Questions of Judicial Misconduct are Raised by The IRP6 and The Advocacy Group, A Just Cause

Share Article

The IRP6 Questions if Laws Were Violated in Their Case with 200 Pages of Court Transcripts Missing

News Image

Free The IRP6

The IRP6 case concerns an African-American company (IRP Solutions Corporation) in Colorado that developed the Case Investigative Life Cycle (CILC) criminal investigations software for federal, state, and local law enforcement. The IRP6 (Kendrick Barnes, Gary L Walker, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A Stewart, David A Zirpolo and David A Banks) were convicted in 2011 after being accused of mail and wire fraud. The defense argues that key elements of the court transcript, which are critical to the appeal, are missing. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA). The IRP6 are requesting Attorney General Eric Holder conduct a criminal investigation of government officials for conduct related to the missing transcript.

According to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 535, the Attorney General and the FBI are given explicit statutory authority to investigate violations of Title 18 involving government employees. The IRP6 argue that, “The actions and conduct of (officers of the court) amount to violations of criminal law. (We) were deprived of court transcripts which resulted in a wrongful conviction.”

Court records show that the IRP6 have been incarcerated for nearly 18 months, bond being denied while their case is under appeal. The IRP6 allege that six criminal statutes of Title 18 of the United States Code (USC) were violated by judicial officials, which include 18 USC 2075, 18 USC 1018, 18 USC 1506, 18 USC 2071, 18 USC 371 and 18 USC 2076.

“Many officials in the American justice system sell the impression to the average citizen that the law is overly-complicated and can only be fully understood by lawyers or those who are legally educated and trained,” states David Banks, COO IRP Solutions Corporation (IRP6). “While some areas of the law are technically complex, much of the law can be easily understood just from reading the law, applying the facts and circumstances to determine whether a law was violated,” expounded Banks.

Criminal statute 18 USC 2075, Officer failing to make returns or reports, states that "Every officer who neglects or refuses to make any return or report which he is required to make at stated times by any Act of Congress or regulation of the Department of the Treasury, other than his accounts, within the time prescribed by such Act or regulation, shall be fined under this title." The IRP6 allege that the “The Act” violated by Darlene Martinez is the Court Reporter's Act (CRA), 28 U.S.C. 753(b). The CRA requires that "the [court] reporter or other individual designated to produce the record [transcript] shall attach his official certificate to the original shorthand notes or other original records to take and PROMPTLY file them with the clerk who shall preserve them in the public records of the court for not less than ten years." (Court Reporter's Act (CRA), 28 U.S.C. 753(b)).

In the complaint filed against Court Reporter Darlene Martinez, court records state that Darlene Martinez failed to provide a complete transcript of the trial proceedings in United States v. Banks, et al., case number 09CR266 and neglected to file her original record at the clerk of court as required by the CRA, which is a violation of 18 USC 2075 (13-cv-02260-RBJ, Document 16, 11/4/13, U.S. District Court, Colorado). The complaint alleges that attorneys for the IRP6 and representatives of A Just Cause went to the clerk of court of the District of Colorado to inspect the court records of the IRP6 trial, but were denied the court record (13-cv-02260-RBJ, Document 16, 11/4/13, U.S. District Court, Colorado).

“Based on our findings, not allowing inspection of the original transcript in a case violates the Court Reporters Act,” states Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. “We hope that the lawsuit filed by A Just Cause attorney Mark Geragos will resolve the issue of the 200 missing pages of transcript in the IRP6 case,” adds Thurman.

Court records show that attorneys for the IRP6 have petitioned the court for the complete unedited version of the transcript several times since the trial ended in October 2011 (13-cv-02260-RBJ, Document 16, 11/4/13, U.S. District Court, Colorado). A Just Cause and IRP6 attorneys include Mark Geragos, Tina Glandian, Gwendolyn Solomon and Cornell Johnson.

“The Court Reporter's Act is simple and unambiguous, and there is nothing complex or technical about the Act” asserts Banks. “If you look deep into this case, you have to question if the actions and conduct of the court officials don’t warrant a criminal investigation by Eric Holder,” concludes Banks.

A Just Cause has posted the full commentary from the IRP6 online at regarding their concerns surrounding the missing transcript.

The case of IRP Solutions (IRP6) is currently under appeal (US District Court for the District of Colorado, Honorable Christine M. Arguello, D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA; Case Nos: NO. 11-1487, Case Nos. 11-1488, 11-1489, 11-1490, 11-1491 an 11-1492). Appellate Court panel includes the Honorable Senior Judge Bobby R. Baldock, Honorable Judge Harris L. Hartz, and Honorable Judge Jerome A. Holmes.

For the entire manuscript of the IRP6 comments, or for copies of the legal filings go to Related press releases:!press-release/c21pq

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

AJC Communications Director
A Just Cause
+1 7192715854
Email >

A Just Cause Communications
A Just Cause
855-529-4252 700
Email >
since: 07/2013
Follow >
Visit website