Liar, liar, pants on fire! The consequences of lying to the court...

I'm sure that by now you've all heard that George Zimmerman's wife has been arrested for perjury stemming from the misrepresentation of her and her husbands financial status to the court during her husbands bond hearing in the Trayvon Martin murder case.  There's a comprehensive article here from the AP.

I don't necessarily disagree with this arrest as I believe that lying to the court or in any other instance when under oath should be punished severely. Here are some notable quotes from the article...

“Prosecutors sent a strong message that you have to tell the truth in court, because it is the whole basis of the judicial system,” said attorney Benjamin Crump, who spent weeks pushing for Zimmerman’s arrest in the Feb. 26 killing of teenager Trayvon Martin. “The credibility of each witness is always at the crux of every legal case,” added Crump, who represents Trayvon’s parents.

Agreed.

When Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester learned of the scheme earlier this month, he revoked Zimmerman’s bond. Another bond hearing is scheduled for June 29. George Zimmerman “does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process,” Lester wrote.

That last bit really resonates with me, that part about respecting the law or the integrity of the judicial process and "the credibility of each witness is always at the crux of every legal case", yet why does it seem that it's always the defendant that's getting punished for perjury?  When attorney Crump says "Prosecutors sent a strong message that you have to tell the truth in court...", he doesn't discriminate between who has to tell the truth in court.  How many instances have we seen over the last several years where prosecutors, cops or state's witnesses have been perjuring themselves under oath?  How about the fiasco before Judge Bloom in the Airways Auto Tag case when the state attorneys office brought forth a witness who gave a sworn statement saying that the three defendants were harassing her in violation of their pretrial release in an effort to get their bond revoked and have them thrown in jail?  In that case the witness recanted her statement and admitted to lying to the court.  Think of the consequences for the defendants if the defense attorneys didn't expose the witness, all three defendants would have had their bond revoked and would have had to sit in jail till trial, yet somehow there were no consequences to this witnesses actions.

Even worse, how many times have we seen prosecutors and cops lying to the court?  Here we have our very own favorite crooked prosecutor, Bill Kostrzewski, lying to the court under oath during on of the many hearings in the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud case,  yet here we are several years later without a single perjury charge leveled against him.

Woodward Brooks

What about when there's a dishonest cop that lies under oath?  If and when they do get caught, the punishment seems minimal, a few years back we discussed the case of Surfside cop Woodward Brooks who had a nasty habit of writing fake police reports to help his friends defraud insurance companies.  That's a pretty serious charge, you'd think that considering the magnitude of the allegations against him, this guy was going to do a pretty serious stretch in the big house.  I had all but forgotten about Mr. Brooks since I figured his conviction was a forgone conclusion, that is till I checked his docket and found that despite the seriousness of his crimes, he'd gotten probation!

So what's the takeaway from all this perjury business?  Make sure you don't lie to the court, that is unless you're prosecutor or a cop!

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.

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?

Let's listen to a prosecutor intentionally misrepresent the facts of a case to a judge.

We left off on Monday discussing how Miami Dade County Judge Lando was about to reprimand lawyers from foreclosure mill Ben-Ezra & Katz for lying to the court.  Essentially the fine lawyers from Ben-Ezra & Katz had made misleading statements to the court regarding documents from a home they were foreclosing on, at first they said the original documents were lost, but then months after the attorneys stated that they were lost they magically reappeared, the only problem was that the documents they filed actually belonged to another home and had nothing to do with the home that was the subject of their foreclosure action.  We've yet to see how the Judge Lando is going to deal with the attorneys responsible for perpetrating this fraud on the court, but considering the Judge's tone in the article, it's not going to be good.


Regardless though, those guys are foreclosure hacks that are just pushing paperwork through the system, it's understandable at the rate they're going through those foreclosures and the pressure the banks are putting on them to get final judgments, a screw up of this magnitude was inevitable.  But what if the attorney that's perpetrating a fraud on the court isn't a foreclosure hack or a green criminal defense attorney?  What if the attorney that's bullshitting the court is a veteran economic crimes prosecutor with a keen interest in mortgage fraud?  I wonder what the punishment would be for a prosecutor who intentionally misrepresented the facts of a case to the court?  

Before we can speculate on how the court would deal with such a prosecutor, we first need examine the evidence of such behavior.  Let's revisit arrest affidavit for the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud case...

Let's break that down...

• 2/13/08 Purchase of the subject home by Mr. Romney's company.
• 2/19/08 Sale of property by Mr. Romney to the man who posed as Bernardo Barrera. The state alleges that a HUD-1 closing statement was faxed to the lender indicating that the earnest money was already paid.
• 2/20/08 Citi mortgage wire transferred loan proceeds to attorneys trust account.
• 2/21/08 Michael Martinez purchases a cashiers check for $123,530.56 made payable to attorneys trust account.
• 2/22/08 Proceeds from the closing were disbursed to seller (Romney).
• 2/27/08 Cashiers check purchased by Martinez is deposited into the attorneys escrow account.

Easy to understand right?  Now, just to be perfectly clear here, through the testimony given to the state attorneys office and the detective who put this case together, we know that the cashiers check that was purchased on 2/21/08 was delivered to the closing agents office the very same day that it was purchased, from Mr. Martinez's depo...

Ok, so just to recap let's go through it again:

• 2/13/08 Convicted mortgage fraudster John Romney purchases home that at the center of the Barrera mortgage fraud case.
• 2/19/08 Closing for sale of home by John Romney to Bernardo Barrera.
• 2/20/08 Citi mortgage wires proceeds of the loan to attorneys trust account.
• 2/21/08 Micheal Martinez purchases a cashier check made payable to the attorneys trust account and delivers said check to the attorney the same day.
• 2/22/08 Proceeds of closing disbursed to seller, John Romney.
• 2/23/08 Cashiers check purchased by Michael Martinez is deposited into attorneys escrow account.

Simple right?  Buyer and seller come to the closing, execute all the documents, no money is disbursed then two days later a cashiers check for the down payment comes in and the proceeds of the transaction are disbursed the next day.  Remember, these are facts that we gleaned from the states own arrest affidavit, an affidavit that we strongly suspect was authored by none other that Assistant State Attorney Bill Kostrzewski.


Now, let's see how Mr. "veteran economic crimes prosecutor" Bill Kostrzewski decided to represent the facts of this very transaction to Judge Mary Barzee when he was  asked to explain the foundation of his case...



Go through it a couple of times, can you pick up the problems with the prosecutors testimony?  Here's a transcript of what went down that day in court in case you couldn't hear the audio...

Judge: what’s Martinez’s role according to the state?

Prosecutor:        Your honor, on February the nineteenth a closing closed at Ms. Estefanos office.  The funds were dispersed that day or the next day.  However, the cash to close, the one hundred twenty three thousand and change,

Judge: Say that again?

Prosecutor:        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.  Funds were dispersed without a down payment.  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, 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.”  She says “that’s not a problem”, takes it and that’s basically it.

Judge: So what would you um, characterize Martinez’s role as somebody who was fronting a portion of the cash?

Prosecutor:        Yes your honor.

Judge: And Fonte was…

Prosecutor:        He was the arranger or the recruiter so to speak.

Notice that the prosecutor makes no mention of a key player in the fraud?  We'll go through it in detail tomorrow.

Lies, lies, lies. What are the consequences of lying under oath?

I've been asking myself that question for the last couple of years while going to court and watching lawyers ramble in front of judges and juries.  Watching self righteous prosecutors huff and puff and pound their chests in front of the people they've charged and their defense attorneys, trying to intimidate the poor guy who's at their mercy.  If nothing else, it's great theater.  But what happens if the officer of the court, or the state's witness is there before the judge or jury giving false testimony?  Or even worse, what if a prosecutor is standing there intentionally misleading the court regarding the facts of a major case?  What if the judge presiding over the case finds out?  The outcome can't be good!

Most recently we've seen two examples of people getting busted lying in the media, first that nutcase ex governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted earlier this week in his corruption trial on one count of lying to the FBI.  While this may seem like a trivial crime, it caries up to possible 5 year sentence.  That's some serious time for lying to the FBI isn't it?

How about the other guy caught lying under oath, baseball great Roger Clemens indicted for lying to congress, from ESPN...

The six-count indictment alleges that Clemens obstructed a congressional inquiry with 15 different statements made under oath, including denials that he had ever used steroids or human growth hormone. The New York Times first reported the indictment.

They say that Clemens could face up to 30 years in prison, that ain't no good now is it?  Why all the fuss about people lying under oath?  What's the big deal right?  What would happen though if the person lying under oath was a cop or even worse, a prosecutor?  

Let's imagine one of those infamous "Straw Buyer" hypothetical situations, what would happen if a prosecutor is asked by a judge presiding over a high profile case to explain the facts of his case so the judge could understand what the case was about?  What if the prosecutor then proceeded to lie about the facts of the case, intentionally misrepresenting the facts and lying about the way the crime occurred, even going so far as negating the facts and time line in the arrest affidavit?  What would happen to said prosecutor if his bullshit was uncovered and brought to the courts attention?  One could only imagine!  If Blago is facing up to 5 years behind bars and Clemens is looking at up to 30 years, I would hate to think what could happen to a dishonest prosecutor with a history of lying to the court...

I promise, Monday we'll let you all know what the 15 cases of over $4.5 million in fraud that we discussed yesterday have in common.  Till then, have a great weekend!