In addition to showing this hearing to be a complete farce, these transcripts contain the key to the single most important aspect of this case - they key which, along with everything else we now know, utterly exposes the true reality of this case. That key, specifically concerns the circumstances of Michael's arrest. Together with the knowledge that he wasn't there. Michael wasn't fooling them - they were fooling him.

It is also very significant, as well as quite interesting, especially if one appreciates irony, that Mr. Brown's claim, at both this plea withdrawal hearing, and as his defense to these perjury charges, is that he was (knowingly and deliberately) duped into making these false statements through promises of a reward. It was (and is) his further claim that he was then arrested, based (SOLELY) on those false statements, statements the authorities KNEW were false, and was thereby and thereafter coerced - through his own FALSE prosecution - to enter guilty pleas to charges he had absolutely nothing to do with AND, to commit these crimes of perjury - under threat of the death penalty.

The irony of course, is that Michael's testimony at the trial of Jay Buckley - had absolutely nothing to do with the real question at this hearing - the question of whether Michael's guilty plea was knowingly, and voluntarily entered. But it has plenty to do with his defense to these charges of perjury.

These transcripts are in fact evidence of Mr. Brown's own "attorneys" (as well as the lower court's) complicity in the effort to cover up the true nature of the "prosecution" of Michael Brown, including their (Brown's attorneys) own complicity with law enforcement authorities - including the Pennsylvania State Police and the Warren County District Attorney in said prosecution.

Although it is not hard to understand why The Commonwealth would prefer that none of this testimony existed, the real significance of these transcripts concerns the testimony of former Trooper Herzog and District Attorney Hernan. What is important to note is that their relevant testimony is "The Commonwealth's" RESPONSE to Mr. Brown's claim that he was duped, and then coerced to commit these perjuries.

They deny this fundamental fact. It is their (collective) testimony that they had no intention of arresting Mr. Brown prior to his statement of October 10, 1989, that the reward played no role in securing Mr. Brown's statements, and that the limousine was not utilized for the purpose of duping Michael Brown into believing he was going to receive the reward. I believe it is accurate to state Hernan's position regarding the basis for the limousine as "to avoid potential extradition problems - just in case Mr. Brown happens to provide additional information - information sufficient to constitute probable cause for his arrest." Trooper Herzog states that he had no knowledge of the limousine, "no intention" of arresting Brown, and "no idea" that Brown would be arrested that day.

The use of the limousine is obviously a significant factor at issue here, and it should be noted that it actually served several purposes. By it's use the authorities not only avoided potential extradition problems, they avoided extradition - period. An extradition proceeding that would have alerted Mr. Brown to the fact he was being duped - and given him an opportunity to tell the truth - before he was delivered into the filthy clutches of the Warren County Public Defender's Office! And, according to Michael Brown, the limousine was a significant factor in leading him to believe he was going to pick up the reward.

The testimony revealed by these transcripts concerning the use of this limousine is quite telling in itself. Trooper Herzog testified that he didn't know anything about a limousine - twice. His story is that he just wanted to talk to Michael Brown, but was just too busy to go get him - as he did every other time. But Michael Brown says that Herzog is the one that called him and told him a limousine was coming to pick him up. And so does the District Attorney! So, "The Commonwealth" has quite a problem right there. But that's only the beginning.

The conflicting testimony of Hernan and Herzog concerning Herzog's knowledge of the limousine will be seen initially as a small, but curious discrepancy. In fact, it is one of the more interesting (and telling) discrepencies in this entire matter. It is, in fact, an intentional "discrepancy" - that is, an intentional perjury by Trooper Herzog. The quetions is, "WHY would Trooper Herzog intentionally commit perjury - a very blatant perjury - and over such a (seemingly) innocous matter?" I believe the answer is that they (Hernan and Herzog) could hardly admit mutual knowledge of the limousine - and still maintain the fiction that they had no intention of arresting Michael Brown.

The REAL question here though, is why they didn't (in fact why they couldn't) just say "Yes, we intended to arrest him, damn right". This is the question that drove me almost crazy for several weeks. We will get to it, but the fact is it will be far more instructive for the reader to answer that question theirself.

The District Attorney's testimony concerning his intention to arrest Mr. Brown is also highly ambiguous - in fact it is directly contradictory in and of itself. He first admits that the limousine ride was arranged by himself as a "ruse" for the express purpose of avoiding a potential future defense issue of an illegal extradition. But in his next breath he denies that he intended to effect the arrest of Michael Brown on that day. One problem with this testimony of course is that you don't have to worry about extradition problems if you do not intend to effect an arrest. But there is a much bigger problem with this testimony. A problem, not merely with the logic, but with the facts of this matter. Which we will get to.

Thus, District Attorney Hernan denies that it was his intent to have Mr. Brown arrested when he was brought down in the limousine, and contends it was just in case Michael Brown happened to provide them with probable cause for his arrest. To use his own words, "If he gives us more information". This is, in fact, the ultimate deception that both Hernan and Herzog are attempting to promote here - that they did not have probable cause to arrest Mr. Brown prior to October 10, 1989. WHEN, IN FACT, IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THEY MOST CERTAINLY DID!

That is the ultimate deception, of which a careful examination leaves very little doubt was mutually engaged in - by the authorities (Hernan, Herzog and Massa) - Mr. Brown's own attorneys (Aranyos, McKeirnan, and Bonavita) - and the Court, (President Judge of the 37th Judicial District, Robert L. Wolfe).

Trooper Herzog likewise testified that he had no intention of arresting Mr. Brown on October 10, 1989. He too, claims that Mr. Brown's arrest was the result of additional evidence given by Brown on that day. He further testified that he "had no intention or no idea that he was going to be charged that day" , and again asserted that "it was not my intent until he gave that additional information that the charges be filed." His statement that he "had no idea" Mr. Brown would be arrested that day is also a direct contradiction of District Attorney Hernan's testimony - unless Hernan had a mouse in his pocket.

Herzog's evasiveness, duplicity, and outright lies concerning the matter of probable cause - under questioning by both Bonavita and Judge Wolfe - is also quite apparent. It also appears he had a fair amount of help. "Attorney" Bonavita's questioning is especially interesting in this regard. He appears quite obssessed with just exactly when Michael told Trooper Herzog he was an eyewitness, and of course who said what, when, and where concerning the reward (go there and do a "find" on eyewitness and reward). But he never does ask Herzog the critical, concrete, and very simple question - of just exactly when did Michael Brown tell him he was a participant in these crimes - more specifically, at what point did Herzog obtain probable cause for Michael's arrest. He almost stumbled into it here though. And this is where he slides right OVER it.

Herzog's testimony under questioning by Judge Wolfe is equally deceptive. Whether Judge Wolfe is viewed as complicit in this farce, or not, one simple and undeniable fact remains. Either he was complicit, OR he was in fact deceived by this fraud being promoted by Hernan and Herzog - that they lacked probable cause to arrest Michael Brown prior to his statement of October 10, 1989.

The record shows that Michael Brown, in fact, provided the information that he had removed Kathy Wilson's blouse and bra in his statement of October 6 - which was precisely the information cited by Herzog in the probable cause statement for the arrest of Michael Brown on October 10, 1989. And which statement was, of course, 4 days prior to the date of his arrest.

And nowhere in this statement of probable cause is this "additional information that they needed" even mentioned.

The best way to understand this entire matter, including it's relevance and it's exculpatory nature with respect to Mr. Brown's (current) defense to perjury charges, is to ask the simple question - Why are Hernan and Herzog lying about not intending to arrest Michael Brown on October 10, 1989? Why couldn't they just admit they already had probable cause to arrest Mr. Brown. Why couldn't they just say yes, we intended to arrest him? And why couldn't Herzog admit his knowledge of the limousine?

The most obvious reason with respect to the first two questions is that then they wouldn't have any basis for employing the limousine - except as a prop - a prop in duping Michael Brown into believing he was about to collect the reward - pursuant to Herzog's initial proposition - as testified to by Michael Brown and his entire family.

And of course by the use of this limousine they not only avoided "potential extradition problems" - they avoided extradition - period.

And why would they want to do that? Better yet, why would they go through this elaborate scheme to do so? And then lie about it - under oath?

To state it baldly, the most chilling, and in view of the totality of their actions, the reason why they would go through all this is that their ultimate objective was to get Mr. Brown into Pennsylvania, into the grasp of the 37th Judicial System, and most specifically - into the filthy clutches of the Warren County Public Defender. By hook or by crook. They knew they had it made after that - else their a couple of helacious gamblers! The fact is, this was a plan that worked exactly the way it was supposed to (with a few minor glitches) right up till Michael Brown was lied to and double-crossed for the last time (in this particular case). Right up till he was sentenced to 7 to 14 years, right up till he said fuck that, and went to the newspaper.

It seems obvious, that if they had gone through proper extradition - Mr. Brown would have realized right then that he was being duped. And, in short - he would have blown THEIR ENTIRE LITTLE GAME right there! Right there, while he was still in New York State. Right there, where his claim that he had been duped (and assisted) by Herzog into providng these false statements would have been extensively examined in a public hearing. A REAL public hearing - in New York State.

If the authorities had not been working this little scam, if they had not been so intent on luring Michael Brown into their personal liar, into the hands of the Warren County Public Defender's office, they would have simply had the New York authorities arrest him and file for extradition. That's how you avoid "potential future defense issues of an illegal extradition" - by doing it LEGALLY.

Herzog's deception is also apparent in his response to both "Attorney" Bonavita's and Judge Wolfe's "inquiries" concerning the matter of just when, where, and how Michael Brown had first indicated his own "involvement" in these crimes.

While Judge Wolfe plays straight man to this farce. Twice. The important, and indisputable FACT that emerges from this exchange is that either Judge Wolfe was complicit in helping Herzog perpetrate this particular farce - OR that Herzog was successful in deceiving Judge Wolfe. One rather curious question is, "How would Herzog DARE to sit right there and lie to Judge Wolfe - about a fact that was an incontrovertible matter of record? That is, Herzog's own testimony at the Buckley trial, and Herzog's own statement of probable cause for Brown's arrest?

This is Herzog's testimony regarding these circumstances under cross-examination by attorney Smith at Buckley's trial. Quite a different tune, sufficiently different in fact as to constitute another instance of perjury for Trooper Herzog.

It is also clear that Herzog was attempting (apparently successfully) to decieve the Court in testifying that Brown had previously told him that "she had gotten out of the car and they had walked her down the path" . He had, of course, told them much more than that. Michael had, in fact, already advised the authorities, on October 6 that he had removed Kathy Wilson's blouse and bra (which, of course - in truth, and reality, was the precisely the basis of Herzog's probable cause for Michael's arrest). And, that he had witnessed Buckley rape and murder her, which likewise constituted the basis for Buckley's arrest as well.

Even as to the purported probable cause, Herzog's statements to the Court are also quite deceptive. In his statement of October 6, 1989, Michael Brown DID NOT state that Kathy Wilson had "bolted" to the right. This is what he actually said. And of course, this purported probable cause appears nowhere in the statement of probable cause for Mr. Brown's arrest. (It might also be noted that Michael was telling them that he performed these actions - at Buckley's orders, and the threat of a shotgun).

Both the relevency and the significance of Hernan and Herzog's perjuries are in their context. These lies were perpetrated during an evidentiary hearing concerning Michael Brown's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas. Primarily at issue at this hearing was Mr. Brown's contention that he had no involvement in these crimes, and that he had been duped into giving false statements under promise of a reward, and then coerced to continue these false statements and testimony - under threat of the death penalty.

Herzog and Hernan's perjuries are their response to Mr. Brown's assertion of being duped, and coerced into committing these crimes of perjury. They are saying - "No he wasn't - it happened like this: [lies - ALL lies]".

The primary significance of these entire matters at this time however, is that the suppression by the authorities of this highly exculpatory evidence entitles Mr. Brown to withdraw his instant guilty pleas - if we ever find an honest court - and receive a trial that will expose this entire travesty.

By the way, is anybody else curious about what this particular stake was about, what it represented? It is clear attorney Bonavita sure wasn't!

And then there is the tapes. The tapes which first surfaced (kinda) here, in the testimony at this hearing of attorney Ross W. McKeirnan.