Conspiracy to convict IRP6

IRP6 PROSECUTED ON LIES

The government’s facts against IRP were very weak — predicated solely on whether staffing company representatives would conspire with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to provide false testimony at trial.  The foundation of the government’s indictment was that IRP executives induced staffing companies into doing business with them through providing false statements about having a government contract. Staffing company representatives took the stand and lied to the jury that the only reason they did business with IRP was because IRP executives told them on the phone that they had a government contract.  However, email communications from IRP executives to staffing companies did not support their testimony at all. In fact, emails showed completely different statements were made.

FALSE STATEMENT FALLACY

FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, let’s say IRP executives falsely represented to staffing company representatives that they had a government contract. Is it reasonable that any business, bank, or finance company would extend credit to anyone based on a such a statement? Would the fact that a company had a government contract be proof that the company would pay it’s bills? I think everyone would answer no?  Imagine you personally telephoning a bank, finance company or department store expecting them to extend you credit for a loan or item purchase based on you verbalizing that you have a stable, high-paying job. The first thing they are going to tell you is that you need to fill out an application for credit to determine your creditworthiness though verification of your income and credit history.  If they pull your credit report and determine you have a poor credit history, don’t pay your bills on time or don’t have stable employment, you will not qualify for credit.  Business to business transactions work exactly the same way and that is exactly what happened between IRP and staffing companies.

Staffing companies checked IRP’s credit through Dun and Bradstreet, which maintains credit reporting on businesses the same way Equifax, Experian and Trans Union do for individuals.  Staffing companies also had IRP fill out credit applications to capture banking information and other credit references.  IRP’s credit rating always came back as high-risk due to limited or no credit history based on our short duration in business.  The government did not present any evidence that IRP falsified their credit application but did spin before the jury that we were somehow engaging in fraud because one of the credit references was a business owned by my sisters. Other credit references were specific business credit cards based on the personal credit of some of the executives. Some of the staffing companies had us sign personal guarantees because we were high risk in the event the business failed to pay the debt. Staffing companies always supplied IRP with their contract to provide staffing services, which IRP executives signed. We were more than amenable to signing personal guarantees because we had great faith and confidence in our software product and the high-praise we were receiving from law enforcement agencies.

The truth is that businesses don’t make decisions to extend credit based on a statement of any kind, rather on hard, verifiable facts of credit history, income and overall financial stability. The government’s false statement theory was completely bogus in the IRP6 case and is a clear example of government overreach to criminalize business debt, drive our company out of business and wrongly imprison us. Without the lying testimony of staffing company representatives the government spin machine could not function.

When Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Kirsch failed to get an indictment with the first grand jury, the FBI replaced the original agent with a more senior one by the name of Robert Moen. Agent Moen re-interviewed staffing company representatives to build their new “contract” theory. In the first round of interviews FBI Agent John Smith requested and was provided detailed chronologies and associated documents and emails of staffing companies interactions with IRP — most of which was provided via email or fax. That information provided little or no allegations that IRP executives had mentioned anything about a contract.  It appears that Moen’s job was to encourage or coerce staffing company representatives to state they were induced by IRP executives through alleged statements about having a government contract. Under cross-examination by the IRP6, many of the government staffing witnesses admitted that they were not even responsible for making the decision to do business with IRP — it was their credit department, which is consistent with accepted business practices of doing business based on creditworthiness from Dun and Bradstreet reports and credit applications.  IRP executives did not have any direct interaction with the credit departments of the staffing companies and therefore could not have influenced them with through verbal statements of any kind. I want to provide at least one example out of many regarding the inconsistent testimony of a staffing company.

Dean Hale of Systems Engineering Services Corporation (SESC) was a government witness at trial which had provided a detailed chronology of his interactions with the IRP6 to Agent Smith long before trial. Mr. Hale stated in his submittal that he became aware of Demetrius Harper of the IRP6 when a friend and close business associate told him that Mr. Harper was seeking to payroll/staff some IT contractors on a project.  The business associate told Hale that Mr. Harper’s company was a high-credit risk which he would require an upfront deposit to even consider doing business.  The business associate told Hale that he decided not to engage with Mr. Harper. With full knowledge that Mr. Harper was a credit risk, Hale chose to initiate contact with Mr. Harper to do business with him. How can Hale testify at trial that he was induced into doing business when he initiated contact with Harper with full knowledge about the credit risk?

In January 2004 Hale submitted a very detailed chronology of events to FBI Agent Smith without citing a single allegation that Mr. Harper had stated that there was a government contract.  Six months later his story changes — stating that he chose to do business because Mr. Harper and Clinton Stewart told him that he had “active contracts” but in the same statement says they were “actively” pursuing opportunities with Department of Homeland Security and NYPD. Isn’t it interesting how Hale knew about Harper and Stewart PURSUING contracts with DHS and NYPD but didn’t know what agencies the other so-called “active contracts” were with. Hey Dean, maybe the contract was with the “Monkeys Elbow, Nebraska Police Department”, that is if it actually existed! The fact is Dean Hale didn’t ask who the “active contracts” were with because he fabricated the whole thing to support the FBI!  Mr. Moen re-interviewed many other staffing company representatives years later and their stories were routinely modified to fit the new “contract” theory. AUSA Kirsch and the FBI had to get Dean Hale and other staffing company witnesses to lie and say that IRP executives made false statements about a contract telephonically so the battle in court can be fought along witness credibility line and not on objective email evidence, which painted a completely different picture altogether.

Not only did emails tell a different story but so did Andrew Albarelle and Kelly Baucom, experts in the staffing industry, sent letters to U.S. Attorney John Walsh months before trial confirming that no staffing business could legitimately claim that they had been defrauded by IRP and that no one put a gun to their head and forced them to do business. Albarelle’s letter also suggested to the Walsh that the case should be dropped. Albarelle’s credentials are impeccable as the Principal Executive Officer/CEO of an international staffing company.  Albarelle also had assisted the FBI in staffing-related fraud investigations.  Both Albarelle and Baucom agreed to testify as IRP6 witnesses at trial but Judge Arguello denied them the opportunity to testify. I believe both Assistant United States Attorney Kirsch and Judge Arguello knew that their testimony would annihilate the government’s case and was not going to let that happen. In denying their testimony, Judge Arguello ridiculously suggested that Walsh, the U.S. Attorney for Colorado was somehow irresponsible enough to forget to forward Abarelle’s and Baucom’s letters to the prosecutor that sits in the same office. It didn’t matter that Albarelle and Baucom were also on our witness list we provided to the government as part of pre-trial discovery conference, Judge Arguello still denied their testimony.  Under no circumstances was Judge Arguello going to allow us to present a complete defense. I think many legal professionals would agree that this was clear Sixth Amendment violation.

EMAILS

The IRP6′s email communications with staffing companies were predominantly conducted via emails and not over the phone.  There is a very interesting anomaly that bears discussing.  Staffing companies had numerous email exchanges with IRP executives during debt collection efforts. In those exchanges when an IRP executive communicated in some form that they were still trying to secure a contract or working to secure a contract, not a single staffing company representative responded that they had already been told or understood that IRP already had a government contract.  It is completely reasonable and even expected that a person, who claims the only reason they chose to do business IRP was because they had a government contract, would certainly voice their contradiction when told that IRP was still working towards securing a contract. No such contradiction was ever communicated in the many email exchanges to IRP which belies government allegations that IRP executives told staffing companies they had a government contract.  Email communications from the very first company (Robert Half International) that the IRP6 was engaged with clearly shows the mindset and motivations of information technology staffing companies.

During discussions with Tiffany Zelenbaba of Robert Half, I emailed her and told her that our company “would like to proceed on the premise relating to the value and viability of our product, vice divulging our financials.” In discovery turned over to us by the government there were internal emails where Zelenbaba is discussing the risk of doing business with us and tells her vice president that “…I am pushing to get this business, I could really use it and there is potential for a long-term relationship with many more job orders.  I do understand that we have to make a good business decision and that we do not want any write-offs.” This shows that Ms. Zelenbaba was motivated on the “potential for a long-term relationship” and she and her VP were aware of the risk of doing business with a start-up company.  Robert Half is a billion dollar staffing company and decided to take a chance with IRP. Albarelle’s letter to U.S. Attorney Walsh confirms that this is how staffing companies regularly evaluate business but Judge Arguello prejudiced our case by not allowing him to testify. Other staffing companies did business with IRP for the same reasons that Robert Half did.

CIVIL MATTER

IRP’s dealings with staffing companies were strictly a civil matter. IRP signed staffing company contracts and negotiated payment terms accordingly. If IRP was unable to comply with the contract then it would be considered a breach of contract and they would be subject to civil judgments against their business and personal finances. In a letter. the FBI instructed a staffing company that their debt with IRP needed to be handled civilly.

VERIFY FOR YOURSELF

The facts of this case reeks of a conspiracy to convict the IRP6. Don’t take our word for what is written in this document. Our goal is to bring out the truth and we challenge anyone to contact A Just Cause to request and review the court records, documents and emails associated with the foregoing facts and assertions.  It is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, SO HELP ME GOD. The IRP6 have suffered willful and intentional abuse and a wrongful conviction at the hands of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and federal courts in Colorado. Judicial officials need to be held accountable for willful and intentional acts of malicious prosecution resulting in the deprivation of liberty. We know Eric Holder isn’t going to do anything about it. It seems that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is late given the graphically clear and despicable acts of abuse in this case.