This is my journal of weekly news and events in the ongoing Paul Bergrin trial. It is a summary of how I read the events and testimony and includes the news source. At the end of the post you'll find my assignment of points to the feds and to Paul Bergrin, and again this week to Judge Martini as well. I have my own personal point system that is interpretive and from my perspective and will most often be based on belief or disbelief of testimony. Points will accrue as the trial moves forward. Any statement in brackets should be attributed to me.
For me it is hard to understand how anyone can believe the testimony of the procession of convicted felons seeking to reduce their own prison sentences in exchange for testimony that helps to convict Paul Bergrin, but that is a reflection of my own experiences. Without going into too much detail here, I will say that listening to testimony that changed significantly from original deposition prior to my arrest to trial testimony was insightful and helped develop my understanding of how prosecutors work a case wherein the defendant must be discredited and viewed with contempt to achieve guilty verdicts.
In my own case, one witness stated in her original deposition that she had never met me, didn't know me, and only spoke with me briefly one time when I called my co-defendant's escort business looking for him and she answered the phone; this was the truth. By the time she plopped her ass on the witness stand during trial, that testimony changed to a claim of many conversations with me, including one in which I begged her to work for me and sex on calls was the topic. She was brought-in the courtroom in shackles, but this was hidden from the jury (they were removed from the courtroom) until she stood-up during testimony in an absurd attempt to make a point. She was incarcerated on some unrelated felony and faced several years in prison and she was working to reduce that sentence.
Another so-called witness testified that she went to an occasional call (once a month or so) during the six months she worked with me, charged additional $s for sex, and her and I never discussed sex when she was deposed; this was the truth. When she testified in trial, that statement abruptly transformed to her going to hundreds of calls in the brief time she worked with me and we discussed sex on calls frequently. Wow! Right?
Now these particular two so-called witnesses were just escorts – one answered my co-defendant's telephones on occasion and the other briefly worked with me. The seriously damaging statements came from other escort service owners as each was threatened with a major felony prosecution. There really was solid evidence against these other escort business owners for actual criminal activities (in one situation it involved credit card theft, forgery, and fraud), but instead of prosecuting any one of them, the MBI and prosecutors suborned their false, perjured testimony in my case.
Consider Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano
Sammy murdered anyone that stepped in his way and that included cops, innocent citizens, and fellow mobsters. Yet Gravano was a witness for federal prosecutors and helped them lock away an unimaginable number of people that committed crimes far less serious than his own. He served only a couple of years for the uncountable number of murders he committed as a result of selling his testimony to the government in exchange for a minor sentence. Being a career criminal, this later backfired on Gravano as he was sentenced to 19 years for his ecstasy trafficking ring and is currently in the Supermax USP in Colorado.
The Gravano story is clear evidence that prosecutors have no concern whatsoever when it comes to how horrific the crimes of informants are. In my own case, state witnesses were guilty of various crimes and escaped prison sentences by selling their false testimony to prosecutors. In the Paul Bergrin trial, the parade of criminal informants/witnesses that sold their testimony to the government are already convicted of crimes and seeking to reduce their own sentences. This is most often referred to as a Rule 35 Motion.
Note that Rule 35 omits the word “truthful”
There is nothing in Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that states a requirement of truthful testimony or substantial assistance based on truth and facts. This is the most abused rule in existence in relation to federal crimes. It is frequently used in the pursuit of select defendants targeted by government prosecutors, for example Paul Bergrin. Paul is an attorney that frequently interacted with criminal defendants in connection to his law practice, so it wasn't too complicated for prosecutors to dig-up 20 people that have met and interacted with him on various occasions in a variety of locations.
When Paul allowed several of these so-called witnesses to work in his law office he must have seen the possibility of redemption and a changed life. In reality, several of them connected with other criminals under his nose and in his offices. Instead of being a positive influence in their lives, he gets this current parade of criminal liars that would say or do absolutely anything to get that sentence reduction under Rule 35. It's easy to say that he should have known better in hindsight. We often learn the hard way when it comes to helping others – I know that I sure did as I recounted the help I gave to several state witnesses in my own trial when I testified.
Do I still walk out on a limb to help people? No, not really, I tend to stay far away from people. I love animals though and have been known to feed the squirrels nuts and talk to the kitty cats around here. I admit to not even bothering to meet any neighbors. People can be dangerous. As stated in past posts, informants are a main reason that I passed on law school. The bottom line is that if no one really knows me or anything much about my life these days, well, no one can offer false testimony as there are no facts to include – facts of time, place, and events are necessary to connect the false testimony, throw in the damaging lies etc.... Yes, I blog... And?
Week 3 of the Paul Bergrin Trial
The trial didn't resume until Wednesday so it was a short and mostly uneventful week. Paul continued his cross-examination of the feds so-called witness and confessed killer of Kemo, Anthony Young. There was additional rehashing of the infamous evolving comment, “no Kemo, no case” that is really about an attorney telling a client that a crime with an actual eyewitness is a viable case.
Young is the one to claim that Paul Bergrin spoke to a group of major drug dealers on a dark Newark street corner and made some far-fetched directive to kill Kemo.
[Isabella's was used as some sort of stash house by Yolanda Jauregui and her drug trafficking relatives and cohorts.]
Source: Peter J. Sampson – The Record
[So now prosecutors have Paul making this estranged statement to drug dealers on a dark street corner and a client in Isabella's. Will they also claim that he shouted it from the rooftops of Newark and how will it evolve if they do?]
Thursday began with Paul continuing the cross-exam of Anthony Young; however, about an hour into it Judge Martini called a recess, excused the jury, and voiced his displeasure with the star witness:
“This man has admitted to lying back and forth all over the place,” the judge said, referring to Young. “Every time he spoke to the FBI, he admitted to lying ... now he’s telling the truth.”
Judge Martini then put prosecutors in their place, having already warned both Gay and Minish privately: “When I rule against you, don’t shake your head,” Martini said. “You don’t like my rulings, sit down and keep a straight face.”
Judge Martini then made the most important declaration of all: ““You brought this indictment against this man, and he’s entitled to a fair trial,” Martini told the prosecutors, referring to Bergrin.”
The cross-examination eventually resumed and as Bergrin was concluding with Anthony Young, the so-called witness admitted that the “entire reason” he came forward, “was to gain his freedom and reduce his time in prison”. Young already received one letter of cooperation from prosecutors in the Baskerville case and is now working on another one.
Source: Peter J. Sampson – The Record
On Friday prosecutors called Abdul Williams to the stand. Williams is a convicted felon that Paul tried to help and was working in the law office for a short time in 2007. According to Williams, Paul confided in him that he feared Baskerville would implicate him. Williams described Paul as “agitated, annoyed, concerned, and flustered” on that day so long ago when he became confidant to Paul.
According to Jason Grant with The Star Ledger, Abdul Williams seemed to enjoy testifying against Paul. Williams often smirked, smiled, mocked and laughed during his testimony and in response to Paul's questions.
[Williams is nothing but a career criminal seeking a reduced sentence for his latest legal turmoil.]
[Recall for a moment the testimony of Yolanda Jauregui. Yolanda claimed that Paul referred to Baskerville as his “brother”. So why in the hell would Paul suddenly have this strange fear that he easily professed to career criminal Williams? This is the root problem with testimony filled with lies – the stories never really mix. Williams wouldn't have any testimony to offer if not for this claim, but prosecutors didn't foresee that it clashed with Yolanda's statement. The testimony from all government witnesses in this case is filled with similar inconsistencies.]
Source: Jason Grant – The Star Ledger
All considered it was another uneventful week in the Paul Bergrin trial as prosecutors presented yet another career criminal seeking a reduced sentence to testify against Paul. The irony of this, at least to me, is that the vendetta against Bergrin is so strong that prosecutors are more than willing to put career criminals and confessed murderers back on the street in exchange for their false testimony. How many more so-called witnesses will later be filing that Rule 35 motion? How many more will be given letters of cooperation in prearranged deals for their state court cases?
Many defenders of the prosecution have mentioned this idiom often: If you lie down with dogs, you end-up with fleas. Clearly this is applicable to the federal prosecutors and their witnesses in this case.
Paul Bergrin – 6 (accrued – 21)
U.S. District Judge William Martini – 5 (accrued – 10)
the feds – 0 (accrued – 1)