False and Misleading Evidence

A supplement to the defense letter dated 3 July, 2013, was filed on behalf of Paul Bergrin this morning. This is the first document in this case that was not filed by Bergrin's stand-by counsel Mr. Lustberg, and the reason for this is that time is of the essence. Paul Bergrin was found guilty on all counts by a jury deceived by the government; however, he has not been convicted.

An excerpt from the supplemental brief:

It is a sad day for our criminal justice system when the government pathetically and desperately submits a recantation letter such as the one of 3 July, and a letter with the contents contained in the one of 10 July; knowing they contain misleading, atrocious and blatant inaccuracies. Their misguided reliance on the December 4, date as the date of the meeting, proves they wrongfully pursued Bergrin and should not have relied on Young; a witness proven to be unbelievable. It further establishes that their underlying theory of the case and the fact pertaining to an alleged meeting on December 4, was absurd and misguided.

Read the entire brief here:

Bergrin Supplemental Brief 15 July 2013

Note that I have uploaded the brief to a new website that is not yet complete. When the site is finished soon, I will introduce it here.

Government Actors Without Conscience

Someone is angry; that's for sure. The government filed a scathing 3-page letter responding to Paul Bergrin's last defense letter and attached a telephone recording transcript to it dated November 25, 2003 - the date of William Baskerville's arrest. The letter:

Bergrin Trial Govt Letter 10 July 2013

The transcript reveals Bergrin telling Hakeem Curry that Baskerville was facing life and is intended to create doubt about the later recordings that state differently. Obviously, at least to me, Paul Bergrin actually believed that William Baskerville faced life as a result of government paperwork and statements on the day of the arrest and then by December 4, 2003, the date of the other wiretap transcripts posted on this blog, realized that this was not the situation and knew he could deal the case for a 12-13 year sentence.

A read of the government's acrimonious letter would make the unaware believe that they'd uncovered serious evidence contradicting defense statements on the topic of the Curry wiretrap transcripts. Actually, the situation is quite the opposite and the attached transcript reveals the natural progression of a criminal case in the US courts. At first glance, the case looked real bad for Will, but a week later it was just another overzealous US prosecution.

Furthermore, Bergrin certainly did not "cherry-pick" the calls included in the earlier defense letter. The specific call transcripts clearly reveal the progress of the case and that Bergrin clearly told Curry that he could get Will a deal for 12-13 years, nine days after the initial arrest. The calls also reveal that no meeting on a street corner was ever mentioned between Bergrin and Curry as of December 4, 2003.

The government letter also seems to threaten to provide transcripts of all of the 33,000+ suppressible calls. Take note that Paul Bergrin has nothing to hide and welcomes such a move. I do realize that the defense letter dated 3 July 2013, mentioned concern about "opening the door," however, Paul Bergrin did not compose it - perhaps Mr. Lustberg's secretary did. No telling who specifically composed it, but there is no fear of any proof favoring the government's argument in the content of any of these calls.

And how exactly is it that 33,000+ calls are suppressible in the Baskerville and Curry cases anyway? In that I know what the Oscar Cordova recordings went through, I cannot even begin to imagine what agents did to result in all of those calls being suppressed. I mean really - if you read the transcripts of Oscar's trial testimony, you know that most of the exchanges recorded between him and Bergrin were unintelligible and transcribed as U/I.

And then there's the fact that it was SA Shawn Brokos that transcribed all of the Oscar tapes to begin with. There was no real transcription of those recordings as they really are unintelligible for the most part. What happens is you hear a small part of a statement by Bergrin which results in the entire conversation being taken out of context. Even the expert knew there were serious anomalies with the tapes. Yet these recordings were not suppressible.

So what exactly makes 33,000+ recordings suppressible? The government makes statements about sealing being an issue. As if Oscar Cordova's recordings were properly sealed! Once the little creep didn't hand a recording to an agent for nine days, so let's not pretend anything Oscar the criminal informant did was monitored by agents; the situation was much the opposite.

But the worst part of the government's letter is the part that expresses a lack of concern as to the truthfulness of Anthony Young's testimony and justifies it with legal citations. They say that it doesn't matter whether Young's testimony was corroborated or not and his word alone is enough to convict Paul Bergrin. A violent career criminal informant makes a statement intended to assist the government agenda and call recordings reveal that it is a false statement about a street corner meeting that never happened and the government says that this is immaterial. Is this not "victory at all costs"?

Initially, Bergrin refuses to accept that “uncorroborated accomplice testimony may constitutionally provide the exclusive basis for a criminal conviction.” United States v. DeLarosa, 450 F.2d 1057 (3d Cir. 1971). Young testified that Bergrin came to a meeting at Avon Avenue and 17th Street after Thanksgiving in 2003 and effectively instructed the Curry Organization to murder McCray. 9T2249-54. That testimony, if credited by a rational jury, alone suffices to uphold Bergrin’s convictions for the McCray murder. See United States v. Pendleton, 636 F.3d 78, 84 (3d Cir. 2011). Whether other evidence supported or contradicted Young was for the jury to decide.

I thought that the government was supposed to represent the people. According to these government actors, the truth is immaterial. Their courtroom tactics and hand-picked judge sealed Paul Bergrin's fate, or so they believe at the moment. When they managed to get USDJ William Martini recused in this case, the victory was in close reach and all they had to do was fool a naive jury in a hurry.

Of course Paul Bergrin has a response to this scathing letter of misinformation and you'll hear it soon.

Government Reliance on December 4 in Closing

The way that I read each day of the Paul Bergrin trial transcripts was to send them to my Kindle, four at a time. There are a total of 37 volumes from this second trial and it's similar to reading 37 books. I argued to publish the transcripts with the hope that some sharp attorney or law student would discover important inconsistencies in the government's theories - yes, that's plural as they have numerous major theories, all based on the Kemo murder conspiracy, that Judge Cavanaugh allowed them to present as facts to the jury.

You will find that Volume 34 has the government closing presented by AUSA Minish; it has more, but that is as far as I made it before falling asleep. What did I discover?

The extent to which the government's case hinges upon the calls corroborating Anthony Young's claims is clear. It proves the extent to which the government erroneously relied upon the calls and the extent of how that erroneous reliance tainted the proceedings. They specifically cite the November 25 and December 4th calls. It also underscores how improper it was for the government to use the Pozo 404b evidence.

Gee - USDJ William Martini was correct to begin with! Are you surprised? You shouldn't be.

So, the government retraction of the December 4 reliance in the response brief and the false apology for advancing that so-called suggestion in the letter dated 1 July 2013, is the usual spin and straw man crap. The entire presentation by the government to the Court is built on the false testimony of Anthony Young. Really it is mind-numbing when you examine the uncorroborated reliance on Young, a violent career criminal, in this case as well as others.

AUSA Minish repeatedly refers to corroboration of Anthony Young's statements throughout his closing argument; however, none of it is real. In the closing it is claimed as fact, but in the actual testimony it was clearly questionable. I could refer to any specific government claim of corroboration of Young's testimony and easily dispute it.

It's better if you read the entire Volume 34, or at least the government's entire closing argument (pages 8451-8584) to understand the reliance on the recorded calls the jury never hears and Anthony Young's false testimony, but if you're short on time, read pages 8504-8508 in Volume 34:

BERGRIN 34 03_13_13 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

This entire case is mind-boggling. But you'll notice that the reliance on Anthony Young's testimony of the meeting on a street corner that never happened is disseminated throughout the case and has infected the entire prosecution of Paul Bergrin.

Defense Response to December 4 Retraction

If you have read the last several posts on this blog, then you're already aware of the importance of pinning the government to the date of December 4, 2003, as the date Anthony Young claimed the Avon street meeting took place and as they have asserted affirmatively in their last brief. 

The government took 9 years to state a date and previously it was "after Thanksgiving 2003," which is about as vague as they could possibly get. Young did claim in previous testimony that it was 3 or 4 days after Thanksgiving. In yet other statements, the government stated it as after Thanksgiving and before Christmas 2003, so we are crystal clear that it was not in February.

This is what happens when a witness (i.e. violent criminal informant seeking a 'get out of jail free' pass) offers completely false testimony of events that never occurred. They're forever trying desperately to make the date fit the timeline. In this situation, it's the government that is desperate to make the pieces of the puzzle fit together and they have failed miserably.

The government suborned perjury and knowingly presented false testimony. The assertion of the date to make their point in the brief also depicts the fact that they are intentionally deceiving the Court and thwarting the system of justice by attempting to strengthen that date by emphasizing it. They are caught in a web of lies. In their response letter dated 1 July, 2013, there is also mention of a total of 3 calls on December 4th. All 3 calls are transcribed:

Curry Wiretap Transcript

Remaining December 4 Calls Transcribed

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

Bergrin Defense Letter 3 July 2013

How much more will the Court allow the government to get away with? Time will tell. The defense awaits the Court's ruling and only possible resolution to this serious matter. Paul Bergrin was never on Avon Street advising a group of alleged gang members in the dark on any date. As an attorney, Bergrin's idea of fighting for his clients clearly involved zealous argument in a court of law, as it should.

Anthony Young = total fail and it's obvious that Paul Bergrin never conspired with anyone to murder FBI informant Kemo Deshawn McCray. Of course this taints the entire indictment for reasons that should be obvious to you.

And then there are so many questions remaining in relation to these tens of thousands of inadmissible wiretap recordings from the Hakeem Curry case. More on that soon... with documents of course.

Oh and happy Fourth of July --- mentioning freedoms and therefore the United States Constitution (and the Fourth Amendment in this case), if I find out that these whacks have anything to do with my missing snail mail (from business and personal addresses), well, as they're aware, I always loudly denounce injustice and always demand accountability. I learned long ago that there are few actual coincidences in life.

December 4 Now Retracted

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

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

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

Bergrin Trial Govt Letter 1 July 2013

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

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

What the Curry Wiretap Transcript Reveals

The document discussed in this post is the Curry Wiretap Transcript from the telephone call recorded on December 4, 2003, starting at 7:13PM. According to the government, the heavily discussed meeting on Avon Street took place on December the 4th and according to Anthony Young, Paul Bergrin made the statement, "No Kemo, no case," as he addressed a group of men on a street corner in the dark.

You have read several variations of the, "No Kemo, no case" statement in documents and heard Anthony Young testify to this wild allegation during both trials. It never happened. The government was well aware that it never happened and this transcript proves it never happened. It's the non-existent statement from the meeting that never happened. All of Anthony Young's testimony was lies - in this case and in the William Baskerville case, obviously.

The government presented Anthony Young's testimony as truthful to the Court and the jury. Agents repeated this lie to various newspaper reporters to support the government agenda. The numerous variations of this statement have been promoted far and wide with the main purpose of turning public opinion against Paul Bergrin. For the most part, they succeeded and many of you fell for the government lies hook, line, and sinker like the fish that you are to agents and prosecutors.

So what does the transcript reveal?

Hakeem Curry asks Paul Bergrin what amount of time William Baskerville was facing and ultimately, Bergrin responded that with a plea bargain Baskerville faced around 13 years.

Recall that Anthony Young testified that Baskerville faced life and Bergrin advised the group on a street corner that Kemo had to die or Will would never get out.

If there had already been a street meeting (I anticipate the government claiming the meeting was before December 4, 2003), then why would Hakeem Curry ask such a question on the 4th of December? I believe that Curry was looking for a solid estimate of the amount of time William Baskerville faced.

In the recording, Paul Bergrin stated, "I will just do the best I can you know." If that doesn't prove that all Bergrin ever did or intended to do was his job, then what would? Do you hear anything in that sentence that says kill Kemo? Bergrin was an attorney. What do you think attorneys do? They defend clients!

Do you see any sign whatsoever that Hakeem Curry or Paul Bergrin had any plot to kill Kemo?

The recording ended with both stating their goodbyes and Bergrin telling Curry, "ANYWAY. I WILL SPEAK TO YOU TOMORROW. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE OKAY."

Does that sound like Curry and Bergrin drove directly to a meeting on a street corner?

It is unfair to judge Paul Bergrin just because he calls everyone (men anyway) bro. Paul is a friendly guy with a heart of gold and he treated his clients like friends. Don't blame him for being a trusting soul that interacted genuinely with people.

Next: More recordings

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!)