Denver, Colorado (PRWEB) February 25, 2014
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. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA). The IRP6 have been incarcerated for over 18 months in federal prison in Florence, Colorado while their case is under appeal.
A Just Cause is an advocacy group that has attempted to get federal legislators and justice department officials to open an investigation into the IRP6 case. Court documents show that the case is currently under appeal. Records show that Attorneys for A Just Cause are petitioning the courts for release of over 200 pages of transcripts that were omitted from court records of the IRP6 trial. Appellant filings show that Court Reporter Darlene Martinez omitted 200 pages of transcript which the IRP6 argue are critical to their appeal. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA; Case Nos: NO. 11-1487, Case Nos. 11-1488, 11-1489, 11-1490, 11-1491 and 11-1492)
“A Just Cause has reached out to several legislators and Justice Department offices to intervene in this matter”, cites Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. “We have heard it stated over and over that this is a strange case that should be investigated”, added Thurman. In a radio interview, Mark Geragos, Attorney for A Just Cause and IRP6 stated, “I was fascinated by the issue. At first I was somewhat aghast and didn’t really believe (the story) the way it had been portrayed to me, but we dug into and drilled down in it,…and the transcript has mysteriously disappeared”, adds Geragos. “Thirty-one years and this is the first time that I have ever encountered a federal court transcript disappearing”, Geragos expounds. (“Inside The Issues with Dr. Wilmer Leon, Sirius XM, Channel 110, 12/7/13). Gwendolyn Solomon, Appellant Attorney for the IRP6 cited, “According to the judge’s ruling, she decided that the gentlemen did not need a copy of the unedited version of the transcript” (“Inside The Issues with Dr. Wilmer Leon, Sirius XM, Channel 110, 12/7/13).
“It is troubling when matters as significant as 200 pages of missing transcript are trivialized and are not apparently important enough to investigate”, states Thurman. “The Administrative Office of the Unites States Courts simply pushed the matter back to the district where the issues lie. What about oversight by someone outside of the district”, questions Thurman. “Aside from the arguments regarding the Court Reporters Act, one would think that at a minimum, this situation should be investigated based on the Judiciary Policy governing Code of Conduct”, asserts Thurman.
In a letter from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to A Just Cause, Director Bates writes, “The Court Reporters Statute, 28 U.S.C. 753c, states that, ‘The reporters shall be subject to the supervision of the appointing court and the Judicial Conference in the performance of their duties, including dealings with parties requesting transcripts’. The Administrative Office has no supervisory authority over staff court reporters in the federal courts and matters involving staff reporters are addressed locally by each district court. Furthermore, because your organization is currently engaged in a civil suit against a staff court reporter from the District of Colorado, it would be inappropriate for this office to comment on the matter”. (Administrative Office of the United States Courts letter to A Just Cause, October 4, 2013)
“The response from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts seems to be inconsistent with the Canons of the Code of Conduct and A Just Cause asks that the office of U.S. Courts revisits this matter and presses for an immediate investigation based on code of conduct violations”, emphasizes Thurman.
The Guide to Judiciary Policy, Code of Conduct cites, “Canon 1: A Judicial Employee Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary and of the Judicial Employee's Office; Canon 2: A Judicial Employee Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities; Canon 3: A Judicial Employee Should Adhere to Appropriate Standards in Performing the Duties of the Office” (Canons 4 and 5 NA). (Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol 2, Ethics and Judicial Conduct, Codes of Conduct, § 320 Text of the Code, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, August 2, 2013, http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch03.pdf).
According to the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Code of Conduct, “This Code of Conduct applies to all employees of the judicial branch, including interns, externs, and other volunteer court employees, except it does not apply to Justices; judges; and employees of the United States Supreme Court, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, the Sentencing Commission, and federal public defender offices”. (Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol 2, Ethics and Judicial Conduct, Codes of Conduct, § 310.10 Scope, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, August 2, 2013, http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch03.pdf).
“A Just Cause didn’t stop at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts but has reached out to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Congressional Black Caucus, Senator John McCain, Congressman John Conyers, Congressman John Lewis, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, DOJ Civil Rights Division, DOJ Criminal Division, DOJ Executive Office of United States Attorneys, as well as others, and the replies are echoed”, says Thurman. “Somehow our government leaders have misinterpreted a request for an investigation, as a request to disregard ethics rules. When in fact, A Just Cause is asking that ethics and codes of conduct be enforced. This is not about showing favors or intervening in litigation, but rather holding people accountable; especially people who are tasked with operating our courts”, Thurman concludes.
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 and 11-1492).
For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go to http://www.freetheirp6.org. Appellate Court panel includes the Honorable Senior Judge Bobby R. Baldock, Honorable Judge Harris L. Hartz, and Honorable Judge Jerome A. Holmes
Related press releases: http://www.a-justcause.com/#!press-release/c21pq