Thursday, February 17, 2011

Breaking down just one minute and twenty nine seconds of a prosecutor bullshitting a judge.


Did you guys pick up on the huge discrepancies and omissions from prosecutor Bill Kostrzewski's explanation of the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud case to Judge Mary Barzee that we discussed yesterday?  Today we'll break down that shameful performance by the prosecutor so we can see just how fucked his testimony to the court was, his words will be in italics while what really happened will appear just below it.  Here we go...
Your honor, on February the nineteenth a closing closed at Ms. Estefano's office.
No dispute there, the paperwork tells the story.
The funds were dispersed that day or the next day.
Uh, really Mr. Kostrzewski?  Take a look at the arrest affidavit that you Detective Baluja wrote and get back to us.  The arrest affidavit clearly states that the funds for this closing were not dispursed until February 22, 2008, three days after the closing occured.
However, the cash to close, the one hundred twenty three thousand and change...the cash to closing, the money that the buyer had to put up, you know, not the down payment but the cash to close that he had to put through the bank was approximately one hundred and twenty three thousand dollars, that was never given.
No kidding?  The cash to close which according to the "veteran economic crimes prosecutor" is not the down payment was never given.  Then what's this check all about?



You remember that check don't you or don't you recognize it?  This would be the copy that you decided not to include as part of your arrest affidavit, remember?  This is the one with your star witnesses handwriting on it, the same witness that later acknowledged that she had processed this check negating the coerced testimony she gave when she was under the threat of being arrested.  Glad we cleared that up.
Funds were dispersed without a down payment. 
Really?  Your cooperating witness Michael Martinez stated that he delivered this check to the closing agents office the same day he obtained it from the bank.  Here's an excerpt from his deposition in case you need to refresh your recollection.


If we are to believe the states cooperating witnesses testimony then the check was delivered on February 21, 2008 which is the same day the check was issued.  In case that date is a problem, let's get a close up of the check to clear up an confusion...



Not exactly the clearest image, without a doubt though the date is clear, February 21, 2008.  According to the arrest affidavit the funds for the closing were not disbursed until February 22, 2008 which is one full day after the "cash to close" was delivered to the closing agent.  Are we crystal clear now?  Good.  Let's move on to the next bit...
Seven days later Mr. Martinez was approached by Mr. Romney, no, Mr. Fonte, the guy that we just arrested your honor, said “hey look, you wanna make ten grand? We need this money, ”  He goes to the, he goes to the bank with his mother and Mr. Fonte, they get this check,
Uh, what?  Forget about the stuttering and the mumbling for a moment and let's think about what the prosecutor is telling the judge.  According to what the prosecutor is saying, funds were disbursed on the 19th or 20th of February 2008 and then seven days later the codefedants that were charged obtained a cashiers check that represented the "cash to close" for the transaction, the same cash to close which the prosecutor just told the judge had "had never been given".  Confused yet?  Let's make it worse, if you follow what the prosecutor is telling the judge, that the cashier check that represented the "cash to close" was obtained seven days after the proceeds of this nefarious scheme were disbursed, logic would dictate that the check would have either been issued on February 27 or February 28, 2008.  Let's take another look at the date the check was issued on...


Huh?  How does any of that make sense?  The only way the codefendants could have obtained this check seven days after the money from the sale of the home was disbursed was if they walked into the Bank of America time machine window and went back almost a full week in time in order to obtain a fucking check dated FEBRUARY 21, 2008!  WTF?  Let's keep moving, again from the prosecutor's testimony before the judge...

they go and they go to Ms. Estefano, Ms. Estefano’s office and Mr. Fonte introduces him to Ms. Estefano, ah according to the statement, “is it a problem, I’m the remitter on this check, I’m not the buyer.”
Now does that sound right to you?  Does that sound like something Mr. Martinez would say or does it sound like a "manufactured statement" created by the prosecutor himself to suit the allegations he's made against the defendants?
She says “that’s not a problem”, takes it and that’s basically it.
Really?  Once again, that sounds like a crock of shit, especially coming from a witness who couldn't identify the person who he claimed to have this conversation with, in his own words...



No kidding?


It was Mr. Martinez's inability to identify the attorney who he supposedly had this conversation with that led up to the infamous "one picture photo line up"...


So what are we left with after listening to a minute and a half of Mr. Kostrzewski mumbling in front of Judge Barzee?  We've proven today that were left with nothing but a minute and a half of a prosecutor intentionally misrepresenting the facts of a case to a judge, after a cursory review of the facts (facts provided by the state no less) we've proven that everything he's told the judge is bullshit.  Why would a prosecutor do such a thing?  We'll try to find some sort of explanation for this mess tomorrow.

BTW, did anyone notice that the prosecutor made no mention (except by mistake) of the man who masterminded this scheme, convicted mortgage fraudster John Romney?

2 comments:

  1. Did the defense attorney bring this up to the judge?

    ReplyDelete