Monday, March 16, 2015

Rogue Cops Say Federal Witness Perjured Himself

By Ralph Cipriano
for Bigtrial.net

On the eve of jury selection, a defense lawyer in the rogue cops case has tossed a live grenade.

On Sunday, Michael J. Diamondstein, the defense lawyer for former Police Officer John Speiser, filed a bombshell motion to quash the federal indictment of his client.

In the motion, Diamonstein charges there is ample evidence to prove that the only witness to implicate his client in a RICO conspiracy perjured himself when he testified before a grand jury.

The perjury, Diamonstein writes, was "easily and readily identifiable by the government's agents,"  but the feds chose to willfully ignore it, exhibiting a "reckless disregard for the truth."

If Diamondstein's charges are true, the feds were pretty sloppy. Diamondstein claims that before a witness identified as "C.C." perjured himself before the grand jury, the feds didn't bother to interview C.C. or check out any easily obtained court records that plainly show the government's witness is "an immoral, despicable and opportunistic liar."

Diamondstein's motion to quash the indictment was prompted by the government's March 13th motion to withdraw counts 18 and 21 from the 26-count indictment; the feds also want to drop "Episode 13" from a greatest hits list of police misconduct alleged by the feds.

In Episode 13 of the indictment, the government alleged that on March 7, 2010, Officers Thomas Liciardello, Brian Reynolds, Perry Betts, John Speiser, Michael Spicer and Jeffrey Walker allegedly entered the residence of a person identified as C.C. on Porter Street in South Philadelphia by "kicking in the front door."

The indictment states that the officers allegedly seized $3,200 from C.C.'s house. Then on April 18, 2010, according the indictment, Officer Liciardello, attempting "to conceal the theft from authorities," wrote a phony Philadelphia Police Department report that said that only $196 was seized from C.C.

In their motion to drop Episode 13 from the indictment, the government has offered "no reason of record" to explain why, Diamonstein writes. The government wants to preclude Diamondstein and the other defense lawyers in the case from ever mentioning Episode 13 to the jury.

The motion to withdraw Episode 13, Diamondstein writes, is "nothing less than an attempt to hide and whitewash" a fraud that was either "negligently or recklessly" played upon the grand jury.

It's also a "vain attempt to spare" the feds the "embarrassment and scrutiny" that will result from the disclosure that the government "called a witness that perjured himself in front of the grand jury," Diamondstein writes.

In his motion, Diamonstein asks Judge Eduardo C. Robreno to quash the indictment, deny the government's motion to "substantively amend the indictment," and deny the government's motion to preclude defense lawyers from referencing Episode 13 during the trial.

Diamonstein's motion has been joined by lawyers for four other defendants in the case, including Linwood Norman, Michael Spicer, Brian Reynolds and Perry Betts. A hearing is scheduled in front of Judge Robreno at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow, before the start of jury selection.

In the indictment the feds claimed that six rogue cops allegedly stole more than $500,000 in cash, drugs and personal property from drug dealers while they were beating and kidnapping them, and  falsifying police records to cover up their dirty work.

The cops arrested C.C. arrested on March 10, 2010 and charged him with possession with intent to distribute. C.C. went to trial and the case ended on Aug. 6, 2012 with a hung jury.

C.C. has also filed a civil suit seeking $1 million in damages from Speiser and the other five defendants.

In spite of the fact that C.C. is a primary witness in the federal racketeering case, Diamonstein charges, there is no record that the feds ever conducted a "proffer" interview session with him, sat C.C. down for an FBI "302" interview, or even took down some "rough notes" from the witness.

"The government has asserted that no 302 exists for C.C.," Diamonstein writes. "Assuming that the government's representations are correct, the government and /or its agents either never spoke to CC prior to offering him immunity and allowed him to testify in front of the grand jury" without ever talking to the witness.

Even thought C.C. was a "notorious drug felon with convictions for crimes of dishonesty," Diamonstein writes, the feds recruited him as a witness to testify against the cops in the RICO case.

C.C. appeared before a federal grand jury on Feb. 18 2014.

In his motion, Diamonstein contrasts C.C.'s grand jury testimony with his testimony from his criminal trial that ended in a hung jury. The defense lawyer cites these contradictions:

-- C.C. told the grand jury he was using 6 Vocoder pills a day but C.C. told the jury in his criminal case that he took 25 to 35 Percoet pills a day.

-- C.C. told the grand jury he had only Vocoder in his closet, but told jury in his criminal case that he had at least 3 bottles of Oxycodone in his home.

-- C.C. told grand jury he was prescribed the pills that were found in his home and that the defendants ripped the labels off of the bottles. But C.C. told the criminal jury that he did not have a valid prescription for the pills. "He instead procured the pills by waiting outside of pharmacies, waiting for random people to come out, asking them if they had Percoet pills and then purchasing the pills from the unknown pharmacy customers," Diamonstein writes.

"The labels were ripped off by the pharmacy customers so that C.C. would not be in possession of their personal information," Diamondstein writes.

-- C.C. told the grand jury he had provided copies of his prescriptions to the judge in his criminal case, but he told the judge in his criminal case that he did not have the prescriptions.

-- C.C. told the grand jury the cops stole $3,2000 from his home. But in civil lawsuit he stated he did not have any money. And when he testified before the jury in his criminal trial he never mentioned the alleged robbery.

-- C.C. told the grand jury that Officer Brian Reynolds was one of the cops who kicked his door in and then robbed him. Yet the cops' "daily attendance report and other indisputable evidence show that Mr. Reynolds was in Florida," Diamondstein writes.

"Quite frankly the evidence of the perjury was staring the government right in the face," Diamonstein writes. "They choose to ignore it."

"The nature of the government's incompetence cannot be understated," Diamonstein writes in a memorandum of law that accompanied his motion to quash. Diamonstein said he was able, "without the aide of an investigator or a team of FBI agents" to easily find the evidence in court records that shows C.C. is a liar.

The government, Diamonstein writes, was "willfully bind to this evidence" that a second year law student or a first year detective could have dug up by simply reading a court docket online or dialing a phone.

In attempting to prevent defense lawyers from mentioning Episode 13 to the jury, Diamondstein writes, the government "seeks it insulate itself from the outrageous conduct of C.C."

Diamonstein wrote that he should be able to show the jury in the RICO case that C.C. "sold the FBI a bill of goods." He also wanted the right to "ask whether any of the other underwood figures upon whom this prosecution is built have done the same."

The only witness against his client, Diamonstein writes, "has been exposed as an immoral, despicable and opportunistic liar."

Late today, the U.S. Attorney's office filed a response calling for the defense motion to quash the indictment to be denied, and for the government's motion to withdraw Episode 13 from the indictment to be granted.

In the government's response, the feds did not dispute any of contrary facts about C.C.'s testimony raised by Diamondstein. But the prosecutors denied that the government had acted in bad faith.

"In this case, the government did not become aware of a civil suit filed by C.C. until March 4, 2015," wrote U.S. Attorney Zane David Memger and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anthony J. Wzorek and Maureen McCartney.

"Once becoming aware of the suit, the government scheduled and met with C.C.'s attorney and C. C. and asked them about the civil filing, which contradicted C.C.'s grand jury testimony," the prosecutors wrote. "Based upon their answers the government did not believe that it had a prosecutorial case as to Episode 13. Under those circumstances, the government moved to withdraw Episode 13 on March 13, 2015."

"The government categorically denies the scurrilous charges that it committed a fraud upon the grand jury," the prosecutors wrote. "In fact, the government acted promptly upon receipt of the information  conceding the civil suit."

But the prosecutors contended that the motion to quash the indictment be denied because Speiser was still a  "knowing participant in the [criminal] enterprise." By moving to withdraw Episode 13 the government "merely eliminated a superfluous allegation that the evidence did not support," the prosecutors wrote.

12 comments:

  1. First u got Seth Don.t tell the truth Williams and his Merry Misfits putting Junkies to testify against the Priest if that.s not bad enough the Billy Doe Case. Now u got the US Attorneys office dropping charges because the wittnesses CC getting caught lying his black ass off and other wittnesses who possibly perjured them selves . Can.t make this shit up. And because there sting went bad they have to justify the money they used so will just waste more tax payer money for another aquittle or hung jury to make six cops look bad because someone did.nt like there handling or protocol to arresting another bunch of black misfits who got lumped up and feel they was violated. U gotta be friggin kidding me here guys. I all for putting bad guys away but get the truth. And playing this race card shit across this country is getting real old my friends. Do your Jobs get the facts and stop cutting investigations or Jobs short because u don.t have enough money. Should.ve known that going in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lesson learned by those with grand intentions to sue the City of PHiladelphia for police brutality is to keep your nose clean at all times, not some of the time in order to preserve their rights under civil law as they can take away your right to sue for civil damages if you are ever arrested in another crime. Dropping counts from a case due to the criminal behavior of the victims is like pruning a tree of dead branches before presenting the tree to visitors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The government is still not saying why they did not look at the facts from the criminal trial in 2012. That is where the discrepencies in testimony come from, not the civil suit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are good cops and bad....bottom line. Give credit to law enforcement that deserve it, not to 6 cops whom way of administering justice is to promise drug dealers their freedom for cash, or a beat down, or by making up phony information to make false arrest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to have proof that these cops did all of those things before you indict them.

      Delete
    2. Ya they used the testimony of the guys they arrested at the grand jury im sure they didn.t lie to protect them selves from being prosecuted and the sting for the feds went bad so they gave these idiots a deal and that really looks like thats working out well .

      Delete
  5. These cops wanted to act old school and at the same time seek the fame of super cop status. Vant have your cake and eat it to. How do you ask a dope dealer to give you dope(Tom) so you van then have it planted on another suspect. The things i have witnessed with this crew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Satins Step ChildMarch 17, 2015 at 6:30 PM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  6. If u know all this anon 10. 49 and have all this info why are u not a witness and if u are theres been a gag order therefore ur in contempt you guys take everybody for idiots. When they get found not guilty and they will by what im reading of the idiot witnesses they have i hope someone pays u a visit and gets your mind right slappy. Talk about a abuse of power by agents trying to cover there own asses for a sting that got Nothing and know instead of letting it go embarass themselves some more by parading lying witnesses who got pinched again for the same thing these 6 cops busted them for. If ur looking for the boogie man his name is Zane Memenger and his band of merry misfits. If u wanna arrest somebody Zane start with Seth don.t tell the truth williams who cases are questionable for the jumkies he has put on the stand. Let the 6 cops go back to doing there Jobs because when they showed up people got there minds right real quick sometimes messy but effective and as long as u get results whats the problem with that Zane.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Surprised regular patrol cops werent brought down on this along with Tom L. And his bang bang Gang. One of Tom L tactics was to use regular patrol car cop buddy to.pull u over...then Tom L and his cronies wold pull up next to your vehicle yank you out into there jeep(i think thats car jacking+kidnappi ng easly punishable by 25 to life in the big house)..qnd take you to a dark alley or some place to get info outta ya. If you didnt give them what they asked you got lumps in ya coffe and a high bail. Phillys fucking finest!!!! Boy o boy

    ReplyDelete
  8. JB..... Are you actuall serious with your comments ???????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes(JB) is prob dead serious with that comment sadly to say @jj mona

      Delete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

 

Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Copyright © 2016 BigTrial.net

Privacy Policy: BigTrial.net does not distribute, share or sell email addresses, or any other personal information received from this website.