WelcomeTo My World

Tuesday, 7 July 2015

In June: Israel Detained 150, 60 are Minors


author Sunday July 05, 2015 22:58author by IMEMC News & Agencies
http://www.imemc.org/article/72156
Israeli forces, in June, detained 150 Palestinians, including 60 minors and 19 women, statistics said.
According to those statistics, the 60 were minors under the age of 18 and six of them were under the age of 12, said Days of Palestine.

It also showed that 19 women were arrested, including one little girl.

Most of those arrested were from the East Jerusalem neighbourhoods of Silwan (35 arrests), Issawiya (26), the Old City (21) and Beit Hanina (19), as well as Sheikh Jarrah, Jabal al Mukkaber, A-Tur and Sur Baher, amongst others.

Over 620 Israeli settlers invaded Al-Aqsa Mosque in June, according to Wadi Hilweh Information Center, accompanied by over 210 Israeli police and intelligence officials.

Simultaneously, Israeli officials banned 22 Palestinians from entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque for periods ranging from 15 days to four months. Of the 22 banned Palestinians, 14 women.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces destroyed three Palestinian homes during the same month. They were demolished on June 2 under the pretext of construction without permits.

The Israeli occupation further destroyed trees and land in the East Jerusalem village of Issawiya on June 10.
--
Freedom Archives
Free All Political Prisoners!
 www.jerichony.org

Women's Prisons as Sites of Resistance: An Interview With Victoria Law





http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/31461-women-s-prisons-as-sites-of-resistance-an-interview-with-victoria-law

July 5, 2015

When we think of protest behind bars, what comes to mind? For many people, that list would include the Attica uprising, the work of George Jackson, the struggles of the Angola 3 activists, the 2013 California prison hunger strike and other crucial instances of resistance - mostly organized by incarcerated men.

Too often, organizing work done by incarcerated women goes wholly unrecognized. In her book, /Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women/, Victoria Law focuses on the many forms of activism happening inside of women's prisons, most of which never reach the dominant media.

In the following interview, Law shares stories of little-known actions, insights into what constitutes "activism," and ways in which individual acts of resistance are building toward a transformational new reality.

*Maya Schenwar: You discuss in the book how, when you first got interested in resistance within prisons and noticed a dearth of information about women's organizing, you were often told, "Women don't organize." I've definitely noticed that the actions that we hear most about (particularly in mass media, but even among outside activist communities) are focused on men. What are some of the factors that create and perpetuate this myth that women behind bars aren't "politicized" or engaged in resistance?*

*Victoria Law:* We don't hear very much about what's happening in women's prisons. If we hear about what's going on inside, it's usually framed as "these are the conditions," not "these are the conditions, and this is what people inside these jails and prisons are doing about it."

Even in 2015, prisoner resistance is still largely thought of as male. Part of it is that more attention is paid to men's jails and prisons - they do, after all, make up approximately 90 percent of those behind bars. Part of it is that support networks for men are different than for women (including trans women) behind bars. For example, during the Pelican Bay hunger strike, we saw women family members stepping to the forefront to speak about the conditions their loved ones have been enduring. Although we know (barely) that people in California's women's prisons had also been fasting in solidarity - and we know that there is also a SHU (Security Housing Unit) at the women's prison - we're not seeing (or hearing) outside loved ones amplifying their voices and efforts to the same extent that women like Dolores Canales, Marie Levin and Daletha Hayden are doing for their male loved ones.

In addition, even in this day and age, prison issues are frequently framed as men's issues (unless it's an issue like pregnancy, reproductive health or sexual abuse). So when we talk about solitary confinement, even though solitary confinement is used throughout women's prisons and jails, coverage is often about what happens to men. The people spotlighted are men. Sometimes, women will speak, like Evie Litwok and Donna Hylton <http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28570-women-in-solitary-confinement> [1] about their experiences in solitary at a NYC hearing. But, unless it's specifically a story about women in solitary or trans people in solitary, we don't often see recognition that these conditions affect people of all genders. It's not just solitary confinement where male becomes the default gender.

Finally, some of the ways women are challenging and resisting aren't seen as fitting what we might think of as "resistance" or "organizing." For example, currently and formerly incarcerated women have been involved in challenging policies around parenting - or maintaining their right to parent. It's an issue that disproportionately affects incarcerated mothers because, when a father goes to prison, he often has a female relative willing to take care of his children. When a mother goes to prison, she is less likely to have that same network of support and faces a greater chance that her children will end up in foster care. Children of incarcerated mothers are five times more likely to end up in foster care than children of incarcerated fathers, which makes fighting to maintain custody an issue that many incarcerated women face.

Some women have individually helped challenge these policies - I wrote about Mary Glover, the legendary jailhouse lawyer in Michigan's women's prison, who helped women with their custody cases during the 20 or so years she was behind bars. (She also filed /Glover v. Johnson/, which required the prison to have equal educational and vocational programing for men's and women's prisons, a landmark 1970s case.) More recently, Arlinda Johns <http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29973-phyllis-grandma-hardy-is-home-but-over-98-000-people-remain-prisoners-of-the-drug-war> [2] did the same for moms in the federal system. Moms have also organized to change policies around termination of rights <http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/06/12/dilemma-faced-orange-new-black-real-mothers-behind-bars/> [3] - collecting and compiling testimony on the effects of permanent separation from their children, sharing their stories, etc.

*Not all of the forms of resistance you discuss correspond to a normative idea of what "protest" means. For example, you chronicle the prisoner-led establishment of unique literacy programs at a prison in New York - a process that involved collaborating with prison officials (working "with the system"). You even discuss "listening" - in the service of community-building - as a type of action behind bars. Can you discuss why it is important to recognize this wide variety of activities as political acts?*

Prisons isolate people. They're not meant to strengthen bonds between people or build community. People inside prisons can be punished for simple, humane acts like hugging or sharing. Prison rules and staff discourage people from helping each other out. One example: A woman in an education program recently told me that one of her classmates has arthritis and thus cannot type the paper assigned to the class. Prison rules prohibit anyone else from typing her paper for her. "Do I type the paper for her so that she can pass the class or do I go by the rules?" the woman wondered.

While typing a paper doesn't overturn this particular rule, the act of doing so not only helps the woman with arthritis, but also demonstrates caring and compassion in an environment designed to break it out of people. I've heard from women who have lost family members or custody of their children. … A listening ear makes all the difference in how they are able to process their grief.

Sometimes these acts of listening turn into something more widespread - for example, through the act of creating an environment in which women could share their experiences, the support group for women serving long sentences in Ohio realized that abuse and domestic violence were a pathway to long or life sentences and launched the first successful mass clemency campaign for battered women. But this wouldn't have happened without that first step of listening.

*I think it's so important that your book contains a chapter about grievances and lawsuits, and the importance of the media in amplifying those efforts. How do these legal tools, which often stem from individual harms, contribute to larger goals of resistance? And how can we as the media serve to amplify them in a way that supports the work?*

We need to remember that, while a grievance might reflect one person's experience of individual harm, that experience is frequently reflective of a larger, more systemic reality affecting everyone in that jail or prison. A woman filing a grievance against a particularly abusive officer, for example, is probably not the only person who has experienced abuse from that person. One woman's complaint about inadequate or negligent health care probably reflects many other women's experiences. These grievances are important because, under the 1995 Prison Litigation Reform Act, people in prison are required to exhaust every administrative remedy before filing a lawsuit in civil court. In other words, if the person hasn't been filing grievances and appeals, the court won't hear their case.

Individual - or even collective filings of - grievances don't make the news. Lawsuits occasionally do. Covering lawsuits allows journalists to highlight some of the conditions that people in prison are litigating to change, conditions that may not be considered newsworthy otherwise because they happen all the time. One of the ways in which media can serve to amplify these efforts is to talk with people most affected - the people inside and their family members and friends on the outside. Those are the people doing the on-the-ground work and who know exactly what's happening. Of course, trying to communicate with people inside takes time, patience and sometimes money (especially if you're relying on collect calls, for-profit email servers and snail mail). These may seem to be luxuries for people who are on a deadline or operating on a small budget, but they are crucial to understanding the crux of the problem from the people who are forced to live it every day.

*I love the section of your book that talks about how women behind bars do their own media work, finding creative ways to raise consciousness. Can you discuss some of the ways that women in prison get the word out about what's happening behind bars?*

As I said earlier, the networks that women are able to tap into are often different than those that men utilize. But women in prison use the networks and resources available to them to get the word out. Some of them use whatever email service the prison has to let people know about conditions. Their supporters then post their emails online, whether on dedicated sites, blogs or Facebook pages.

In the past, these networks have often included feminist publications. During the 1970s, off our backs regularly published writings by women in prison or updates by outside supporters about what was going on inside women's prisons. Several other feminist publications also had regular imprisoned contributors. They also sent copies of their publication to women inside so that they felt connected to the outside world - and the various political struggles. In the online age, that kind of inside-outside connection is a little harder to maintain, but several groups continue to produce print newsletters that can be mailed into prisons: For instance, Black & Pink has a newspaper <http://www.blackandpink.org/newspaper/> [4] that they send to over 7,500 LGBTQ people imprisoned across the country, while the California Coalition for Women Prisoners has, since the 1990s, produced The Fire Inside<http://womenprisoners.org/?page_id=1061> [5] and sent it to its members imprisoned in California.

They also write letters to anyone and everyone whose snail mail addresses they can get their hands on, letting them know what's going on inside.

*Sexual abuse by correctional officers is rampant in women's prisons, and you discuss some of the ways in which incarcerated women are confronting the issue. This is a particularly difficult battle to wage, given the real threat of retaliation for women who speak out about sexual violence. What are some of the strategies that women use to protect themselves and each other, and to challenge the larger problem of sexual violence that is ingrained in the system?*

Keep in mind that in jails and prisons, movements are very restricted. So strategies that might work on the outside - like staying in groups or avoiding deserted areas - don't work in prison. Staff not only hold the keys to people's cells, but also have the ability to give orders to those in custody. If they refuse, they risk being charged with "disobeying a direct order," which can lead to time in solitary confinement and/or be used against them during a parole hearing.

Despite this, women have figured out ways to try to protect themselves and others. One woman, incarcerated in the mid-1990s, recalled a guard who constantly harassed her cellmate. He threatened her and her friends that, if they tried to report him, he would place cocaine among their possessions. His threat worked - the women kept quiet about his harassment. Then, one night, they heard their friend screaming; they found her with semen on her face. Despite his threats - and their fears - they filed a complaint with prison officials and later testified before a grand jury, which led to the guard's arrest and conviction. After that, the woman stated, the nastiness and vulgarness that had been part of staff treatment of the women began to decrease. Other women felt less afraid of reporting sexual abuse, and at least two other officers were escorted out of the prison.

Women have also filed lawsuits to try to change policies that allow such abuse to happen. In Michigan, one of the dozen lawsuits Mary Glover filed led to a change in policy banning men from pat-searching women, being in the housing units and limiting other areas they could be in (such as medical examining rooms).

*The newest edition of your book has a chapter that's specifically focused on trans, intersex and gender nonconforming people in prison. What are some specific struggles that trans, intersex and gender nonconforming people face in prison - and some sites of resistance?*

Keep in mind that trans people behind bars face all of the same struggles as their cisgender (or people who identify with the sex assigned to them at birth) counterparts. But, being trans also means that they face a whole host of other problems, too.

Let's start with placement. Contrary to what the Netflix series /Orange is the New Black/ may have you believe, most trans women are not placed in women's prisons. Sentencing usually goes by the sex on a birth certificate, meaning that trans women are often sent to men's jails and prisons. There, they face the very real threat of sexual harassment and assault by both staff and the men with whom they are incarcerated. They also face physical (and often brutal) violence.

People who are on hormones before entering prison often have to fight to maintain access to hormone treatment. Some prison systems only allow hormone treatment if the person had a legal prescription before their arrest. But, like their cisgender counterparts, many who end up in prison are low-income or underemployed and may not have had health insurance or access to legally prescribed hormone therapy. Without that prescription, they can be denied treatment altogether.

But even having a prescription is no guarantee that the prison will honor it. As I reported in one of my earliest stories for Truthout<http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/11196-no-justice-when-women-fight-back> [6], CeCe McDonald entered prison with both a legal prescription and a court order for 20 milligrams of hormones. Despite that, prison staff only gave her 6 milligrams until supporters from around the world flooded the prison with calls, demanding that she receive her full treatment.

Ashley Diamond <http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30937-despite-advances-the-trans-struggle-for-justice-behind-bars-is-just-beginning> [7] had to file a lawsuit against the Georgia Department of Corrections to get access to hormone therapy. Her lawsuit led to a New York Times profile and several articles about her struggles against medical, physical and sexual violence in a men's prison, which led to the Department of Justice getting involved on her behalf. In response, the Georgia Department of Corrections changed its policy around hormone therapy and began issuing her a small amount of hormones.

These are the stories that we know and that have been publicized. There are many more names and experiences that we don't know - I recently received a letter from a trans woman in California who said that she had been sexually assaulted by a guard. She was only believed after she showed prison officials his semen and took a polygraph test. The guard was allowed to retire with full benefits. She remains in prison.

*You discuss how activism extends beyond the bars - how the work that women have done while they're incarcerated "doesn't stop at the prison gate." Can you talk about some of the resistance work currently being done by  /formerly/  incarcerated women?*

Yes! Since Season 3 of /Orange is the New Black/ is now out, readers should know about the work of Families for Justice as Healing, an organization that was started at the real-life prison where OITNB takes place. The organization has worked to raise awareness about the impact of the War on Drugs on women. Last year, it held the FreeHer! rally in Washington, DC, bringing together people working against incarceration as well as formerly incarcerated women, like Dorothy Gaines and Susan Rosenberg, both of whom were issued clemency by Clinton before he left office. Families has also worked to free women incarcerated as part of the drug war: Earlier this year, they celebrated the release of "Grandma" Hardy <http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29973-phyllis-grandma-hardy-is-home-but-over-98-000-people-remain-prisoners-of-the-drug-war> [2] after nearly 23.5 years in prison.

Now, they're pushing for a bill that would push Massachusetts judges to consider whether a person is a primary caregiver and, if so, to sentence them to a community-based alternative rather than to prison. This summer, they're also organizing a summer camp for daughters of incarcerated women in which the girls will have the opportunity to learn both computer coding and criminal justice organizing. And, because incarceration not only isolates people inside prisons, but family members on the outside from their communities, it gives the girls the opportunity to connect and build with each other.

Andrea James, the director and one of the cofounders of Families for Justice as Healing, was recently awarded a Soros Justice fellowship <http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/press-releases/open-society-foundations-announce-2015-soros-justice-fellows> [8] to organize a national network of formerly incarcerated women. I'm hoping that the award indicates a lifting of the invisibility surrounding incarcerated women's organizing and resistance.

Maya Schenwar is Truthout's editor-in-chief and the author of /Locked Down, Locked Out: Why Prison Doesn’t Work and How We Can Do Better/ <https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6694/t/17304/shop/item.jsp?storefront_KEY=661&t=&store_item_KEY=2906> [9].   Previously, she was a senior editor and reporter at Truthout, writing on US defense policy, the criminal justice system, campaign politics, and immigration reform. Prior to her work at Truthout, Maya was contributing editor at Punk Planet magazine. She has also written for the /Guardian/, /In These Times/, /Ms./ Magazine, AlterNet, /Z/ Magazine, /Bitch/ Magazine, Common Dreams, the /New Jersey Star-Ledger/ and others. She also served as a publicity coordinator for Voices for Creative Nonviolence. Maya is on the Board of Advisors at Waging Nonviolence <http://wagingnonviolence.org/> [10].

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission. May not be reprinted without permission <mailto:editor@truthout.org> [11].

*Moderator's note: * In /Resistance Behind Bars/, regular Truthout contributor Victoria Law provides much-needed documentation of collective organizing and the daily struggles inside women's prisons. This second edition includes powerful new sections examining the challenges facing trans, intersex and gender-variant people in prison as well as their acts of resistance. Order this award-winning book today by making a contribution to Truthout!

-------------------------
*Source URL:* https://portside.org/2015-07-06/womens-prisons-sites-resistance-interview-victoria-law

*Links:*
[1] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28570-women-in-solitary-confinement
[2] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29973-phyllis-grandma-hardy-is-home-but-over-98-000-people-remain-prisoners-of-the-drug-war
[3] http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/06/12/dilemma-faced-orange-new-black-real-mothers-behind-bars/
[4] http://www.blackandpink.org/newspaper/
[5] http://womenprisoners.org/?page_id=1061
[6] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/11196-no-justice-when-women-fight-back
[7] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30937-despite-advances-the-trans-struggle-for-justice-behind-bars-is-just-beginning
[8] http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/press-releases/open-society-foundations-announce-2015-soros-justice-fellows
[9] https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6694/t/17304/shop/item.jsp?storefront_KEY=661&amp;t=&amp;store_item_KEY=2906
[10] http://wagingnonviolence.org/
[11] mailto:editor@truthout.org

- See more at: https://portside.org/print/node/9158#sthash.GcNvWLJH.dpuf
--
Freedom Archives
Free All Political Prisoners!
 www.jerichony.org

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Federal Agency BOP Fails To Act On Their Open Door Policy, As They Turned Away An Advocacy Group




A Just Cause recently visited BOP in Washington and found out that their "Open Door Policy" was nothing but an open door lie!.....

Advocacy Group, A Just Cause, Seeks Investigation in IRP6 Case; Questions of Misconduct Leading to Invalid Prosecution and Conviction

Source: A Just Cause

June 30, 2015 09:48 ET

Advocacy Group, A Just Cause, Seeks Investigation in IRP6 Case; Questions of Misconduct Leading to Invalid Prosecution and Conviction

Serious Inconsistencies Generate Questions About How the IRP6 Case Made It to Trial and Led to a Gross Injustice, Says Advocacy Group, A Just Cause

DENVER, CO--(Marketwired - June 30, 2015) - Advocacy group, A Just Cause, continues to explore grounds for investigating the indictment and prosecution in theIRP6 case, and question the validity of the convictions (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
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 (David A. Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A. Stewart, David A. Zirpolo and Gary L. Walker) were convicted in 2011 after being accused of mail and wire fraud. The defense argues that key questionable events in the case contributed to a wrongful conviction (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA). The IRP6 are requesting Attorney General Loretta Lynch to conduct an investigation into acts of misconduct.
"As the IRP6 case lingers on, there are more questions than answers as to how this case even got into the courts," ponders Lamont Banks, A Just Cause Executive Director. "A Just Cause has reviewed the IRP6 case from top to bottom and there are numerous inconsistencies which leads one to conclude that procedural and legal violations occurred. Individually one might look at a particular procedural or legal action in this case and try to explain it away, but when you look at all of the inconsistencies collectively, it begins to form a picture of a conspiracy of the worst kind against six innocent men," expressed Banks.
"A Just Cause has compiled a timeline that shows critical events dating back to February 2005 when the IRP6 and their company IRP Solutions were subjected to what we have determined to be a gross injustice," says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. "When one looks at the events that occurred and review laws that govern those actions, the acts by certain folks in the federal government don't pass the smell test," Thurman added.
Records show that IRP Solutions Corporation was raided in February 2005 after a search warrant affidavit was executed stating that the company was a "purported" software development company. Court records show that FBI Agent John Smith executed the raid on the company although the agent was aware that the company was legitimate. "According to records in discovery, IRP Solutions was raided by the FBI although the federal government was in possession of sworn affidavits stating that the company was conducting legitimate business and creating a legitimate software package," says Banks. Records show that retired federal agent Gary Hillberry was working at IRP Solutions as a consultant at the time of the raid and had provided a sworn affidavit to Agent Smith prior to the raid which stated, "...IRP Solutions truly had a viable law enforcement product and appeared to be moving forward to acquire state and federal law enforcement contracts for their product...". "In addition to statements like that of retired agent Hillberry, A Just Cause found that Agent Smith had been in contact with IRP Solutions prospective customers like the Department of Homeland Security and the NYPD and confirmed that there was legitimate business activity. With that knowledge in hand, how can a raid be justified under the auspice that the company was a 'purported' software development company?" ponders Banks.
"The timeline compiled by A Just Cause clearly reveals that something is not right about the IRP6 case," argues Banks. "Right from the start things don't add up. Just a few months after the company is raided, the FBI sends a letter to one of the company's debtors stating that it is a civil matter, but as the timeline will show, a vindictive prosecution would unfold," adds Banks.
Court records show that in August 2005 FBI Special Supervisory Agent Jean M. Andersen sent correspondence to an IRP Solutions vendor (Mr. Robert Grabowski) stating, "...we (FBI) are unable to assist you in this matter and therefore no investigation will be conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, the FBI has made it a matter of record. We feel this case would be best handled civilly, and have noted that you have initiated legal action against the company (IRP)...". (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
Court records show that the IRP6 were indicted in May 2009. "What's interesting about this is that the indictment against the IRP6 came after the case was presented to a second grand jury," explains Banks. The IRP6 argue that the first grand jury that heard the allegations against them did not return an indictment, stating that the case was a debt case and that no criminal activity had occurred. Records show that FBI agent Robert Moen was the only witness called before the second grand jury and an indictment was handed down shortly afterwards. "It is our understanding that impanelling two grand juries to hear the same allegation against a person(s) is not normal, so the manner in which this occurred is highly questionable, especially considering the fact that several witnesses were called in the first grand jury (which didn't indict), but only one was called during the second grand jury (which rendered an indictment)," adds Banks.
According to the discovery documents, prior to the 2009 indictment, executives of IRP continued to try to sell the CILC software. According to IRP executives it was their plan to continue to try to make sells, generate revenue, and settle their debts. "IRP executives found out that Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Kirsch impeded the company from doing business by contacting prospective customers and telling them 'that an indictment was coming', and to not do business with IRP," explains Banks. Records show that in February 2009 IRP Solutions was talking with the City of Philadelphia regarding the CILC software. Gery Cardenas, Director of Information Technology for the Philadelphia Police Department, was interviewed by FBI agent Jennifer Ngo regarding the IRP Solutions case. "PPD (Philadelphia PD) was very close to having the (CILC) product installed prior to the discovery of the IRP investigation," said Cardenas, according to Ngo's interview notes. Discovery also shows that Philadelphia Inspector General Amy Kurland was also contacted by AUSA Kirsch and told, "an indictment was coming" against IRP executives. "As a result of the contact by the AUSA the engagements with Philadelphia didn't come to fruition for IRP. The City of Philadelphia canceled both of IRP's engagements with the Philadelphia Police Department and the Philadelphia Inspector General's Office after AUSA Kirsch's conversation," says Banks. "This turn of events is particularly interesting because not only did AUSA Kirsch tell agencies not to do business with IRP Solutions, but when the case went to trial he motioned the court to prohibit IRP from discussing any business activities after February 2005 (when the raid on the business occurred)," says Banks. "Court records show that the motion to prohibit discussing post-Feb-2005 business activity was granted, thus putting the jury in a position of not hearing all of the facts about the case," Banks adds. "Two things happened in the situation with Philadelphia. First if the AUSA hadn't interfered, IRP could have closed business and settled its debt. And secondly, if the jury had been allowed to hear all of the facts, the government's theory of fraud by a bogus company would have been shot down and the jury could have easily acquitted," Banks concludes.
"Prior to the case going to trial, there was yet another opportunity in September 2010 for the federal government to dismiss the IRP6 because the software that IRP was developing was analyzed by a government approved forensics analyst," says Banks. Court records show that Forensic Analyst Don Vilfer, of the software forensics analysis firm Califorensics, compiled a written report stating, "The CILC software did not appear to be 'vaporware' but included a large amount of complex coding that would have required significant development (software development). The CILC software was functional at the time of the search warrant (making reference to the February 2005 raid on the IRP Solutions offices). The software contained many notable features, making it a functional product for the intended consumer. There is a market for the functionality that CILC software offers and it (CILC) would undoubtedly be of interest to many law enforcement agencies." The Califorensics written reportconcluded, "...it appears the CILC software (IRP Solutions) strives to... manage information throughout the criminal justice pipeline. No one software application would meet the needs of all agencies, but the functionality that we observed... would undoubtedly be of interest to many law enforcement agencies." Records show that Vilfer is an Attorney, a Certified Fraud Examiner, a Certified Analyst for Computer Forensics and Decryption, and a former FBI Supervisory Special Agent for the White Collar Crime and Computer Crimes Squad. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
"When you review the entire timeline of the IRP6 case, there are several key indicators that show that officers of the court were not interested in justice, but seemed to be more about placing obstacles in the path of the IRP6," says Banks. Court records show that the IRP6 filed a motion to dismiss their court appointed attorneys after the attorneys refused to work with them to develop a proffer and meet with the U.S. Attorney John Walsh. The IRP executives filed a Pro Se Motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Judge Michael E. Hegarty, U.S. Magistrate Judge). The motion was granted to allow the IRP executives to proceed as Pro Se.
Court records show that the IRP6 case went to trial in September 2011. "It was clear shortly after the trial started that the prosecution was trying to prevent the IRP6 from presenting a case that would lay all the facts out for the jury," says Banks. "During a post trial interview, one of the jurors stated that the jury kept waiting on the IRP executives to present their evidence of innocence. The jury never heard most of the evidence of innocence because the prosecution objected and Judge Arguello (the presiding judge) sustained most of the objections, thus putting the IRP6 at a disadvantage," adds Banks.
"Records from the trial show that the IRP6 were convicted in October 2011, but there were several inconsistencies and questionable actions that preceded that conviction," says Banks. Court records show that expert witnesses Andrew Albarelle and Kellie Baucom were prevented from testifying. Their testimony would have explained that IRP executives conducted business according to industry standards. Court records further show that Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Kirsch asked the court to prohibit the IRP executives from entering evidence/events, etc. post February 2005. Judge Arguello granted the motion. Court records show that the IRP6 motioned for dismissal arguing that Judge Arguello violated their constitutional rights by forcing them to take the witness stand against their will. Records show that when the IRP6 requested transcripts showing the violation (which occurred during a sidebar bench conference), Judge Arguello did not provide the transcript. "A Just Cause has found through discussions with attorneys and experienced judges that missing transcripts is definitely grounds for a dismissal or retrial, but neither happened in the IRP6 case," says Banks.
Court records show that prior to the trial completion, and during the appeals process, the IRP6 argued that their Fifth Amendment right had been violated, but that the court transcript pertaining to a sidebar bench conference was 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))
"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 Banks. "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," argues Banks. Court records further show that in August 2013 A Just Cause filed a civil lawsuit against Darlene Martinez for the missing transcript. Court records go on to show that in May 2014 Judge R. Brooke Jackson (Denver Federal Court) dismissed the case. "This is another turn of events that involves serious inconsistencies," says Banks. "Judge Jackson dismissed the case, yet in his opinion he stated that there is no question that 'something' is missing from the transcript. If 'something' is missing, then how can the case be dismissed without demanding that the court reporter turn over all of the records," emphasized Banks.
"Records show that Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon filed motions to the court to have the transcript released and A Just Cause sent numerous letters to the courts, to DOJ and Senators," says Thurman. "These types of efforts have proven to be productive in that members of Congress, Senators, other Attorneys and Judges are reviewing this case with great scrutiny," adds Thurman. "Retired federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin wouldn't take our word for it regarding the injustice, but rather reviewed all of the court documentation personally and came to the conclusion that a gross injustice had occurred," Thurman shares. "Others that are looking into this case with a critical eye include The Ways and Means Committee on Capitol Hill," adds Thurman. "Legislators and staffers on Capitol Hill are interested in why the church the men (IRP6) attended was subjected to injustice by federal investigators from the FBI and when church banking records were seized without subpoenas. Even banking records of the Pastor and some of the church members were seized without subpoenas," adds Thurman. "Now looking at this collective timeline of events, it should be clear that there were a lot of inconsistencies and abnormalities in the IRP6 case," adds Thurman.
"Regarding the transcript, it is the position of the IRP6 and A Just Cause that the appellate court did not properly disposition this matter," argues Thurman. Records show that the appellate court opinion stated, "The court has acknowledged that a portion of the sidebar was not transcribed." Id. at 431 (Order Rejecting Proposed Stip., filed Oct. 16, 2012); see R., Vol. 1, at 1591 (noting that a "portion of the sidebar was not transcribed by the court reporter"). As the court has put it, "[f]or whatever reason, whether the parties spoke too far from the microphone or the court reporter took off her headphones, the court reporter did not hear everything that was said at the sidebar and therefore did not transcribe anything besides what is contained in the edited transcript." 12 Supp. R., Vol. 1, at 430. "The opinion of the appellate court and the actions of the court are baffling," says Thurman. "The court acknowledges that a critical portion of the transcript is not available, yet they did not reverse the conviction," ponders Thurman.
According to articles published in The Huffington Post by Retired Federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin, the IRP6 have reason to question the conviction and sentencing in their case. Judge Sarokin wrote a five-part series sharing his thoughts of the IRP6 case. In Part 2 of Judge Sarokin's series (May 2013) he wrote, "If there is no way to determine whether or not the 5th Amendment rights of the defendants were violated, does the Court of Appeals have any other choice but to either reverse and remand for a new trial or dismiss?" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/the-missing-transcript-ca_b_5334328.html). In July 2014, Sarokin pondered several questions. ".[the] case itself raises so many unanswered questions: Why wasn't the critical conversation regarding the Court's direction to the defendants upon which they base their constitutional violation recorded? Why did these defendants with no criminal records, no risk of flight, convicted of a non-violent crime receive such harsh sentences -- 7 to 11 years and repeatedly be denied bail pending appeal?" pondered Sarokin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/the-case-of-the-missing-t_2_b_5619097.html). Judge H. Lee Sarokin served on the United States District Court (N.J.) appointed by President Carter, and the United States Court of Appeals (3rd Cir.) appointed by President Clinton. He retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench and now resides in Rancho Santa Fe, CA.
"In addition to the other inconsistencies in the IRP6 case, A Just Cause questions why it took nearly a year for the appellate court to render a decision," questions Thurman. "The men were incarcerated in July 2012 but a decision wasn't rendered until August 2014. And during this period of time there were several mixed messages coming from the appellate court and the Court Clerk for the 10th Circuit," adds Thurman. "One assistant to an appellate judge said that the decision had long been sent back to the clerk's office (Denver), but the clerk's office would contradict that and say that they were waiting on input from the judges. In another communication, the clerk's office would say that it was with the writing judge. It is this type of inconsistency and altered stories that point to the basis for the claim that there was misconduct in the IRP6 case and an investigation is warranted for criminal misconduct and/or interference in the judicial process," concludes Thurman.
"The questionable activities in the IRP6 case touches every level of the judicial process," says Banks. "The investigation and warrant process has to be questioned because the FBI lead investigator got the search warrant and raided the offices of IRP Solutions under false pretenses. The grand jury process was violated because the decision of the people in the first grand jury was ignored and a second grand jury only heard from one witness and didn't receive all of the facts. The criminal trial was flawed for several reasons. Court appointed attorneys didn't do due diligence. Evidence of business activity from post-Feb 2005 was not allowed by the judge. Evidence of the legitimacy of the business and the product (Califorensics analysis) was not allowed. Expert witness testimony was not allowed. The IRP6 were forced to testify by Judge Arguello, but the transcript showing the violation disappeared. Darlene Martinez violated the Court Reporters Act, and this violation was not pursued by the U.S. Attorney, DOJ, the criminal courts, the civil courts, or the Colorado Senators. The court of appeals did not act expeditiously in matters related to the IRP case, and there were several questions to arise in the handling and decision of the appeal," argues Banks.
"A Just Cause will do a deep dive into several of the inconsistencies during the organization's weekly blogtalk radio program, AJC Radio (www.ajcradio.com)," says Banks. "The issues raised in the IRP6 case identify serious breakdowns in our judicial process," adds Banks. "A Just Cause will continue to fight for the exoneration of the IRP6 because this case highlights a gross injustice. We must continue to raise these issues for the IRP6, but also to help prevent this type of thing from happening to someone else," concludes Banks.
For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go tohttp://www.freetheirp6.org.

Contact Information

    CONTACT INFORMATIONA Just Cause
    (855) 529-4252 extension 703

Monday, 29 June 2015

Why I stand up for Rodney Reed? #MarkClements #RodneyReed




Why I stand up for Rodney Reed? I am someone that always will tell you that the criminal justice system is flawed. If any one clearly knows what a police department will do to arrest and win convictions, I clearly know. I have witness the dirty tricks of the system, I was one of their products. Locked inside a prison and told that I would remain their to die. I was given another death penalty called mental anguish, pain, and suffering while looking at men such as Rodney suffer decades on death row for crimes that they never committed. Next week I am going to go over some ways how you can help. We cannot let Texas kill another innocent man, I say LOUD and CLEAR, Innocence must matter!
Mark A. Clements