Many people may not have heard of the KISS principle. It is an acronym for "Keep It Simple Stupid". This is not an attempt to be condescending, but judicial officials in the IRP6 case need to pucker up. We know Judge Arguello forced us to testify under threat of immediately terminating the presentation of our defense. Court records show she threatened to rest our case on two other occasions but Judge Arguello denies she ever did such a thing during the sidebar. The unedited transcript and shorthand notes are the normal and accepted way of resolving such disputes, but have not been made available to IRP6 attorneys. We're just supposed to take the court's word for it, right? It is not coincidental that out of a 17-day trial, the only part of the transcript missing is the part where we challenged Judge Arguello on compelling our testimony. A simple KISS will enlighten anyone about the truth of the IRP6 case. Let me blow some KISSES to you and government officials by dissecting and analyzing some of Judge Arguello's responses/statements related to forcing our testimony and then court reporter Darlene intentionally omitting statements from the transcript to cover for Judge Arguello.
1) "I don't know what my exact phrasing was, but the fact of the matter is, I did not direct you to do anything"
*** If Judge Arguello cannot remember exactly what language she used during the sidebar, how can she assert that she didn't direct us to testify? KISS!
2) "This portion of the sidebar was not transcribed by the reporter"
*** Sorry Judge Arguello but your integrity does not encourage confidence. Federal Judge R. Brooke Jackson, who presides over A Just Cause's (AJC) civil case against Darlene Martinez, stated in court documents: "Unfortunately...[Judge Arguello] offered no explanation at that time as to why [this portion of the sidebar] was not recorded." Several months later, Arguello speculated what could have possibly happened (SEE BULLET NO. 3 BELOW), however, she never allowed for court reporter Darlene Martinez to speak for herself and state what actually happened. Judge Arguello denied multiple IRP6 motions requesting a hearing for Martinez to be questioned about the transcript.
3) "For whatever reason, whether the parties spoke to far from the microphone or the court reporter took off her headphones, the court reporter did not hear everything that was said at the sidebar and therefore did not transcribe anything besides what is contained in the edited transcript."
*** It is absolute nonsense that a federal Judge would engage in speculation vice holding a formal hearing to determine the truth of the matter. We have an adversarial justice system and it is our right to question Martinez and not take the judge's or the government's accounts of what happened. Doesn't it stand to reason that if Martinez could not hear during the sidebar she would have vocalized that as she had done numerous other times during the trial as court records show? KISS! In a legal proceeding after trial in Judge Arguello's court, IRP6 attorney Gwendolyn Solomon asked Martinez about her headphones and Martinez responded that she does not wear headphones. Given that there was a microphone, it stands to reason that there was an audio recording. AJC questioned a federal court reporter in another district who stated she audio records all court proceedings as a backup to transcription to ensure that her edited transcripts are as accurate as possible. So, where is the audio recording of Ms. Martinez? KISS!
4) "I said if one of you intended to testify then one of you should take the stand because we weren't going to continue"
*** In bullet no. 1 above when Judge Arguello was questioned the same day about her comments she didn't know exactly what she said, but months later she miraculously recalls with great detail what she said, stating that "if one of [us} intended to testify then we should take the stand". How convenient. KISS!
5) "First of all, the unedited version (of the transcript) cannot be used for any purpose...how many pages is it?" Court reporter Darlene Martinez affirms, "Over 200 pages." Judge Arguello replies "Over 200 pages... for no purpose that I can see that it would be served by having that at this time. I am not going to have an expedited, and unedited version (of the transcript) delivered to the defendants."
*** Notice that when the IRP6 requested the unedited transcript during trial, Martinez confirms she has it in her possession but Judge Arguello refused to provide it to the IRP6. After trial, Martinez provided an edited version of the transcript to the IRP6, however, she omitted the entire bench conference where Judge Arguello forced us to testify. Judge Arguello knows she compelled us to testify or she would have immediately provided the transcript to clear her name from any accusation. KISS!
After a thorough review of the record in the AJC civil case, Judge R. Brooke Jackson concluded that "[t]here is no dispute that something was said [by Judge Arguello] that does not appear in the transcript." If Judge Jackson can review the record and make a determination of what transpired at the sidebar is not contained in the record, then what is wrong with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals whose own precedent speaks volumes. The case of U.S. v. Haber, 251 F.3d 881 (10th Cir. 2001) held that a case must be reversed "when the unavailability of a transcript makes it impossible for the appellate court to determine whether or not prejudicial error was committed with regard to a challenged action". The challenged action in the IRP6 case was Judge Arguello violating our 5th Amendment right by forcing us to testify. If it doesn't appear in the transcript, then the 10th Circuit cannot determine whether Judge Arguello committed prejudicial error. Plain and simple isn't it? So why do we remain imprisoned for over 2 years (including time spent in county jail)? Answer: JUDICIAL CORRUPTION! KISS!
When Judge R. Brooke Jackson reviewed the case, he stated that the unedited transcript was in the district court's clerk's office. Court records suspiciously show that the alleged unedited transcript was not filed until April 2013. The final briefs by the IRP6 and the government were submitted January 23, 2013. In December of 2011, court records show that district court legal counsel Ed Butler, court reporting supervisor Charlotte Hoard of the clerk's office and court reporter Darlene Martinez lied to IRP6 Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon about the unedited transcript. According to court records, on December 9, 2011, Butler advised Solomon that the unedited transcript did not exist and that once the transcripts were edited then there was no longer any unedited version. On November 14, 2011, court records show that Martinez and Hoard advised Solomon that the unedited transcript was available but they were not releasing it. Court records also show that clerk's office employees refused to allow inspection of the IRP6 case transcripts. The Court Reporter's Act requires the court reporter to promptly file the original [unedited] record and shorthand notes at the court clerk's office to be kept on file for ten years for PUBLIC INSPECTION by any person. It is now undisputed that Martinez, Butler and Hoard chose to violate the law and lie about the availability of the transcript and deny inspection. The 10th Circuit clerk's office employees appear to be cut from the same dirty cloth as their associates Martinez, Hoard and Butler.
10th Circuit clerk's office employees Elizabeth Shumaker (Chief Clerk of Court) and Doug Cressler (Deputy Chief Clerk) appear to be lying about the status of the IRP6 appeal. 10th Circuit appellate Judge Harris Hartz's judicial assistant Claudette adamantly insists that the IRP6 case was completed over a year ago by the appellate panel in May of 2013 and the files were returned to Shumaker's office for final disposition. Claudette and the other two appellate judges for the IRP6 case, Judge Bobby Baldock and Judge Jerome Holmes also have referred AJC to Shumaker and Cressler for answers. Cressler first confirmed to AJC that the case was returned in May 2013 but then later claimed that Judge Hartz provided wrong information about the case. Give me a break! Is Cressler insinuating that Judge Hartz is either lying or mistaken about whether he finished a case that was a part of his caseload? KISS! When IRP6 attorney Mark Geragos’ firm contacted Shumaker's office in March 2014, they were told that the case was with the writing judge. It is now 2+ months since that call occurred and the clerk's office is still improperly handling the IRP6 case and violating their duty under the law. How long does it take to write an opinion that is if you choose to drink the poisoned kool-aid of Shumaker's office? KISS! I guess the next excuse from Shumaker's office will be that the writing judge has a severe case of writer's cramp. Forgive my sarcasm but the actions by these judicial officials are preposterous!
The lying and deceit in the IRP6 case started in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in 2011 and has continued into 2014 by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals clerk's office, all the while the IRP6 (Gary Walker, David Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, David Zirpolo and Clinton Stewart) languish in prison.