DENVER, Jan. 4, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- "US Attorney's office blocked business for the IRP6 in order to secure a conviction by violating federal law," says Banks of A Just Cause. US Attorney John Walsh insisted that the IRP6 intended to mislead staffing companies for monetary gain in a scheme to defraud. Court documents show that prosecutors [Kirsch/Hazra] hinged their case on the intents of the IRP6, but Judge Arguello never allowed jurors to be educated on the legal aspects of intent as it pertains to defendants' business practices. If the intentions of business executives are to develop, market, and sale a product, where is fraud, as questioned by retired Judge H. Lee Sarokin, [Why would defendants incur expense to travel, develop a product, etc].
If the case of the prosecution was hinged on "Intent, why was the IRP6 not allowed to defend themselves against the prosecution's theory? How is Intent allowed in the prosecution's case, and not allowing it for the defense?"
Congressman Sensenbrenner wrote a press release in regards to why this is a huge problem in America. On May 7th, 2013 A press release on behalf of the Congressman said this:
Chairman Sensenbrenner: "As former chairman and long-serving member of the Judiciary Committee, I've seen first-hand just how muddled the criminal code is. It's time to scrub it clean. The Over-Criminalization Task Force will review federal laws in Title 18, and laws outside of Title 18 that have not gone through the Judiciary Committee, to modernize our criminal code.
"An even more fundamental issue raised by such regulations is whether the prohibited conduct should be criminalized in the first place. Unfortunately, many regulatory crimes improperly define the elements of criminality, including omitting or improperly defining the appropriate level of criminal intent."
Former Counsel to the Judiciary Committee for the House of Representatives, Ron Legrand stated that, "For intent not to be allowed in any criminal proceedings is unheard of. It is a critical part of the defense of a defendant."
David Banks, COO of IRP6, argued vehemently to present the jury the definition of specific intent. He argued that although the jury instructions had references to specific intent to defraud, he wanted to further define 'specific intent' for the jury. He asks Judge Arguello, "Is there any intention to further define 'specific intent'? I know that...conspiracy, mail fraud and wire fraud, are considered specific intent crimes. And obviously the underpinnings of our defense will be based on that specific intent. And the reasons we engaged in the business we engaged in, the reason we engaged staffing companies in the first place, obviously is going to go to the core of the specific intent to defraud. Here is the actual transcript of that exchange: Official Transcript Page 29-lines (4-17)
The Government is on the record as -- whether the
Government wants to introduce that or not, there is
relevant testimony from those individuals that not only
speak to our character or our belief, as far as what we
were doing as a business, which we think is relevant as
far as intent, so on and so forth. The Government has asserted on numerous times that
this case is only about representations and those things
that were made, but this case is about our specific
intent, and to sign contracts and to do various other
things, not only with staffing companies, but in good
faith to do things as far as our business was concerned.
And we feel, obviously, that that is very relevant
information for the jury to be able to consider.
We just don't think that the intent to defraud clearly annotates that specific intent of requirement. So that would be our objection," states Banks. Judge Arguello responds, "All right. Thank you. The additional sentence that I just added to the end of this is as far as I am willing to go to further define specific intent. So your objection is noted for the record."
"Judge Arguello went further to say that allowing the definition of intent would confuse the jury, however the prosecution based their entire case on intent. This is Unequal justice in this case," adds Lamont Banks of A Just Cause.
Court documents show affidavits by FBI agent John Smith with DHS, NYPD, DOJ, Philadelphia PD/OIG which carry the same theme – the CILC software was seen by these agencies and found to be technically viable by law enforcement agencies. In an affidavit by retired ICE agent, Gary Hillberry, stated the software was viable for local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.
- FBI agent John Smith states If IRP paid their:" Debt" They would not be in court at all.
- Why did AUSA Matthew Kirsch contact pending clients, including DHS and NYPD, prior to any indictment coming down, and tell them not to do business with IRP due to an indictment coming?
- Why did John Walsh and Matthew Kirsch blackball The IRP6 to ensure they had no way of paying their debt prior to any indictment?
- Why did the US Attorney's office contact Philadelphia Inspector General's office and tell them not to do business with the IRP6? This was prior to a grand jury being empaneled.
- Judge Arguello refused to allow any of this misconduct to be heard by the jury.
- These Actions are in violation of Federal Law. 18 U.S. Code section 1951 Inference with Commerce: Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Former Comcast Senior Recruitment Partner Tanique Wright recalls misconduct by Matthew Kirsch when members of IRP6 applied to Comcast. Senior Director Mr. Wei Lee, stated, "A candidate that had applied was a convicted felon named Demetrius Harper. My team googled these guys, they are felons." "I told Comcast attorneys, Heidi Dustin and Roger Thomasch that AUSA Kirsch had not contacted me about the IRP6," says Wright.
"Mr. Wei never googled the IRP6. No arrest, and no indictment had come down. Judge Arguello and US Attorney John Walsh and Matthew Kirsch, violated The Constitutional rights of the IRP6. Who will hold these violators of Justice accountable?" says Banks of A Just Cause.
"The Judiciary and DOJ must investigate this. Judge Arguello, John Walsh and Matthew Kirsch disregarded the Constitution to ensure a conviction. Tearing down the very fabric of Judicial fairness," says Banks.
A Just Cause
(855) 529-4252 extension 710
SOURCE A Just Cause