National Advocates for Justice Question Probable Cause in IRP6 Wrongful Conviction Case

Leave a comment

August 26, 2015 by socialaction2014

SOURCE: A Just Cause

A Just Cause

August 26, 2015 08:00 ET

National Advocates for Justice Question Probable Cause in IRP6 Wrongful Conviction Case

Legal Professionals Agree That There Was No Probable Cause to Investigate and Prosecute the IRP6

DENVER, CO–(Marketwired – August 26, 2015) – Justice advocacy group, A Just Cause, continues to seek intervention from the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in the 2011 wrongful conviction of six IT executives known as the IRP6.
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 business was raided in February 2005 based on accusations of
wrongdoing. A Just Cause argues that the IRP6 (Kendrick Barnes, Gary L
Walker, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A Stewart, David A Zirpolo and
David A Banks) were wrongly convicted in 2011 after being accused of
mail and wire fraud. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
“A Just Cause
has been fighting for the IRP6 for over 3 years seeking their
exoneration,” says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. “As one considers the
evidence and how the case unfolded, everything points to a wrongful
conviction.”
“As A Just Cause reviews the analysis and comments
made by multiple legal professionals who have reviewed the IRP6 case,
the end result is the same; the IRP6 are six executives who should not
be in prison,” says Lamont Banks, A Just Cause Executive Director. “We
have had folks review this case from front to back including the search
warrant, discovery, the theory of the prosecution, and the court
proceedings. Everyone comes to the same conclusion — this should have
never happened,” adds Banks.
“When you look at the IRP6 case the
question of ‘probable cause’ and ‘intent’ comes into play,” asserts
Thurman. “First and foremost, there was no probable cause for the FBI to
raid the offices of IRP Solutions back in 2005,” Thurman adds.
Court
records show that FBI Special Agent John W. Smith obtained an Affidavit
for Search Warrant and Seizure on February 7, 2005 stating that IRP was
a “purported” software development company and that it was a front set
up to “scam” staffing companies.
“The problem with Agent Smith’s
warrant is that it was bogus right from the start,” says Cliff Stewart, A
Just Cause. “Court records show where Smith obtained sworn affidavits
from retired federal agents who worked at IRP Solutions as consultants
stating that IRP was a legitimate company, developing viable software
for local state and federal law enforcement agencies. One of the retired
agents was Gary Hillberry, who affirmed that IRP was working on law
enforcement software and that the company had legitimate customers. So
without looking at anything else, for Agent Smith to get Judge Shaffer
to sign off on a warrant when he knew that there was no wrongdoing is in
and of itself a violation of the law and a gross waste of government
resources and taxpayer dollars,” concludes Stewart.
“For any
agency to move forward in an investigation or an arrest, there must be
‘probable cause,'” argues Thurman. “And the lack of probable cause was
ignored in this case.”
Probable cause is a requirement found in
the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an
arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find
probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a
crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the
crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause)
In Illinois v. Gates,
the Court favored a flexible approach, viewing probable cause as a
“practical, non-technical” standard that calls upon the “factual and
practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and
prudent men […] act.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause)
“Taking
the court’s view on ‘probable cause’, ‘reasonable and prudent men’ can
look at the IRP6 case and see that there was no wrongdoing and the IRP6
should not have been investigated and there should have never been a
trial,” says Thurman. “In addition to what the courts and the
constitution say about ‘probable cause,’ even the FBI supposedly has
strict guidelines for executing warrants and searches, but that didn’t
seem to matter in the IRP6 case,” adds Thurman.
According to the
FBI, “The FBI’s collection authorities are also controlled by the
federal courts. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, a federal judge must still
approve search warrants and wiretaps for counterintelligence and
counterterrorism investigations. Agents must still prove probable cause
in order to obtain a warrant authorizing searches and wiretaps. The FBI
only collects and disseminates intelligence under guidelines designed
specifically to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, and we are
committed to using our authorities and resources responsibly.” (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/intelligence/liberties)
“There
is far too much evidence in the IRP6 case to support their innocence,
so why are they incarcerated?” ponders Banks. “If you examine just a few
points raised by other professionals, it becomes clear that this is a
case of wrongful conviction,” concludes Banks.
In January 2005,
Gary Hillberry, a retired thirty-year veteran of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement who was hired to work as an independent contractor
providing subject matter expertise at IRP Solutions, sent FBI Agent John
Smith a letter stating: “We decided that IRP Solutions had a viable law
enforcement product and appeared to be moving forward to acquire state
and federal law enforcement contracts for their product.” Court
documents also show that Hillberry and two other retired FBI agents,
John Epke and Dwayne Fuselier, signed independent contractor agreements
to be paid upon the sale of IRP’s software. (D. Ct. No.
1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
In 2013, Dr. Alan Bean, Executive Director of
Friends of Justice, conducted a six month investigation into the IRP6
case and after reviewing the allegations and evidence, Bean released a
report titled “Money for Nothing: how racial bias destroyed six lives,
stymied a Black owned business and outraged an entire congregation.” In
the report, Bean characterized the government’s “contract theory” as
“Bogus,” stated that “the government’s case can’t stand up to scrutiny,”
and said, “the fraud alleged in the federal indictment is a mirage.” (https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/free-the-irp6/)
Court
records show that the government empanelled two grand juries to get an
indictment against the IRP6. The 2007 grand jury determined that it was a
corporate debt collection case and that no wrongdoing had occurred.
“The government used a second grand jury when the first grand jury
recognized that debt was not a crime and refused to indict the IRP6,”
affirms Banks. “A highlight of the first grand jury was a question asked
by one of the grand jurors: “But if I don’t pay somebody for work
they’ve done, that’s not a federal crime,” one grand juror pointed out.
“The government changed the approach, withheld information critical to
determining ‘probable cause,’ empaneled a second grand jury and got the
indictment,” says Banks.
During a January 2014 interview on A Just Cause (AJC) Radio,
staffing industry expert Andrew Albarelle (Principal Executive Officer,
REMY Corporation) shared his expert opinion about the IRP6 case. Court
records show that Mr. Albarelle had nearly 20 years experience in the
staffing industry at the time of the case and had participated in other
government investigations to expose fraud in the staffing industry (Ct.
No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, Oct 6, 2011, and Albarelle Letter to U.S.
Attorney John Walsh, July 18, 2011). “There is no difference in what IRP
did (normal business practices) than other companies when it comes to
debt,” asserts Albarelle during the January 2014 radio interview. Court
records further show that Mr. Albarelle was not allowed to testify
during the October 2011 trial of the IRP6.
“Although the primary
charge was that the [IRP6] defendants had misrepresented their success
and prospects to certain staffing companies, the case was presented to
the jury on the basis that the software program developed by the
defendants was a phony and a scam,” says Judge H. Lee Sarokin,
retired Federal District and Appellate Judge. “The defendants had
formed a software company to develop a program to aid law enforcement in
sharing information. They worked for years on the project, spent their
time and money, entered into a substantial lease, hired former law
enforcement personnel to work on the project, engaged law firms and
travelled the country demonstrating the program to potential customers
such as Homeland Security, the FBI, the N.Y. Police Department, etc. As
interest increased, they engaged staffing companies to provide
programmers. A former Assistant U.S. Attorney [Greg Goldberg] sent a
letter to the current U.S. Attorney claiming that these individuals had
committed fraud — had lied about their prospects to staffing companies
— a claim consistently denied. Whom the letter writer represented was
not disclosed,” shared Judge Sarokin.
“It is difficult to
reconcile the charge with the time and money devoted to the project by
the [IRP6] defendants and the unanswerable questions: Why would scammers
pick law enforcement as their target?” Judge Sarokin questions, and
“why would they personally guarantee the obligations to staffing
companies? How could they possibly make any money unless the [CILC
software] were a success and contracts obtained? Who pushed so hard for
the indictments?” Judge Sarokin ruminates.
“Another key point to
note is that during the trial the IRP6 impeached several government
witnesses, yet the jury was never instructed by Judge Arguello as to the
meaning of impeachment,” argues Stewart. (D. Ct. No.
1:09-CR-00266-CMA). Impeachment may refer to different legal concepts.
One meaning in the law refers to discrediting a witness by showing that
he or she is not telling the truth or does not have a reliable basis for
their testimony. (http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeachment/).“In addition to the jury not being informed on the ramifications of
witness impeachment, the IRP6 were not allowed to demonstrate for the
jury the unreliable testimony of other government witnesses like Eileen
Bergman who tried to discredit IRP Solutions to NYPD; an attempt that
was unsuccessful by Bergman,” adds Stewart.
Prior to the IRP6
going on trial, IRP Solutions software (Case Investigative Lifecycle
software) was reviewed/examined by Don Vilfer of Califorensics in 2010.
Califorensics is a computer forensics firm. Mr. Vilfer is retired FBI,
Supervisory Special Agent for the White Collar Crime and Computer Crime
Squad. Mr. Vilfer is also a Certified Fraud Examiner and an Attorney.
Califorensics reported: “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.”
“Countless professionals have
looked at the IRP software and spoke of its functionality and viability
to law enforcement,” says Thurman. “Others have viewed the IRP6 case and
are amazed at how this case got this far. And then there were numerous
articles in professional law enforcement trade publications that spoke
highly of IRP and the Case Investigative Lifecycle software (CILC).
Business engagements by IRP executives included, but are not limited to
the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (FICMS Program), The
Federal BOP, Rocky Mountain HIDTA, DOJ Chief Information Officer Van
Hitch, Colorado Bureau of Investigation (Agent Colin Reese),
Philadelphia PD/Office of Inspector General, Royal Bahamas Police Force
(Commissioner Ellison Edroy Greenslade), National Police of Colombia
(Major Monica Briceno), Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (now retired
Commander of Police Reserves, Lyle Alexander) and many other small,
medium and large agencies. The list of publications and references
includes, but is not limited to Law Enforcement Technology Magazine,
Police Magazine, Criminal Investigation textbook by Bennett and Hess,
letter of reference by Colorado Springs former City Manager Lorne
Kramer, letter of reference by Canon City Chief of Police Daniel Shull,
reference by former NYPD Officer and part of technology team John
Shannon and the IRP executives met with lawmakers like former Senator
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (who encouraged the men to pursue support from
federal agencies),” Thurman recalls.
“With this level of activity,
one has to ask several questions,” Thurman ponders. “How could a search
warrant be executed when there was no proof of wrongdoing — in fact
there was proof from retired agents to support the legitimacy of IRP
Solutions and its executives? Why didn’t the judge verify that there was
probable cause — or do judges just sign off on warrants without asking
questions? Why was the company raided — the company had debt, which is
not a crime? Why did the FBI claim IRP as a ‘purported’ software
development company when there was absolute proof to the contrary? Why
were there two grand juries? Why wasn’t expert witness testimony
allowed? Why did the government change their theory from ‘a purported
software development company,’ to ‘money laundering,’ to ‘scamming
staffing companies?'” These questions are only the tip of the iceberg
when you look at the IRP6 case and ponder ‘How did this happen,’ ‘How
could this happen?'”, asks Thurman.
“A Just Cause is seeking
justice in the case of the IRP6,” asserts Banks. “This type of travesty
should not have occurred and that’s why we are seeking the exoneration
of the IRP6. Additionally, we are asking the Department of Justice to
launch an investigation into the circumstances surrounding this case.
The investigation should probe into the actions by the FBI (Agent John
Smith), the U.S. Attorney’s office (Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew
Kirsch) and the 10th Circuit (Judge Christine Arguello). This
case is filled with anomalies and if they go unchecked, it will
continue,” Banks concludes.
For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go to http://www.freetheirp6.org.
Related press releases: http://www.a-justcause.com/#!2015-press-releases/cl69

Contact Information

CONTACT INFORMATION
A Just Cause
(855) 529-4252 extension 703
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: