Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon Petitions United States Supreme Court to Review Tenth Circuit’s Decision in Case of the IRP6

Share Article

Attorney for IRP6 files petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court; argues that the lower court got it wrong, says advocacy group, A Just Cause

Free The IRP6

Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness.Desmond Tutu(brainy

Attorney for the IRP6, Gwendolyn Solomon, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider reviewing the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the IRP6 case. U.S. Supreme Court records show that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 23, 2014 and placed on the docket on August 27, 2014. (U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 14-229, 8/27/14, RE: David A. Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, Clinton A. Stewart, Gary L. Walker, David A. Zirpolo vs. United States).

The IRP6 case concerns a Colorado-based company (IRP Solutions Corporation) 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).

Court documents show that the IRP6 case was previously submitted to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals based on Fifth Amendment Prohibition of Compulsory Testimony, Sixth Amendment Right to Present a Defense and Speedy Trial Act Violation. That appeal was denied in August 2014. (IRP 6 Case - Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14). Records also show that A Just Cause previously filed a lawsuit against Court Reporter Darlene Martinez for a missing transcript related to the Fifth Amendment violation argument. Court records show that the IRP6 made repeated requests for the transcript from court proceedings of October 11, 2011, arguing that a sidebar discussion was missing. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).

“We put together a solid argument for appeal, but I am troubled at what I have observed throughout these proceedings at how there can be evidence of innocence, yet men sit in jail”, says Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon, Appellant Attorney for the IRP6. “The next obvious step was the U.S. Supreme Court”, adds Solomon.

“Regardless of decisions by lower courts, filing the petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the IRP6 is a great opportunity”, says Solomon. “I was truly amazed when I got the letter showing that it had been filed and that it passed the first step of getting on the docket”, exclaims Solomon. “It is my ultimate goal that this case is reviewed by the Justices and the IRP6 can get back to their families”, Solomon concludes. (U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 14-229, 8/27/14, RE: David A. Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, Clinton A. Stewart, Gary L. Walker, David A. Zirpolo vs. United States)

“While working on this case there are so many things that I have observed and argued in lower court filings to include judicial abuse of authority and power. I’m now petitioning the highest court to review arguments showing how the lower court was not impartial, but exhibited judicial bias in favor of the government”, argues Solomon. “Court filings show that appellants have argued that exculpatory evidence was disallowed, not only documents but expert witnesses to allow the defendants to properly defend their case. Court transcripts show that the Judge didn’t assist in enforcement of subpoenas, but reprimanded the defendants for being unable to get service on their witnesses”, added Solomon (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA) . “As for the Fifth Amendment violation argument, I have serious questions on what the court records show regarding how a court reporter can withhold court records of legal proceedings and the court not enforce a person’s fundamental right to those court records. This is the type of action that warrants a review by the Supreme Court because of the potential conflict it poses with federal law”, asserts Solomon.

“A Just Cause is very pleased at the ongoing interest that Attorney Solomon has shown in the IRP6 case”, says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. “Ms. Solomon has been working this case pro bono for over two years, and you have to respect that type of dedication. She was on board already when Mark Geragos joined the team and continued to do most of the research and legwork afterwards. The defendants and AJC have since parted ways with Mr. Geragos”, adds Thurman. “That situation is one in which we have recently filed a complaint on behalf of AJC and the families with the California Bar Association under Rule 3-500 – Communication and 3-110 - Failing to Act Competently (California Bar Association Complaint Ref #14-25162). The complaint shows that the families paid Mr. Geragos over $100,000 in retainer fees, but they do not feel that the case was adequately represented”, adds Thurman. “The fact that Solomon has continued to progress with this case in light of the recent complaint that we had to file is a testament to her willingness to see this case through to the end”, says Thurman.

“At first I was very excited to work with Mark Geragos”, says Solomon. “He is a veteran with over 30 years experience and I graduated from law school only 7 years ago. It was my desire to advance my skills and knowledge of the legal system”, adds Solomon. “I became concerned as certain events occurred that ultimately led to Mr. Geragos’ dismissal and subsequent complaint. I acknowledge that there was a riff between he and I at one point but that doesn’t concern me as much as how he treated the IRP6 and their families. I support the families and A Just Cause in their complaint against Mr. Geragos, which cites that he didn’t exercise professional courtesy in this relationship. I was lead counsel, but as the complaint states, he didn’t communicate well with the client or me. On several occasions he refused to follow my suggestions and wouldn’t return calls or timely emails. Lack of communication and disrespect for me as a professional attorney are key to the California Bar complaint, and I believe that the dismissal of the IRP6 civil case for the transcript can be attributed to Geragos’ that lack of communication and failing to act competently; as the complaint cites”, Solomon asserts (California Bar Association Complaint Ref #14-25162). “You don’t yell at your clients during a conference call and hang up on them; I was shocked”, explains Solomon.

Referring to the filing of the complaint with the California Bar Association, David Banks comments, “Mr. Geragos’ comment to us that ‘You can chase your constitutional rights, but you are going to spend your time in jail’ was uncalled for and showed lack of professional consideration for us as his clients”. “In our opinion the complaint with the California Bar is the right thing to do and we are glad that Attorney Solomon didn’t let his actions deter her from filing the petition with the Supreme Court”, added Banks.

“I agree with retired federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who wrote a five-part series in the Huffington Post about this case, when he suggest to us that in the best interest in the IRP6, Geragos and I needed to put differences aside and keep this case moving, and that is exactly what I purposed to do. Geragos and I disagreed on the value of petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court, but I am glad that I have the opportunity to pursue this on behalf of the IRP6”, added Solomon. “Court records show that I was already lead counsel doing a majority of the legal filings, so when things didn’t work out, I was determined to not be deterred and stay on track for the IRP6. This case isn’t about me. This case isn’t about Mark Geragos. This case is about seeking justice for six men who have been incarcerated and away from their families for over two years”, adds Solomon.

“As a relatively new attorney, this case shows that one has to have drive and determination. I’ve learned that the client relies on you to be their voice in the judicial process and that they need an advocate who will listen and consider their input. Sometimes the “well-known” lawyer might not always see it that way”, adds Solomon. “I’m will continue to push on behalf of the IRP6 and their families. I believe in their innocence and I will continue to move forward with that mindset”, says Solomon.

For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go to

Related press releases:!press-release/c21pq

Petition for release of the missing of transcript:

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 >
Visit website