The IRP6 continue to question if laws were violated in their case where 200 pages of court transcripts are missing.
Denver, Colorado (PRWEB) January 22, 2014
Advocacy group, A Just Cause, continues to explore grounds for investigation into 200 pages of transcript being omitted from the official record in the IRP6 case (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
The IRP6 argues that key elements of the court transcript, which are critical to their appeal, were omitted from the official record (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA). A Just Cause, intervening on behalf of the IRP6, has requested that Attorney General Eric Holder conduct an investigation into why official court documents were not filed as required by The Court Reporter’s Act (28 U.S. Code § 753 – Reporters). Attorney General Eric Holder has not replied to the request for an investigation and there is no record of an investigation being started.
Court records show that the IRP6 argue that court transcripts pertaining to a sidebar bench conference are missing from the official court record (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA). Records show that Darlene Martinez (Federal Court Reporter in the IRP6 case) affirmed in court to federal Judge Arguello that the unedited/original transcript of the bench conference consisted of 200 pages. Court records confirm that the IRP6 asked Judge Arguello for the unedited version of the transcript. Judge Arguello questioned Martinez, “How many pages is it?” Martinez affirms, “Over 200 pages.” Judge Arguello further states, “Over 200 pages...for no purpose that I can see that would be served by having that at this time. I am not going to have an expedited, and unedited version (of the transcript) delivered to the defendants (IRP6)”, concludes Arguello. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, October 2011, Court transcript pages 2062 - 2063).
According to 28 U.S. Code § 753 – Reporters (Court Reporter’s Act), all proceedings in criminal cases had in open court shall be “…recorded verbatim...”. 28 U.S. Code § 753 further states, “The reporter or other individual designated to produce the record shall attach his official certificate to the original shorthand notes or other original records so taken and promptly file them with the clerk who shall preserve them in the public records of the court for not less than ten years.” (28 U.S. Code § 753 – Reporters (Court Reporter’s Act))
According to criminal statute 18 USC § 1018, “Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both” (18 U.S. Code § 1018 – Official Certificates or Writings).
“A Just Cause argues that court reporter Darlene Martinez and Judge Arguello had an obligation based on the Court Reporter’s Act to deliver a full and complete certified transcript," states Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. “When Martinez certified, by signature, that the transcript that is on file is a complete verbatim recording of the IRP6 proceedings, that provides the Attorney General solid grounds for an investigation because the record that is on file contradicts that certification; it shows that 200 pages were not provided," argues Thurman.
Court records show that on October 8, 2013, Gwendolyn Solomon, Appellant Attorney for the IRP6 filed a motion with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals requesting their intervention in resolving issues surrounding the transcript in the IRP6 case (Petition for Writ of Mandamus 28 U. S. C 1651(a), Fed. R. App. P. 21 - D.C. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA Nos. 11-1487, 11-1488, 11-1489, 11-1490, 11-1491 & 11-1492). Court records show that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Writ of Mandamus, asserting that the filing is a “frivolous mandamus petition." (Appellate Case: 13-1416 Document: 01019142130, Case 1:09-cr-00266-CMA, 10/16/13 USDC Colorado). “The 10th Circuit, in denying the Writ, states that the 'mandamus petition is frivolous because we are seeking relief we have already sought, or could have sought, in our appeals," asserts David Banks, IRP Solutions COO and IRP6. (Appellate Case: 13-1416 Document: 01019142130, Case 1:09-cr-00266-CMA, 10/16/13 USDC Colorado) “Isn't that what a mandamus petition is for?” argues Banks. “Court records will show that we repeatedly sought relief during trial and after trial from the district court to provide us with the transcript," continues Banks (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). Banks reflects, “No relief was granted. We sought relief from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals through post-conviction motions and no relief was granted. We sought relief through our appellate briefs and the 10th circuit, ignoring their own precedent, granted no relief. Now when we seek relief again from the 10th Circuit through a Writ of Mandamus, no relief is granted.” (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)
“The court of appeals needs the pages of the transcript to thoroughly assess the IRP6 appeal, yet they did not make a favorable decision on the Writ which would have ensured that Judge Arguello and Martinez were in compliance with the Court Reporters Act and the statute governing official certificates and writings. More importantly it would have ensured that the 200 pages of transcript were released,” states Thurman.
“The Court Reporter's Act is simple and unambiguous," states David Banks, IRP Solutions COO (IRP6). “There is nothing complex or technical about the Act. One can conclude from the actions and conduct of these (court) officials that they neglected to perform their duties and responsibilities under the law," Banks adds. “Their actions and conduct warrant a criminal investigation by Eric Holder and the evidence should be presented to a grand jury," concludes Banks.
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). The IRP executives (Gary Walker, David Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, Clinton Stewart and David Zirpolo) have been incarcerated for nearly 18 months at a Federal Prison Camp in Florence, Colorado. (Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, US District Court for the District of Colorado). IRP Solutions Corporation developed the Case Investigative Life Cycle (CILC) criminal investigations software for federal, state, and local law enforcement.
Appellate Court panel includes the Honorable Senior Judge Bobby R. Baldock, Honorable Judge Harris L. Hartz, and Honorable Judge Jerome A. Holmes.
For additional information on the IRP6 case, or for copies of the legal filings go to http://www.freetheirp6.org. Related press releases: http://www.prweb.com/search.aspx?search-releases=irp6&hitsPerPage=20&x=10&y=13
No comments:
Post a Comment