On Friday, the Paulding County Republican Examiner was sent notice about a two-hundred page missing transcript and of an audio interview with retired judge, H. Lee Sarokin, concerning the case of the IRP6 and in the Sarokin's opinion, the defendants complaint must be recognized as valid.
The IRP6 consist of six U.S. IT professionals who developed law enforcement software, Case Investigative Life Cycle (CILC) Precinct software, with their company, IRP Solutions that would aid local, state, and federal agencies in sharing information after the 9/11/2001 Islamic terrorist attacks.
Believing they were doing the right thing, the IRP6 were accused and sentenced to jail based on government and a federal judge corruption, basis that IRP Solutions had “purported” software, accused of mail and wire fraud and making up stories and that the software never existed when in fact the software did exist. The only problem the IRP6 had is that they went into debt, which is not against the law.
While the courts debate the issue of 200 pages of missing transcript tied to their appeal, Sarokin told “A Just Cause Coast2Coast” radio program, “They represented themselves during the trial, and although they were aware of their right against self-incrimination (and named themselves on a potential witness list), they contend that the judge compelled waiver of that right. Apparently, the judge was frustrated by their failure to produce witnesses in a timely fashion, and they claim the judge said something that led them to believe that at least one of them had to testify in order to keep their defense open. The case is now on appeal. Usually out of deference to the circuit court handling the matter, I would not comment. However, there is one aspect of the case that intrigues me, and since the matter has been pending for a considerable period while the defendants languish in prison, I thought some general airing might be appropriate.”
“Look or listen to the transcript; read or hear what the judge said and decide whether or not the defendants reasonably concluded that at least one of them had to testify. But here's the rub. There apparently is no record or transcript of the conversation available to either the defendants or the appellate court. They also claim that all informal and formal attempts to obtain that critical exchange between the court and the defendants have been denied either by the court reporter or the court. They advise that the relief was even denied in a separate civil suit brought against the reporter for the turnover of the transcript,” said Sarokin.
After his interview “A Just Cause Coast2Coast”, Sarokin wrote his judicial opinions in a three-part series based on his investigation.
Sorokin had solved the case of the missing transcript and said in his judicial opinion, “I have assumed that absent a transcript of precisely what was allegedly said by the judge to lead these defendants to believe that they were compelled to testify, that no resolution could be made of that issue. However, after having read more of the record, the Court of Appeals has ample opportunity to accept the defendants' factual versions as true and be guided accordingly in its ruling. Here are the uncontested facts upon which the court could reach a determination that the right against self-incrimination was actually violated by the trial court even without the critical transcript.”
“The absence of this critical conversation, the transcript of which was called for and ordered that very day certainly creates justifiable suspicions. Strangely, in the separate civil suit against the court reporter, the U.S. Attorney stepped in claiming the reporter was an employee of and on government business. But even accepting Judge Jackson's finding in the civil case of no skullduggery by the court reporter, the defendants have good reason to cry “foul.”
“When government cross-examination resumed, Mr. Barnes pled the 5th in response to every remaining question -- all in the presence of the jury. It is difficult to imagine anything more prejudicial,” said Sarokin. With all of this uncontroverted evidence, the Court of Appeals certainly has enough evidence to conclude that the right against self-incrimination indeed was… violated by the trial court; that defendants reasonably believed that at least one of them was required to testify in order to have the defense remain open; and that they succumbed to that threat, and immediately voiced their objections.”
“Lacking any competent evidence to rebut those claims of constitutional violations, the claim of the defendants must be recognized as valid… even without the missing entry in the transcript.”