So what happens when the states victim isn't a victim after all?

Great question isn't it?  If the man who the state claims is the victim of identity theft in one of our mortgage fraud stories isn't really a victim and is indeed involved in the commission of the fraud, what happens to the states case?  The foundation of the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud cases rests on one assumption, that Mr. Barrera was the victim of identity theft, without that, the entire case goes out the window.


Let's do a quick summary of what we've found out about Mr. Barrera, the upstanding citizen that the state has us believe is a victim of all kinds of wrongdoing by the defendants...

• Previous history of mortgage fraud.
• Purchases his primary residence which is identical to his next door neighbor who simultaneously purchased the home for $140,000 less than Mr. Barrera did.
• Before he claimed his identity was stolen for the purchase of the Oak Avenue home HAD HIS IDENTITY STOLEN IN ANOTHER FRAUDULENT TRANSACTION where we suspect the people involved cashed out nearly $100,000.
• A purchase contract for the Oak Avenue home with what appears to be Mr. Barrera's real signature.
• Several correspondences between Citi Mortgage and Mr. Barrera regarding the Oak Avenue home purchase before the sale closed.
• Mr. Barrera opens up a corporation with a rather strange name and an address that leads to an empty lot
• Samples of Mr. Barrera's signature that cast doubt on his role as a victim.
• Mr. Barrera sells his primary residence causing Citi Mortgage to incur a nearly $140,000 deficiency as a result of the sale.
• Mr. Barrera suspiciously relocates to Panama.  

So what does this all mean?  If Mr. Barrera had knowledge of the fraud, then the states case falls apart.  If indeed he had knowledge, then he's not a victim of identity theft now is he?  If indeed he is involved then he's definately guilty of being involved in an "Organized Scheme to Defraud" and is certainly guilty of "Grand Theft" now isn't he?  

The question that begs to be asked though, is how the hell did the state ignore all these obvious facts that undermine the credibility of their victim?  We know Detective Baluja is too dumb to understand what was going on, but what about assistant state attorney Bill Kostrzewski?  Why was the prosecutor ignoring the documents that were part of his own file?  Why behave in such a negligent manner?  These are questions only he can answer.  Even now after Mr. Kostrzewski has been taken off the case and replaced with a new prosecutor, why does the state still continue to ignore these pertinent facts?  Fortunately for us, the facts that we've uncovered only need to be heard by a Jury to prove what kind of idiots put this case together. 

If Mr. Barrera isn't a victim, then who is?  We'll discuss tomorrow.