Court Records Confirm Allegations That Judges Conspired to Violate the Law in IRP6 Case
Denver, CO -- (ReleaseWire) -- 12/03/2019 --"The basic rationale of the law of conspiracy is that a conspiracy may be an evil in itself, independently of any other evil it seeks to accomplish." U.S. Supreme Court, 1951
Americans are aware that in criminal cases prosecutors call witnesses before a jury to prove charges it levied against criminal defendants. To guarantee due process, a fair trial and to ensure that powerful prosecutors don't have an unfair advantage to convict the innocent, the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants defendants the right to call witnesses in their favor to disprove government charges or cast reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors that they committed a crime. In a Colorado federal criminal case (case no. 09-cr-00266-CMA or "IRP6" case), court records prove that federal judges and prosecutors entered into a conspiratorial agreement to deprive pro se criminal defendants of their 6th Amendment rights to call expert witnesses and did so by overtly violating a federal statute.
According to a 1995 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, "an agreement constituting a conspiracy [in violation of U.S. federal criminal code 18 U.S.C. 371] may be inferred from the acts of the [judges] and other circumstantial evidence indicating concert of action for the accomplishment of a common purpose." The trial judge in the IRP6 case was Judge Christine M. Arguello, 10th Circuit judges are Bobby Baldock, Harris Hartz and Jerome Holmes and federal prosecutors were former Colorado U.S. Attorney John Walsh (an Obama appointee) and his underlings, Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSA) Matthew T. Kirsch and Suneeta Hazra.
The IRP6 case exposes the dark underbelly of the American criminal justice system where secret deals to violate the law are struck between federal judges and prosecutors to determine the outcome of convictions against those who dare to defy them by aggressively defending their innocence--where evidence of innocence doesn't matter--and where you're guilty simply because elite win-at-any-cost prosecutors and crony judges want you to be guilty and are willing to employ a nefarious, ends-justifies-the-means approach to gain a wrongful conviction. After an unfair trial rife with constitutional violations Judge Arguello imprisoned the innocent IRP6 defendants (David A. Banks, Clinton A. Stewart, Demetrius K. Harper, David A. Zirpolo and Kendrick Barnes) to harsh sentences of 7 to 11 years.
Walsh and Kirsch claimed in their indictment (which was shown to be fraudulent at trial- See http://bit.ly/2r2MX8c) that the IRP6 conspired to violate U.S. mail and wire fraud laws by making false statements about having a current or impending contract with a large law enforcement agency to induce staffing companies into extending them unsecured credit for temporary labor services -- credit which the government's own staffing witnesses testified was based on credit checks, not statements related to a government contract as the indictment falsely alleged. Former federal appeals judge H. Lee Sarokin confirmed the government's case was a fraud, telling the Washington Post the IRP6 were "indicted and imprisoned for failing to pay their [corporate] bills." "The government's contention that their business was a scam defies reality," added Sarokin, "ALL the proof in the case goes the opposite way," declared Sarokin (Washington Post article online at www.wapo.st/29jXqSC).
Because their defense attorneys were apathetic and continually pressured them to take a plea deal, all of the IRP6 fired them on the same day and chose to represent their innocence against the government, which included calling expert witnesses from the staffing industry to testify at their trial. Prior to trial, two staffing experts who agreed to testify for the IRP6, sent letters to Walsh discussing staffing industry business practices and explaining that the IRP6 had done nothing untoward, that their business dealings with staffing companies were consistent with customary industry practices, and that the staffing companies were not deceived or forced to do business but consciously chose to do business with IRP Solutions based on the potential of their innovative criminal investigations software. One of the experts (Andrew Albarelle) was such as well-respected expert by law enforcement he had been previously called on by the FBI to assist them with staffing fraud cases -- a point Albarelle alluded to in his letter to Walsh. (See expert's letters online at http://bit.ly/2jDm4Uf & http://bit.ly/2f7mFZ3).
Kirsch wasn't going to allow these experts destroy his case so he allegedly initiated an unlawful scheme to disqualify them from testifying but to be successful he would need trial judge Christine Arguello and the 10th Court of Appeals to conspire with him. It can be inferred from evidence in court records that Judge Arguello and 10th Circuit judges Baldock, Hartz and Holmes gave Kirsch their full cooperation.
Kirsch began by falsely arguing to Arguello that Rule 16(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure gave him the right to view a written summary of what the IRP6's experts intended to testify about at trial. Kirsch told Arguello that because the IRP6 defendants had not provided him with written summaries, the IRP6's expert witnesses should be disqualified from testifying.
Rule 16(b)(1)(C) staes that "a defendant must, at the government's request, give the government a written summary of any expert testimony that the defendant intends to use...[IF AND ONLY] IF the defendant [first] requests disclosure" of the government's expert witnesses "AND THE GOVERNMENT COMPLIES."
Court records show that government didn't call expert witnesses and that the IRP6 did not request a written summary nor had reason to. With those uncontroverted facts of law in hand Judge Arguello conspired with Kirsch to violated Rule 16(b)(1)(C) and the IRP6's 6th Amendment rights and disqualified the experts from testifying. Shockingly, 10th Circuit judges Baldock, Hartz and Holmes followed suit, but their acts were much more sinister -- they partially quoted Rule 16(b)(1)(C) in their opinion to make it appear as if they were abiding by the law.
The 10th Circuit opinion (United States v. Banks, 761 F.3d 1163, 1198 (10th Cir. 2014)) shows that Judge Holmes cited and quoted Rule 16(b)(1)(C) without the "IF" clause which shows that IRP6 had no obligation to provide Kirsch with written summaries of their experts. "If intentionally excluding a portion of federal statute doesn't prove that Baldock, Hartz and Holmes corruptly conspired with Kirsch and Arguello to violate the constitutional rights of the IRP6, nothing else does," says Lamont Banks, Executive Director of A Just Cause and brother of David Banks (IRP6). "Their behavior was despicable and inexcusable in light of Congress giving them very explicit instructions on how to apply Rule 16(b)(1)(C)," adds Lamont Banks (AJC).
According to the 1997 Amendment of Rule 16(b)(1)(C), the Congressional Notes of the Advisory Committee states that "pretrial discovery of...expected testimony of both defense and government expert witnesses...are TRIGGERED BY DEFENSE REQUESTS for information." "If the defense makes such requests and the government complies, the government is [then] entitled to similar reciprocal discovery," the Congressional Advisory Committee noted. Court records show that in 2009 the entire 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which includes judges from the IRP6 case issued a landmark opinion about applying Rule 16 (b)(1)(C) and it included the "IF" clause. That landmark opinion was United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2009).
In Nacchio every judge in the 10th Circuit confirmed that defendants are ONLY obligated to provide a written summary of their expert witnesses "IF they first request the same of the government and the government complies." The 10th Circuit also explained how Rule 16(b)(1)(C) was derived from the "special CONSTITUTIONAL constraints of criminal proceedings." "In criminal proceedings, the defendant is entitled to keep his cards close to vest," said Judge McConnell dissenting, meaning that in criminal cases, the government has no right to know what a defendant's experts are going to testify about unless the defendant surrenders that right by first requesting to see the proposed testimony of the government's expert witnesses.
"Congress mandated in unambiguous language how Rule 16(b)(1)(C) should be applied but Kirsch, Arguello and the 10th Circuit intentionally disregarded it to make it impossible for us to defend our innocence," says David Banks (IRP6). "Prosecutors, like judges are required to know the law and took an oath to uphold the Constitution but throughout this entire fraudulent case, Kirsch, Judge Arguello and the 10th Circuit went to great lengths to ensure we were wrongly convicted, unlawfully imprisoned and continued that unlawful imprisonment, and that included violating Rule 16 and our 6th Amendment rights. We never committed a crime and didn't deserve to be treated this way by our justice system," states Banks (IRP6).
"A Just Cause will continue its aggressive campaign to vindicate the IRP6 by publicizing and disseminating the irrefutable evidence of malicious, intentional misconduct by justice officials that was responsible for their unlawful conviction and imprisonment," says Lamont Banks (AJC).
Be on the lookout for Federal Judges Behaving Badly (Part 3) and expect to be shocked again by more acts of misconduct by justice officials in the IRP6 case.