So why would a prosecutor need to lie to a judge about the facts of his case?

.

Good question right? Over the last few days we've proven that prosecutor Bill Kostrzewski did indeed lie to Judge Mary Barzee about the facts of the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud case. The question that begs to be asked though is WHY? Was what really happened not enough to support the states case? Was it simply a matter of the prosecutor not knowing what happened? Maybe he was nervous and got a simple case of stage fright before the judge and screwed up the facts? Perhaps he knew that his case was total bullshit and he needed to make the facts seem as injurious as possible before the judge that day to try to win the motion before the court? Or is this prosecutor simply an incompetent boob?


I'll give "veteran economic crimes prosecutor" Bill Kostrzewski the benefit of the doubt and exclude the possibility that he's an incompetent boob. I'll go one step further and exclude the possibility that he got flustered before the judge and mixed up facts as he was referring to and reading from some papers he had before him when he gave this shameful performance before the judge. The hearing at which the prosecutors testimony took place was for a fourth motion to compel the prosecutor to turn over evidence to the defense, a hearing which the prosecutor had no defense for as the Judge had ordered the state on several other instances to turn over the evidence that they had in their possession, evidence by the way that to this day nearly two and a half years later still hasn't been turned over. Here's my theory, at this stage of the game, the good prosecutor knew that his "headline" case was falling apart and as I mentioned, he had no excuse as to why he hadn't turned over the evidence that was requested. I'm going to suggest that he prepared this testimony in order to make the defendant at this hearing seem as guilty as possible to divert attention away from the fact that he still hadn't complied with the courts orders to turn over the evidence to the defense. Who cares about the truth right? It's just another example of the prosecutor's win at all costs pattern of behavior, truth be damned.


Even more disturbing than the prosecutor intentionally lying about the facts that made up the foundation of the Barrera mortgage fraud prosecution is the fact that he intentionally omitted the key player in the fraud from his testimony before the judge, John Romney, the guy that masterminded and ultimately walked away with the proceeds of the fraud. How can the prosecutor tell the judge what happened and conveniently forget to mention the guy that walked away with nearly $400,000 from this fraud? I'm mean really, here's the prosecutor crucifying the closing agent who was a victim of Mr. Romney's fraudulent scheme before the judge and he forgets to mention the guy who put the whole deal together? Interesting to say the least.


Now, for those of you following our blog, did anyone notice that I didn't mention the name of the wife beating mortgage fraudster that we discussed last week? That wife beating mortgage fraudster was none other than John Arthur Romney, the man behind the Barrera mortgage fraud scheme who ultimately ended up going to prison after the case was taken away from prosecutor Kostrzewski and reassigned to a new prosecutor.


Is it all beginning to make sense now? Guy beats his wife while he's out on bond and doesn't get his bail revoked, charges mysteriously go away less than a month later, prosecutor goes before the judge explaining what the mortgage fraud case was about yet somehow forgets to make any mention of the man who orchestrated the whole scheme, etc...


Somethings really fishy here folks and believe me, this is just the tip of the iceberg.