blog description

Topics relate to adult business, the War on Drugs, political prosecutions, censorship, and police, prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct

Smiling Faces - The Undisputed Truth

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Paul Bergrin Trial: Week 2 Notes

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 this week to Judge Martini as well. I have my own personal point system and it is not scientific, but more 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.

Week 2 of the Paul Bergrin trial started off with a bang as the jury heard from Paul's former girlfriend, Yolanda Jauregui, who is occasionally referred to as “jezebel” herein. The Urban Dictionary defines “jezebel” as “a girl who is incredibly manipulative and fucks with dudes minds,” and that is also my definition and viewpoint of Yolanda. 

The week ended with a bang as the man referred to as prosecutors' “key witness” testified and Paul exposed the many discrepancies in his testimony. Judge Martini declared a recess until Wednesday, November 2, 2011, probably to decide if he should toss the entire case out.


Week 2 Trial Events and Testimony Recap

The mental picture of a soft-spoken, meek Yolanda Jauregui testifying against Paul doesn't match the description of her that I have heard in past, but then she is the actress and the courtroom is her stage as she works it to gain favor with prosecutors in her own drug trafficking case. Not much unlike working Paul for years.

Jezebel cried crocodile tears to gain sympathy from unsuspecting jurors and when the prosecutor asked her why she was cooperating with the government against Paul Bergrin, “Through tears, she said, “I want it to end, the lies. ... I just wanted to end the lies, the lifestyle I was living in.””

[No problem dear. That lifestyle, care of Paul Bergrin, is over forever. Get used to your new digs in club fed, cause you're going to be there for years to come.]

Source: Jason Grant – The Star Ledger


Jezebel had the audacity to look at Paul with a half smile, sit down on the witness stand, and pour herself a glass of water. She testified that as a 17 year-old she went to Paul's office under false pretenses and flirted with him to get his attention. She played games with frequent phone calls and drop-in visits for years and when she was 25 years old, the relationship turned romantic [i.e. Paul eventually fell for her trap]. A short time later (2002), she became “partners” in the restaurant with Paul.

Ms. Jauregui testified concerning the alleged conversation Paul had with Curry and Claudio in the restaurant back in 2003, admitting that she couldn't hear a word. On cross-examination, Paul pointed out the various inconsistencies between her testimony and her statements to the FBI, and she responded, “They probably misunderstood me wrong, you know?”

“She acknowledged she had an intimate relationship with Alejandro Barraza-Castro, who also pled guilty to drug trafficking in this case, while she was living with Bergrin. Jauregui faces 20 years to life in prison on her charges.”

Source: MaryAnn Spoto – The Star Ledger

[So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye...]


Tuesday and Wednesday would reveal an array of testimony, from a crime scene investigator that changed his report years later to a jailhouse snitch to a career criminal and Kemo's stepfather, Johnnie Davis.

Kemo Deshawn McCray's stepfather, Johnnie Davis, testified and was able to misdirect his anger at Paul Bergrin, though in reality we all know the family blames the FBI for his murder on a Newark street.

“In the year before his murder, McCray had worn a wire for the FBI as he made six crack cocaine purchases from a dealer named William Baskerville.”

Davis had identified someone with dreadlocks as the shooter of his stepson, but prosecutors would be calling a bald Anthony Young to the stand next. Young “confessed,” was convicted in the murder, and would testify to further reduce his 30 year prison sentence.

Source: Peter J. Sampson – The Record

[What happened to Kemo is sad and I feel for his family. Apparently the feds were able to push buttons with Johnnie Davis and misdirect his anger at Paul. The bottom line is that Kemo played in a heavy game, helping the feds set-up major drug traffickers, and they did not protect him. He should have been in WitSec.]


Richard Hosten, another convicted drug dealer seeking favor with prosecutors, testified that major drug trafficker Baskerville discussed his case with him in lock-up. Since few people in such positions are that stupid, or they wouldn't have such a position, and Hosten is another convict looking for a better sentence, I will leave this one. Enough is enough guys, really...

A former client of Bergrin's, Albert Castro, claimed that Paul offered him $10K to kill Kemo and even added that Paul tried to sleep with his 5 ft. 350lb. 21 year-old daughter. Oh well – at least he cut his deal to save his daughter from drug trafficking charges when kilos of coke were seized from her home, though they were probably his kilos.

“Bergrin initially represented Castro after he was arrested in 2008 by the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office on charges of drug trafficking, attempted murder of a police officer, gun possession and planning to rob a restaurant.”

[Alrighty then. One more lying loser. Good grief!]

Source: Peter J. Sampson – The Record


The articles concerning the evolving testimony of a forensic pathologist seem to be missing in action. I recall reading the testimony though, and it changed substantially from his original report.

The next on the stand to testilie would be “confessed” shooter Anthony Young. According to Young, Paul plainly spelled out the directive to kill Kemo to five different people, contradicting earlier testimony by prosecution witnesses. Young actually claimed that Bergrin stated this directive on a Newark street corner to five major drug dealers

According to Young, alleged drug organization leader Hakeem Curry offered $15K to the first one to find and kill Kemo. “Young said he wanted the cash because, although he had $50,000 to $60,000 stashed at his house, he wanted extra funds to finance an upcoming trip to Los Angeles for the NBA All-Star Game.”

[I thought Kemo was killed in early March. The game referenced by Young was on February 15, 2004 – thank you MotoGP in the article Comments section. This is a major conflict with the testimony, but no more so than imagining Bergrin standing on a street corner in Newark with five major drug dealers, directing them to kill Kemo.]

Source: MaryAnn Spoto – The Star Ledger

[MaryAnn – Excellent coverage of the trial! One thing though, concerning the title of this article: You are referring to testimony damaging to the government, right?]


Before Paul Bergrin would get the chance to cross-examine Young, the jury would be removed from the courtroom twice by US District Judge William Martini. The judge is already tired of the government procession of lying convicted felons brought from prison to testify against Paul Bergrin.

[So are we Judge Martini, so are we.]

Source: MaryAnn Spoto – The Star Ledger


Finally we reach the end of the week and the cross-examination of Anthony Young. It's clear that Young was coached by prosecutors, and probably coached for a week. When a “witness” tries to memorize false testimony, well, it's bound to be mixed-up. It was indeed confusing and Paul hammered away at each and every discrepancy. Young denied being coached, though his testimony had changed substantially to fit securely into the prosecutor's description of events. This guy is so used to lying on the stand that he's almost got it down to a science; however, he was no match for Paul.

Source: MaryAnn Spoto – The Star Ledger

[I truly would not be surprised if Judge Martini tossed this abhorrent parade of convicts seeking leniency and obviously malicious prosecution next week.]

There is a recess until Wednesday, November 2, 2011.

POINTS

Paul Bergrin – 11 (accrued – 15)
US District Judge William Martini – 5
feds – 1 (accrued – 1)



Thursday, October 27, 2011

Paul Bergrin Trial: When Prosecutors Lose Focus

US District Judge William Martini has a new admirer: me. Prosecutors are supposed to represent the people and seek truth and justice, but it is all too obvious that Bergrin's prosecutors lost their way long ago, as many have in courts around the US.

We are in week #2 of one of the most watched trials in recent history and US District Judge William Martini is already tired of the government procession of lying convicted felons brought from prison to testify against Paul Bergrin. One can only imagine what Judge Martini would have thought if he had presided over the Nino Lyons trial in the Middle District of Florida with 31 convicted felons transported from prisons to testify (or rather testilie) for prosecutors.

These days prosecutors ignore truth and forget that they're supposed to be representing the people. The one and only goal is to obtain convictions at all costs. According to MaryAnn Spoto with The Star Ledger, Judge Martini has sent the jury out of the courtroom twice so far today to refresh AUSA Joseph Minish's memory as to why he is there: “The process here is to search for the truth.’’


If these prosecutors had ever been searching for truth, there wouldn't be a trial.

Peter Sampson with The Record reported that AUSA Stephen Sanders had the audacity to complain to Judge Martini and actually stated that, “It is the jury’s job to determine who is telling the truth”.


Yes, it is the jury's job to determine truth; however, it is the prosecutor's job to present witnesses that they at least believe to be truthful. With the witness testimony in the Bergrin trial and a list of other cases I have watched, including my own in past, it is clear that these prosecutors are either dumb as doorknobs or knowingly offering-up liars with the hope that the jury is.

It's great to know there are still judges around that believe in truth and justice in the courtroom!


Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Paul Bergrin Trial: Twisting Words and Meaning

At the root of the case against Paul Bergrin is a statement that he allegedly made to associates of client William Baskerville. That statement has been used in the prosecution's opening statement and thrown-in during testimony by government witnesses. Each time the statement is used it is in quotation marks, so I am going to assume that the reporter writing the article is quoting from actual trial testimony.


The varied quotes of the statement

In the prosecutor's opening statement it reads, “No Kemo, no case.”

Source: Jason Grant – The Star Ledger


When Ramon Jimenez testified for the prosecution, his quote of the statement alters the meaning in favor of Paul Bergrin:

“During two hours of testifying for the prosecution, Jimenez also said he overheard Bergrin tell Curry if “there had been no witness, there would have been no case.’’

Source: MaryAnn Spoto – The Star Ledger


During cross-examination of Ramon Jimenez, Paul Bergrin quotes the statement as:

“”On all these meetings (you had) with the government, with your attorney present, isn’t it a fact that you never mentioned that statement you say you heard from me, ‘If there is no witness, there is no case? ' “” Bergrin also establishes that Jimenez never mentioned this statement to the feds until much later, when he found out he was going to be charged with a serious drug crime.

Source: Jason Grant – The Star Ledger


According to the summary of the racketeering count in the actual indictment, the statement is much more involved:


1. Racketeering Act One: In 2003 and 2004, Bergrin, as a partner in PB&V, represented a client with the initials ―W.B.,‖ who was being held on federal drug trafficking charges. W.B. informed Bergrin during a private attorney-client visit that ―K.D.M.‖ was the government's key witness against him. Bergrin relayed that information to W.B.'s drug associates along with his own message that if they killed K.D.M., he could assure that W.B. escaped prison, but if they did not, W.B. would spend the rest of his life in jail. Those associates subsequently murdered K.D.M.

Source: Who is Paul Bergrin? The Feds 39 Count Indictment



11. Thereafter, in a telephone conversation and a face to face meeting, BERGRIN
passed the identity of the informant on to William Baskerville’s drug associates and told them that if they didn't kill “Kemo,” William Baskerville would spend the rest of his life in jail. After BERGRIN discussed how Baskerville’s drug associates were going to pay BERGRIN’s legal fee for his representation of William Baskerville, BERGRIN said that if there was no “Kemo” to testify against William Baskerville, there would be no case against William Baskerville. BERGRIN said that if “Kemo” was dead, that William Baskerville would definitely get out of jail. When BERGRIN left the meeting, he said “remember what I said, no Kemo, no case.”



This simple statement has seriously evolved, depending on who is repeating it

Federal prosecutors took that simple statement related by a convicted drug dealer (Ramon Jimenez) long after it was allegedly stated and twisted it into a murder plot to obtain the indictment, and it worked. DEA Agent Michael Smith made a sworn certification about a murder plot derived from a statement that didn't exist, at least not according to the witness that overheard it, Ramon Jimenez. Prosecutors then repeatedly stated to news reporters and in the opening argument at trial a shortened version: “No Kemo, no case.”

Do you see the serious differences and twists of this statement? This has really bothered me – anyone can take any statement out of context, but this is far more than an out of context statement; it is a complete rewrite of the screenplay.

When Paul Bergrin supposedly had this conversation that Ramon Jimenez overheard, the statement, at least according to Jimenez's testimony was, “if “there had been no witness, there would have been no case.’’

It could easily be interpreted as Paul Bergrin stating a pure fact: This is a case that wouldn't exist, but it does because there is a witness to the act and there isn't anything you can do for your associate. It sure as hell doesn't translate to an order or even an idea to kill, if it was ever stated to begin with.


No motive, no case.


Monday, October 24, 2011

Paul Bergrin Trial: Where's the Outrage?

I am trying to limit my posts on the Paul Bergrin trial to the end of week notes with points for the prevailing party, but every time I look at the news on the case a different thought comes to mind. This one concerns Bergrin's fellow attorneys – a reference to every attorney in this country. Paul Bergrin is a strong defender and a champion attorney that gave anyone he defended a zealous legal defense. Many could learn from him.

I would love to watch this trial and would be there if not for personal issues. I have always been an attorney watcher and Paul Bergrin in a courtroom would be downright exciting to me. He has a commanding presence and when he speaks, everyone is listening and all eyes are focused on him and nothing else.

Consider the idiom: If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

What criminal defense attorney does not, at one point or another, associate with criminals? Paul made the mistake of falling for jezebel, but does he deserve life in prison for it? I read the testimony quoted by the reporters from news covering the trial (excellent coverage by the way) and realize the case for exactly what it is: Criminal defendants and informants willing to say or do anything, including throw their own defender under a bus, to knock time off their sentences.

If you practice criminal defense then you've met at least one just like the members of this group and probably many. Be outraged that a fellow attorney has been indicted and is on trial on the word of these losers!

Thus far the list of government witnesses includes an FBI agent that should be held liable for an informant's death, at least in part, and a bunch of convicted drug traffickers seeking time off for cooperation with the government. How many more drug traffickers will the feds call to the stand? Does it matter? One is no different than the other, so whether 1 or 20 testify, it should result in the same verdict: not guilty on all counts.

In respect to the government witnesses, this trial reminds me of the Nino Lyons trial in Orlando federal court back in 2001. In the Lyons case, federal prosecutors had a parade of criminal “witnesses,” though each resided in prison at the time of testimony – 31 convicted felons in prison testified against Nino Lyons to get time off their own sentences . Somehow the jury bought it, hook, line, and sinker, but the convictions were overturned by U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell and he was eventually exonerated completely in the case. Interested in the Nino Lyons fiasco? Read about the USA Today investigation:


Be outraged about what they are doing to Paul Bergrin and that he is on trial to begin with!


Saturday, October 22, 2011

Paul Bergrin Trial: Week 1 Notes

I have decided to post notes on the Paul Bergrin trial at the conclusion of each trial week. At the end of the post you'll find my assignment of points to the feds and to Paul Bergrin. I have my own personal point system and it is not scientific, but more interpretive and from my perspective and will often be based on belief or disbelief of testimony. Points will accrue as the trial moves forward. Any statement in brackets is mine.

Opening statements:

Federal prosecutor John Gay claimed that Paul Bergrin was a part of a Newark drug ring and disclosed the name of an informant to one of his drug defendant clients. That informant was later gunned down on a Newark street. Gay alleges that Bergrin told the client, “No Kemo, no case,” before Kemo Deshawn McCray was killed and that McCray was a threat to Bergrin due to his involvement in the drug ring.

Paul Bergrin stated in his opening argument that the prosecutor's opening was pure fiction and the case “relied only on convicted felons who would lie and testify against him to get lesser sentences in their own cases”. Paul stated that prosecutors would be presenting testimony that they knew was false. As one might imagine, Paul's opening statement was emotional. It's not easy to sit and listen to repeated serious lies about one's person.

Source: MaryAnn Spoto – The Star Ledger


The Trial Begins 

Kemo Deshawn McCray began his short career as an FBI informant while a member of the Grape Street Crips back in 2002-03 when agents jammed him on a gun charge. He chose to be an informant and in short time was collecting cash for his information. According to the FBI, he was paid a total of $25K for information during this time.

Source: David Porter – Associated Press


Once the opening statements were out of the way, prosecutors called the FBI agent that pursued Paul Bergrin in this case, Special Agent Shawn Brokos. To make a long story short, Brokos was mixed-up on her facts regarding the fatal shooting of Kemo Deshawn McCray. From the getaway car to the pathologist's report and everything in-between, Brokos didn't seem to know what she was talking about.

Source: MaryAnn Spoto – The Star Ledger


During FBI Special Agent Brokos testimony it was revealed that McCray feared for his life and sought help from the FBI; however, was refused as he had lied to agents in a different investigation, telling them that two people were involved in a conspiracy when they didn't even know each other. “He was on his own,” Brokos stated. McCray's family blamed the feds for refusing to protect him.

[The feds murdered Kemo Deshawn McCray when they didn't immediately make an effort to protect him. After all is said and done, he was doing their dirty work.]

Source: MaryAnn Spoto – The Star Ledger


On Thursday Yolanda Jauregui's brother Ramon Jimenez (a convicted drug dealer) testified for the government. Jimenez had worked in Paul Bergrin's law office back in 2002 after serving 10 years of a 23 year sentence in prison. “Under cross-examination by Bergrin, Jimenez conceded he had no place to live and no prospects at the time, and vowed never to do anything that would land him back in prison.”

Of course this was short-lived and soon Ramon Jimenez would be connecting with Bergrin's clients, attempting to set-up major drug deals. Angered when Bergrin cut him off at the pass after discovering his deal to make $25K, Jimenez pursued more of Bergrin's clients trying to set-up even bigger deals. Bergrin easily poked holes in the fictional account of this drug dealer and Jimenez even admitted to lying to FBI agents. Jimenez faces years in prison for a parole violation in the earlier case and 15 years in a federal cocaine trafficking case.

[This idiot repaid Paul Bergrin with this current hell for helping him when he had no job prospects and nowhere to live. I hope he rots.]

Source: Peter J. Sampson – The Record


Jimenez was cross-examined by Paul Bergrin and it was revealed that he was actually facing over 25 years in prison over his drug dealings. Jimenez explained one deal he had arranged with a Bergrin client and on cross-examination, Paul asked, “Never meeting you before, he (Castro) proposed a $500,000 deal with Ramon Jimenez, correct?” and Jimenez responded, ”Correct.”

[Being familiar with the world of drug trafficking I can confidently assert that this is pure fantasy on Jimenez's part. No way that anyone at this level of the drug world would make such an arrangement with a stranger.]

Source: MaryAnn Spoto – The Star Ledger


FBI Special Agent Brokos returned to the stand and cross-examination continued. It is expected that prosecutors will be calling Yolanda Jauregui (Paul's former girlfriend that made a plea deal) to testify next.

POINTS

Paul Bergrin – 4
feds – 0 


Monday, October 10, 2011

More on Jason Itzler and Sumnicht's Death

I have discussed Jason Itzler of New York Confidential fame in the last two posts. For the full picture read both first:



Be clear on my viewpoint here that whoever drugged Julia Sumnicht with GHB (the date rape drug) back in March of 2010, deserves to pay legally for her tragic death. I just do not believe that it was Itzler. I do believe that he was set-up within a few weeks of starting a new business as a result of someone's perception that he drugged this girl, so the end result is that Jason Itzler will pay for her death whether he had anything whatsoever to do with it or not.

I do not like Itzler much as is evident by my last two blog posts. This should give weight to my defense of the guy and I do hope that the Sumnicht family's private investigators take notice of my thoughts. I am sure not his friend, though I do not doubt that he has friends, unlike the party that commented on the one post. I do read people decently and my take is that Itzler was also a victim that could have died that day.

The fact is that Itzler has too many enemies to consider a return to the escort business. He screwed-up royally with that move. The same could be stated about me having too many enemies, except that I stay a far distance from drugs and anyone involved with them so I have less to fear. Still... Regardless, Itzler should never have made a return to the business and by the looks of his situation today, it has cost him the rest of his life.

I just took a look at Itzler's case in the New York State Unified Court System and his bond is currently set at $200K in the list of charges from the “promoting prostitution” case that he was arrested in early September on. He is being represented by Legal Aid and his next appearance is on October 18, 2011.

The Miami Herald published an article on Saturday October 8, 2011:


The noted article states much more than any earlier articles anywhere. Kudos to the reporter, Lomi Kriel, for really digging around before publishing. It is a two page article and once you reach the last half of the second page, you'll see that I am not the only one not ready to throw Itzler under the bus in the case.

I have been drugged in a club before. It happened in June of 1994 in Orlando, but I was lucky as I was with a couple of my cousins that had entered the club before I did and were playing pool. I sat down at the bar and ordered a Heineken bier. The only one that ever touched that bier was the bartender and myself and trust me; I didn't drug myself. I was deathly ill for several days, but thanks to my cousins I made it home. I only drank two Heineken biers that night so it wasn't the alcohol that did it.

According to the article in the Herald, Julia Sumnicht was not drugged in any club and this comes from the timeline given by the medical examiner. The question to consider here is: Who was not drugged that day? Read the article and you'll get my point. Enough said.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Too Many Enemies

A couple of days ago I wrote a post about Jason Itzler's current problem involving Julia Sumnicht's death in Miami in March of 2010, and have decided to expound on the issue: Jason Itzler of NY Confidential Fame: Clown or Killer?

After reading the news release from the New York County District Attorney's Office dated September 9, 2011, I got to thinking about his situation. According to this press release, the big set-up involving a “client” paying for an escort for 3 days and Itzler's alleged sale of $4700 worth of cocaine to this client in two separate visits to the hotel room transpired after he had only been in business for “a few weeks”.

Now I will be the first to tell you that this is unheard of in relation to escort services. Cops simply do not set-up and close a business within “a few weeks” of its opening. Jason Itzler has serious enemies as do many in adult business, but in this situation, I would step out on a limb and state that the evidence gathering by private investigators working for Julia Sumnicht's family and Jason Itzler's September 9, 2011 arrest by the Manhattan D.A. on a list of felony charges are interconnected.

Sumnicht's family believes that Jason Itzler slipped GHB (the date rape drug) into their daughter's drink without her having any idea that this was done. In one article I read that the private investigators could actually prove this. I made it an exercise to list any possible means by which the P.I.s could prove that Itzler slipped GHB into her drink and there is no way that is possible. There is a possibility that his Miami roommate stated this to them, but I consider that doubtful and even then, this wouldn't be proof.

So it looks like the private investigators for the family are spreading rumor and innuendo as fact. From where I stand it also looks like they may be the party that set-up Itzler in relation to his brand new business. I find this disturbing for several reasons.

Jason Itzler has made many enemies over the years because of his incessant rattling to news reporters. I don't like him because of it. Why? Well, he presents himself as being at the high-end of the escort business, and he is in relation to $s he charged for escorts, but then in the same breath he calls himself the “king of all pimps” and I find the term denigrating and a reflection on the business in its entirety. If this high dollar operator calls himself a pimp, what would the general population consider everyone else in the business to be? To me he is a walking conflict: He acts low-end and charges high-end while claiming class.

Still, even though I dislike Itzler, I dislike the thought that renegade adult business haters are quite possibly stalking him for the purpose of set-up even more. The women that worked for him made a lot of money for themselves and did so entirely voluntarily. I do not believe that there was ever any claim that he coerced anyone into anything. The guy just has a big mouth, but reminds me more of mighty mouse than anything else. I do not believe he needs to drug anyone for sex or any other reason. He's a popular guy with lots of friends no matter what I think of him.

Renegade adult business haters come from many backgrounds – I have my own, so I know. My angry followers are religious zealots. They say things like, “I pray to God that her telephones and websites are wiretapped” and “God bless you” all in the same sentence. Newsflash: I have always, as far back as day 1 in the escort business, talked and acted as if my telephones were wiretapped and email was monitored. That is why I was acquitted.

I really do not like the idea that someone other than skilled detectives accountable for their actions have been allowed to play stalk and set-up with Itzler and there is little doubt that this is the situation.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Jason Itzler of NY Confidential Fame: Clown or Killer?

I have never mentioned Jason Itzler on this blog for a couple of reasons. The main reason that I ignore him is that he sought fame as a result of mismanaging the escort business known as New York Confidential for two years (2003-04) and his mismanagement resulted in a plea bargain and prison sentence in 2005. It is so easy to open and operate an escort service the wrong way and end-up in prison so why did he get all of the attention that he demanded?

The secondary reasoning for never discussing him is that I have always considered him a clown. What moron calls himself the “king of pimps” publicly and to news reporters in interviews? Itzler does, or rather did. I find the entire concept absurd and would have renamed him the king of clowns. Beyond that, I have felt for some time that it is entirely possible that Jason Itzler is a confidential informant, though if he is, he sure didn't get a very good deal for whatever information he gave. Hell, this idiot is even the clown of CIs, if he is one.

I am only writing about Itzler now as something that I read yesterday was really disturbing. So that we are on the same level of understanding here, the articles that I found disturbing are:




Jason Itzler was arrested on various charges in relation to a new business in New York, a companion service as he referred to it in court, just a couple of weeks ago (September 9th I believe). There were drug charges included this round and he has been arrested on drug charges in past; smuggling ecstacy to be specific. This time the charges include selling cocaine to this alleged client of his new business. I must imagine that the “client” was a set-up to begin with.

According to the articles noted, Julia Sumnicht's family hired a private investigator that discovered Julia's last hours before she returned to sleep in her own bed were spent with Itzler and his Miami roommate Zoltan Prepszent, a photographer. Dumb as he is, Itzler has already been running his mouth to reporters in NY from jail in relation to this girl's death and the GHB he also ingested, but of course he didn't die, and there was no mention of whether Prepszent took the crap also, or not.

You'd think that after all of his previous arrests and his time in prison, Itzler would have learned to shut the hell up by now. He's so stupid that he apparently doesn't realize he's probably going to be facing a murder or wrongful death arrest in the near future.

So is he a clown or a killer? In my opinion he is a clown and as clueless as Julia Sumnicht was. So who drugged both of them or did they drug themselves? If this girl took the drugs of her own free will and Itzler did not provide them, can Itzler still be charged in her death? After all, we are all responsible for our own lives and behavior.

Beyond that, if the feds intended to use Itzler as a witness in Paul Bergrin's trial, well, he has indeed worn-out his usefulness and tanked his credibility forever.