Advocacy Group, A Just Cause, Implores the Department of Justice to Investigate the IRP6 Case; Questions of Perjury During Trial

Share Article

The IRP6 Question If Prosecutors and Witnesses Committed Perjury During Their Trial

Free The IRP6

The IRP6 and advocacy group, A Just Cause have submitted requests to the Department of Justice (DOJ) imploring DOJ to conduct an investigation into allegations of subornation of perjury during the IRP6 case. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).

The IRP6 case concerns six executives of IRP Solutions Corporation in Colorado. IRP Solutions 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. During the criminal trial and subsequent appeal the defense argued that key elements of the court transcript are missing. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).

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 are asking the DOJ if the actions and conduct of (officers of the court) are violations of criminal law. "We were deprived of court transcripts which resulted in a wrongful conviction," argues David Banks, IRP Solutions COO (IRP6).

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 records from our case show that we have previously argued that Judge Arguello coerced the IRP6 to testify and that the transcript was suspiciously withheld from the defense team," says Banks. “Even more troubling is the fact that Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kirsch and Hazra failed to provide testimony or an affidavit of what they heard during the bench conference. In doing so, did Kirsch and Hazra gain prejudice against the IRP6 with the jury to win a wrongful conviction?" questions Banks.

In his article, “The Case of the Missing Transcript Solved – Part III”, the Honorable Judge H. Lee Sarokin wrote, “[The] court reporter [nor] the U.S. Attorney provided an affidavit or testimony of what they recall being said by the Court nor denying what the defendants claim was said by the court. This omission by the U.S. Attorney speaks volumes.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/the-case-of-the-missing-t_1_b_5340397.html)

“In addition to what occurred during the sidebar conference where the transcript has not been produced, it is our charge that court records will show that the IRP6 impeached many of the witnesses put on the stand by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kirsch and Hazra," says Banks. “The record shows that prosecution witnesses repeatedly offered inconsistent answers to questions. Shouldn't this equate to subornation of perjury on the part of the prosecution?" asks Banks.

According to 18 U.S. Code 1622, Subornation of Perjury is defined as, “Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more that five years, or both." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1622).

“The IRP6 question if Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kirsch and Hazra suborned perjury by repeatedly asking prosecution witnesses to provide answers to questions that those witnesses had no first-hand knowledge of, yet presenting answers to the jury as fact," exclaims Banks. “Court records show that regardless of the prosecution witnesses being impeached by us (IRP6), Judge Arguello did not intervene and warn the witnesses of the consequences of perjury," adds Banks.

“Prosecution witnesses should be held to the same standard as defendants and defense witnesses," says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. “It is unacceptable that witnesses for the prosecution be allowed to speak on matters as fact, when it was clear, based on cross-examination, that their testimony was not credible," adds Thurman.

“According to the American Bar Association Rule 8.4 there is justification to charge professional misconduct and the IRP6 are strongly encouraging the DOJ to investigate Kirsch and Hazra on charges of suborned perjury with consideration of violation of ethical rules of conduct for attorneys," says Banks.

According to the American Bar Association, Rule 8.4 on Misconduct states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice,… or engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."

“U.S. laws regarding perjury, misconduct and prejudicial administration of justice should help protect the integrity of United States agencies and prevent obstruction of due process," asserts Banks. “The IRP6 want to ensure that every applicable law that can be considered in our situation, is considered," concludes Banks.

The entire manuscript of the blog by David Banks on Subornation of Perjury can be found at http://www.freetheirp6.org, Stand Up Blog. Related press releases: http://www.a-justcause.com/#!press-release/c21pq

Share article on socal media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Sam Thurman
sthurman@a-justcause.com
877-573-5554
Email >
Visit website