blog description

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

Monday, November 28, 2011

In Support of Paul Bergrin

This post is to call your attention to the plight of high-profile defense attorney and former Assistant US Attorney Paul Bergrin of New Jersey. Paul Bergrin is a former military officer that represented one of the soldiers prosecuted in Abu Ghraib (Javal Davis) and Corey Clagett in the Operation Iron Triangle case in Iraq pro bono as he fought to hold Bush administration officials accountable for authorizing torture and violating the Geneva Conventions.

Paul Bergrin was fighting for Corey Clagett against all odds when he was himself arrested in 2007 on a slew of false felony charges in what was clearly a vendetta and a successful attempt to elicit guilty pleas from defendants and suppress further testimony in the Operation Iron Triangle case. By 2009, federal prosecutors added a lengthy list of outrageous counts against Bergrin, including murder conspiracy charges, and he has been awaiting trial in federal court in New Jersey since. The first trial on several severed counts resulted in a hung jury and mistrial on November 23, 2011. The judge stated at that time that the next trial, on 31 counts, would begin on January 4, 2012.

Paul Bergrin needs your support in the form of publicity. Please do not allow the federal government to quietly bury this zealous defense attorney that supported and represented US military soldiers against the Bush administration. The mainstream media is not reporting the truth about the cases against Paul Bergrin or the serious lack of evidence in these false allegations.

To find out more about how you can organize and help Paul Bergrin, please contact Creative Spirits of the State of New Jersey, a grass root organization founded in 1979, at 973-551-4235. Please visit the organization's website, to learn more about Paul Bergrin's courageous defense of US soldiers prosecuted overseas and his current predicament. Please do feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have regarding this extremely urgent matter.

Help us to make sure that the world is watching!

Monday, November 21, 2011

The Paul Bergrin Trial: Egregious Prosecutorial Misconduct

We have watched it before in high profile cases and as we sit on the sideline discussing the Paul Bergrin trial, it is omnipresent once again. In fact, for Bergrin, the egregious misconduct by prosecutors has continued since at least 2009, with no relief in sight. How many trials will this zealous defender of the persecuted be required to contend with himself?

The first trial is over, but may indeed be repeated as jurors have already announced to Judge Martini that they are deadlocked. How much fucking money will prosecutors spend to have it their way? Is there no end to the deep pockets of the Department of Justice? Oh wait – it is all taxpayer money so there's an endless supply available.

It is apparent to me that the jury in Paul Bergrin's trial has jurors that think like I do and want to see actual evidence if they're going to send a man to prison for life and jurors that just believe what a prosecutor says just because the prosecutor is supposed to represent the people and would never lie. Prosecutors are not supposed to seek convictions like notches on a belt; they are supposed to seek truth and justice.

Is a parade of convicted felon witnesses seeking reduced sentences in their own criminal cases seeking truth and justice? How about an FBI agent that threw the informant down a proverbial drain when she didn't help him before he was murdered on a Newark street? There are a few inconsistencies in testimony that tell me there is no way that the prosecutors in the Bergrin trial are not aware that their witnesses are lying on the stand.

I originally believed that the jury would find Paul “not guilty” on both counts quickly, but after a couple of days I realized that there is at least one of those types that blindly believe the statements of anyone claiming to represent the people and the government in a courtroom. These types do not even feel that a trial is necessary as after all, he was indicted and isn't that evidence enough?

Who needs trials and juries when everyone arrested and indicted must be guilty?

Isn't a random convicted felon serving a 10 or 20 year sentence that allegedly spent a few minutes discussing an informant with Baskerville in jail a few years ago a good witness? Do you really believe that Baskerville was so stupid as to discuss some intention to kill an informant with a cellmate? What does the cellmate have to gain by testifying? Years off his sentence.

And what of Paul's ex-girlfriend Yolanda “Jezebel” Jauregui that had a heated romance with drug trafficker Alejandro Castro – a man that she admitted to helping with his drug operation? What possible reason could Jauregui have to lie? She used Paul until there was no more to use and now she needs to weasel her way out of a 15 to 20 year prison sentence because she needs to “stop the lies” and “see her daughter”. It is clear that her daughter was far from the first thought on her mind for years. She was a busy little bee for sure.

But that Anthony Young – now he was a serious piece of work. This guy actually confessed to murdering Kemo Deshawn McCray on a Newark street even though the only witness, Kemo's stepfather, described a shooter with dreadlocks when Young had a shaved head at the time. He doesn't even bother to pretend he wore a wig and we are simply supposed to believe that the only real witness can't tell the difference between bald and dreadlocks. It's not enough that the agent in charge of handling Kemo refused to help him – now prosecutors must paint his stepfather as an unbelievable idiot when he was actually the only witness.

So why would Anthony Young confess to a murder that he didn't commit? Well, it was a lengthy story in the trial, but apparently he read a book that described what prosecutors and agents will accept in a witness and what they won't. They'll accept him if he was the shooter as long as the murder was ordered by someone else – enter Paul. We can suppose that Anthony Young is in witness protection now – he met the criteria.

A so-called witness can still be in a prison, but they're in under an alias. There's all sorts of benefits available to this type of witness, including a major reduction in sentences. I know (or rather knew) someone that was in federal prison under an alias. He tried to set me up, but thanks to a cop's advice I thought before I acted. It was nothing mysterious and something most people wouldn't think about twice and I didn't either, until the nice cop made a clear statement. Today he's free and clear and informing on an unknown number of people in South Florida, but before he decided to work with the feds he had a slew of charges, including importing cocaine (federal) and kidnapping with a weapon, conspiracy to commit murder etc... from the state. Now he has a clear record and only had to spend less than 10 years in prison for all of his crimes (state and federal). He testified against the Colombians to get it all though. Risky business indeed.

Sometimes I think about the many people that he helped lock away for life. As far as informant witnesses go, he was as dirty as they get, with the exception of Sammy Gravano. So why do federal prosecutors befriend and help such criminal witnesses? Because they're more than willing to lie on the stand and help a prosecutor create a career from dirt. The prosecutors in the Bergrin trials will be forever remembered favorably in their career field of choice if they get the convictions. This one could be eying the Attorney General position in his future.

The so-called evidence that we have witnessed in this trial is nothing more than a charade, a farce, and a criminal fraud perpetrated against the people and Paul Begrin. What can we possibly expect in the next trial? Truth and justice? LOL

On another note, I started a blog for Paul Bergrin and in the future intend to post all related posts on that blog. I have invited a couple of people to contribute and ideally I imagine 4 to 10 people contributing posts on a regular basis in relation to Paul Bergrin's next trial. I haven't decorated the blog yet and decided it would be 100% ad-free, but if you (the reader) have an interest in contributing, please do contact me. There will be no off-topic posts on that blog – it will be all about the next trial. If you are serious about participation, I will give you admin access so you can also design and change the blog. More on this soon...

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Paul Bergrin's Closing Argument: Truth and Justice

While the Sammy Gravanos of the world enjoy first class witness protection, the Kemo Deshawn McCrays are shot dead on the street. Was Kemo far less important to his handlers than Sammy was to his? Does the level of protection correlate to the level of information offered by the witness?

Kemo did make many controlled drug buys for his FBI handler, Shawn Brokos. His work as an informant was so important that it successfully dismantled what prosecutors have repeatedly referred to as a “violent Newark gang” and placed William Baskerville in prison for life. Was Kemo not deserving of actual protection? He was denied entry to the Federal Witness Security Program according to trial testimony. Think about that for a moment.

The same people that denied Kemo protection for his risky work on their behalf seek to place Paul Bergrin in prison for life over the allegation of mentioning his name.

The same people that denied Kemo protection resulting in his murder on a Newark street offered a parade of convicted felons that traded testimony for relief in their own cases as witnesses against Paul Bergrin.

The same people that denied Kemo protection intend to reduce the prison sentence, yet again, of his confessed killer. Do they secretly know that Anthony Young was not the killer as they offer his perjured testimony for the jury or are they just kicking Kemo one more time?

Kemo has been dead for many years now and the same people are still kicking him, but now they make absurd attempts to blame his death on Paul Bergrin. How is that for truth and justice? Doesn't exactly make one want to run out and become the next informant for them, does it?

This case will soon be with the jury if it isn't already at this moment. I will be seriously and thoroughly shocked if Paul Bergrin is not acquitted on all counts. Is there still some semblance of truth and justice in the United States?

More soon...

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

The Case Against Paul Bergrin is a Charade

I must imagine that Judge Martini and the jurors expected to see actual evidence as they sat through a trial that has already lasted close to a month. They must be truly disappointed and feel that federal prosecutors have wasted their time. I know that I view it as time for Paul Bergrin to file a motion for acquittal as soon as prosecutors conclude their case, which could be today or tomorrow.

Prosecutors grabbed attention worldwide utilizing tools familiar to many, including me. They used the media to create a public charade and turn public opinion on Bergrin. They counted on the fact that perception often overrides actual evidence and influences jurors. The reality here is that there is no evidence that Bergrin is guilty of the crimes which he is on trial for.

Today the prosecutors have Thomas Moran, convicted felon seeking leniency, claiming a conversation with Paul as they walked through the Essex County jail one day so long ago. According to Moran, Paul Bergrin admitted to giving Baskerville's associates the name of the informant that was gunned down on a Newark street several months later. I seriously doubt everything that Moran says.

First of all, Baskerville doesn't sound like a stupid man to me. I have little doubt that he could figure out who the informant was in the case against him. It was a drug case and there were large drug sales to the informant (Kemo) and all it takes to figure out whodunnit is to know the amount of drugs involved in each sale and the approximate dates of each sale. Even without that, Baskerville most likely already had an idea. Most drug traffickers realize when they may have made a mistake.

This entire trial is a parade of convicted felons saying anything that seems to fit with the ultimate goal of knocking years off their own sentences. It is a charade care of federal prosecutors – far from the first time it's been done, and certainly not the last. This charade has included career criminals, jailhouse snitches, a mistress involved in drug trafficking with a lover, convicted felons that Paul gave a chance in life and allowed to work in his office, and anyone willing to tell a fictional tale of a non-existent conversation. What it does not include is any evidence at all.

If I were judge or jury, I'd feel scammed.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Paul Bergrin Trial: Week 3 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 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)