A Just Cause

Government Witnesses Expose IRP6 Indictment as a Fraud but Federal Judge Refused to Dismiss

Transcript Excerpts Posted Online Show Government's Witnesses Disproved Prosecutor's Claims of Fraud


Denver, CO -- (ReleaseWire) -- 03/15/2017 --If somebody asked you if a bank or car dealer approved you for a loan or extension of credit based solely on you falsely representing that you have one of the highest paying jobs in the country, you would think they were either joking or just asking a ridiculous question, because that would simply not be enough to influence a business to extend you credit. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, based on law established by the U.S. Supreme Court, said to prove that a person obtained a loan or credit by fraudulent means under federal mail and wire fraud statutes, the government must show that a false statement or representation "has the natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it is addressed." A false statement about a high paying job to a bank or car dealer wouldn't be capable of influencing them into approving a loan or extending credit to someone any more than a real estate agent could influence a home buyer to purchase ocean-front property in Colorado. Basically, for fraud to be fraud, it must be reasonably expected to deceive a person of ordinary intelligence. However, in a federal criminal case (Dist. Colo. case no. 09-cr-00266-CMA), which is known as the "IRP6" case, former Colorado U.S. Attorney John Walsh and his subordinate, Assistant United States Attorney Matthew T. Kirsch, prosecuted six information technology executives by absurdly alleging that staffing companies would not have extended credit to the executive's company if not for being "induced" or influenced by false statements about having a large "current or impending" government contract. Not surprisingly, when Kirsch tried to prove these absurd claims at trial, his own staffing company witnesses confirmed, like any other business, they extended credit based on creditworthiness, not verbal statements about contracts. Virtually all witnesses said they were not even responsible for making the decision to extend credit which makes one wonder why Kirsch had them testify when they couldn't have been influenced to extend credit because they were not even involved in the process. The witnesses repeatedly admitted they assumed there was a contract or denied statements about contracts were ever made by the defendants. Listen to what the government witnesses had to say directly from trial transcripts.

1) In an excerpt from Day 2 of trial (http://bit.ly/2nsKe0X), Scott Tait of Adecco told the government that an optimistic IRP Solutions Chief Operating Officer, David Banks, made a "believer" out of him because he was "very good at articulating where he was going to go, what was going to happen, and the possibility of us all making money." And when the government asked Tait if Banks' comments constituted a contract with a large law enforcement agency, Tait replied, "No."

2) In an excerpt from Day 3 (http://bit.ly/2mfyTQy), Donald Crockett of Computer Task Group told the government that he considered business with IRP an "investment" that might lead to more profitable business and that IRP executive Clinton Stewart talked about "supporting applications for criminal justice systems", "pursuing business with New York" and that he did not infer a contract was in place with New York.

3) Jennifer Stephens of Spherion testified they "rely heavily upon a Dun & Bradstreet credit report" and agreed that she told the FBI during an interview that she had been told by COO Banks that "IRP was TRYING to secure a contract with the NYPD." http://bit.ly/2ncZmDv

4) Mel Castleberry, Regional President of Idea Integration testified he denied a business partnering venture proposed by COO Banks but had his recruiters find 4 IT developers after getting credit approved by his credit department in Jacksonville, FL. http://bit.ly/2IQGrOm

5) When asked if any contracts were mentioned with law enforcement agencies, Karen Chavez of Today's Staffing answered: "He just said he had been in business for three years and his clients were city and state governments." http://bit.ly/2mWW0Ed

6) Eileen Bergman of Headway Staffing said she made an "assumption" that a contract was in place when told by an IRP exec that the company was "working on a projects for different agencies" and that it was her "impression" it was with NYPD. http://bit.ly/2ncVy4V

7) Brenda Williams of Personnel Plus said that bank references and "good credit" of IRP6 defendant Harper is the reason her company chose to engage in business. http://bit.ly/2mzhc0I

8) Renee Rodriguez of Express Personnel said that she sent the Dun & Bradstreet credit rating to the corporate headquarters and they established a credit limit of $15,000 dollars. An FBI interview reports that Rodriguez received an email from Harper that said IRP Solutions is "diligently moving the sales cycle with the agencies below (BOP/DOJ/NYPD), which court records verify that IRP was engaged in sales activities with all those agencies and more. http://bit.ly/2niLAvX

9) Randall Hayes of Technisource testified that in their evaluation of doing business with a company they "go through credit histories. Then you also see if they have viable products, and you try to get references on if they are paying their bills." Hayes also said he was influenced to pursue business with IRP because a retired veteran of the NYPD was on staff at the company. http://bit.ly/2mA48t3

10) Kathy-Losey Miller of AppleOne testified that the Dun & Bradstreet credit report is used to make a determination to extend credit. http://bit.ly/2mAgCkx

11) Michael Seeley of MSX Int'l confirmed in his testimony that he did not make the decision to extend credit but his credit department approved him to move forward based on the credit application. http://bit.ly/2mfB4EK

12) Susan Holland of ETI Professionals testified that "In the beginning he (Harper) said they were working with NYPD" which she "believed" meant he had already closed business. However, in her initial interview with the FBI, Holland said Harper told her the company "was planning on marketing their software product to NYPD and DHS." http://bit.ly/2mAeCc0

13) When the government questioned Dottie Peterson of Snelling Personnel about whether defendant Banks made statements about whether the business was active at NYPD, Peterson answered that she was "under the impression, not based on anything [Banks] said, that it was active. On cross-examination Peterson was specifically asked whether Banks indicated to her there was a contract, she responded that she was told they did "software stuff for the NYPD." http://bit.ly/2nj2TNt

14) Valerie Cherry of Analysts International testified that they "run and Dun & Bradstreet (credit report) on them. And then, based off that, assigned a certain dollar amount as to what we would agree to service with them; a dollar amount that we would agree to go up to for services with them until they show proof of payment." An FBI interview shows Cherry said they relied upon the credit report when deciding to do business with IRP. http://bit.ly/2mfBWjh

15) Jesse O'Gorman of Blackstone Technology Group testified that the credit department, not him, approved the extension of credit to IRP based on the Dun & Bradstreet credit report. http://bit.ly/2mWRNjS

16) Kimberly Carter of Technisource testified that they rely on creditworthiness to determine engaging with a client and that Banks (IRP6) told her in a letter that he "anticipated flow of cash would come from one of the agencies that IRP Solutions is currently working to close business on." http://bit.ly/2mzxXZc6

Not only did federal Judge Christine M. Arguello to deny the IRP6's request to dismiss the charges after the testimony of the government's own witnesses proved the IRP6 case a civil matter and the indictment a frivolous one, she allegedly violated a federal statute and the IRP6's 6th Amendment right to present witnesses in their favor by wrongly excluding testimony of two defense expert witnesses from the staffing industry who sent letters (http://bit.ly/23TkubT & http://bit.ly/1Tiucq2) to U.S. Attorney Walsh discussing how a government contract has no bearing on whether a staffing company approves credit for a potential client -- a matter now subject of a judicial complaint and letter to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (http://bit.ly/2ba9827 & http://bit.ly/2b06Rpm). Former federal appeals judge H. Lee Sarokin has decried the IRP6 injustice and has strongly advocated for the release of these men who have spent over four and a half years in prison (See http://bit.ly/2njNNaj & http://prn.to/2nd0gQc). Sarokin says the IRP6 were indicted and prosecuted for "failing to pay corporate debts" and their 5th Amendment rights were violated when Judge Arguello coerced the pro se defendants to testify.

For more background on how the government allegedly turned IRP6's enthusiasm and debt into a crime, go to http://mwne.ws/2gTFO3G