to the courtroom. They believe that technology is so lacking in Kingston, Jamaica that a live video conference was not possible.

Wow. Just flippin' wow. Never in my worst nightmare did I imagine 12 people on the same jury being so gullible and stupid to believe every word the prosecutors stated because they're prosecutors. I hope that each of them needs an attorney one day and they're stuck with the likes of Richie Roberts, government pal extraordinaire.

It ain't over by a longshot. So many grounds for appeal in this trial that it's unreal. I decided that I will leave the docs and transcripts up until long after I'm dead so the world can see what these 12 jurors bought hook, line, and sinker. I also intend to post the transcripts from this trial as soon as it is possible.

Verdicts

You do not need me to tell you, I'm sure. Paul Bergrin was found guilty on ALL counts. This is a victory for jailhouse snitches and criminal informants everywhere. It's a free pass for the worst in society to concoct any tale they want with minimal knowledge of a situation and coaching by prosecutors. It's also a victory for pro-prosecution judges like Cavanaugh to abuse a defendant at will.

I admit that I do not understand. I'll post later. Right now I'm going to go throw-up.

The video that is currently playing signifies my viewpoint of the US criminal injustice system. A man was convicted on the word of criminal informants alone - I do not give a rat's ass how many  of them there are. An army of informants is no different than one. What sort of sick system do we have in the US?