While researching and writing this book, I attempted to contact Michael Berkow directly (bypassing the U.S. Coast Guard) through his LinkedIn account, but there was no reply to my messages. When this book was about to go into production, I went directly to the Coast Guard, asking for both a reply from Berkow and one from the military service itself about how he had obtained his present position. The Coast Guard replied first, stating that Berkow had passed a background check, and I was able to put that into the body of the book as a footnote. Berkow himself replied a short time later. At that point, the best available means of incorporating his claims and denials was in this Appendix.
Berkow seemed to be most concerned about the Ya-May Christle case, and in particular her accusations concerning his sexual activities, and his promotion of the women subordinates who consented to sex with him. It’s a subject that’s of minor significance in the context of this book, but Berkow’s lengthy statements have compelled me to clarification. The Christle lawsuit accused Berkow of having sex with as many as five different women under his command and stated, “All the paramours benefitted because of this sex.” According to plaintiff filings in the case, “This rampant orgy of lust that Berkow enjoyed at work was known to [Christle] and was [so] severe and pervasive that it altered the conditions of her employment, creating an abusive working environment.” Only one of the five “paramours” named in the lawsuit admitted to having sex with Berkow while under his command; both she and Berkow claimed that she enjoyed no professional benefits as a result of their relationship.
The judge hearing the Christle lawsuit, William Fahey, ruled that the evidence offered by Christle and her attorney to substantiate her accusations about Berkow’s abuse of authority for sexual purposes was largely inadmissible. Berkow was dropped as a defendant in the case after Fahey dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Judge Fahey, however, did not dismiss the claim that the LAPD, acting through Berkow and others, had retaliated against Christle both for reporting Berkow’s suspected sexual activities and for her assertion that he had ordered her work computer taken from her and expunged of information relating to the Notorious B.I.G. murder case. The lawsuit went to trial on the basis of those claims and the jury not only ruled in Christle’s favor but awarded her more than $1 million in damages. That ruling was appealed, but Christle prevailed at every level and eventually received nearly $5 million when the case was settled.
Berkow insists that he has no knowledge of what happened with the case after he was removed as a defendant. I find that difficult to believe, given that much if not most of the evidence offered by the plaintiffs centered on him and his behavior. Be that as it may, I do not see how Berkow can claim to have been vindicated by the litigation of the Christle lawsuit. As Christle’s attorney Bradley Gage put it to me: “The entire lawsuit was based on Berkow’s conduct. Our case involved the actions of Berkow.”
Far more germane to this book, obviously, are the accusations against Berkow that involve the Notorious B.I.G. murder investigation, and in particular the claims that he exposed Michael Robinson as an FBI informant, communicated improperly with Amir Muhammad, and collaborated with Chuck Philips to destroy the reputation of Phil Carson, all in an effort to subvert the Wallace v. Los Angeles lawsuit. I believe that Berkow did all of those things, either directly or through subordinates. I acknowledge that this belief is based substantially upon what I’ve been told by others involved in the case, and that Phil Carson is the only one fully on the record. But Carson’s recollections haven’t been disputed by any of the others—current and former FBI agents, former LAPD officers and Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies, attorneys and investigators who worked on the case—that I’ve spoken to.
Berkow, though, denies everything. “I have no idea who many of the individuals you named are and while I do know who S/A Carson is, it is in connection with a completely different criminal matter that he was investigating with members of the LAPD Professional Standards Bureau. Nothing to do with Christopher Wallace’s murder,” he wrote to me. “That denial was underlined by his attorney, who said Berkow ‘never asked the FBI to stop any investigation, much less the Wallace investigation.’ ”
In his emails to me, however, Berkow not only contradicted Phil Carson (along with several other FBI agents); he also contradicted himself. “I am unaware of any confidential informant or FBI investigation into this case or of any of the other allegations you are making,” he wrote to me. This is the same man who, as LAPD deputy chief, was the single departmental source quoted by name in the Los Angeles Times March 20, 2004, article by Chuck Philips that revealed both the FBI investigation of the Biggie murder and the agency’s use of Michael Robinson as the confidential informant who was sent to Amir Muhammad’s home in an attempt to obtain incriminating evidence against him. Robinson’s work as an informant in the Biggie murder investigation had been part of “a joint FBI-LAPD investigation,” Berkow told the Times, one in which the LAPD was “cooperating with the feds 100%.”
Perhaps reading that quote will jog his memory.