Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net
FRIENDS OF JUSTICE
BUILDING A COMMON PEACE CONSENSUS 3415 Ainsworth Court, Arlington, Texas 76016 817.688.6765 www.friendsofjustice.net
FRIENDS OF JUSTICE
IRP engaged the services of staffing companies because, for a small, black-owned IT company doing business shortly after the dot.com meltdown, conventional sources of start-up income simply werent available. IRP made a good faith attempt to obtain funding from banks, angel investors and other sources of investment capital, but repeatedly came up empty. They used staffing companies to bridge the gap between the present and a successful future because that was the only way of staving off catastrophic consequences. Now we address the issue of motivation and intent from the perspective of the staffing companies. Why did they choose to engage with IRP? The governments answer is the narrative the jury heard at trial. The staffing companies chose to do business with IRP because they were told that IRP had a contract with the government, or was on the verge of closing a contract. They believed this story, and the story proved to be false. Because IRP was never close to closing a contract with a government agency, the prosecution argued, they misrepresented their business position to the staffing companies and this suggests that they never had a viable product and they knew it. Their only motivation for using staffing companies, therefore, was to get free labor. No one ever asked why IRP would want to get free labor to work on a bogus product but it was hinted that the goal was to provide work for their friends. The government turned a deaf ear to the defendants story because they had already committed to the staffing companys narrative. It is important to note, however, that the staffing companys narrative was largely shaped by the government itself. FBI agents approached these companies and said, in effect, Do you know that you are the victim of fraud? In theory, the decision to prosecute follows on the heels of an investigation. In the Department of Justice, the FBI investigates and the US Attorneys Office prosecutes. But the IRP case began in the US Attorneys Office and wasnt handed to the FBI until the Assistant US Attorney had already developed a theory of the case and a prosecutorial strategy. The prosecution began when a former AUSA was approached by a friend who happened to be the principal of a staffing company that had engaged in business with IRP. Asked to assist, and knowing that failure to satisfy his friends request might impact his own career trajectory, the ex-prosecutor wrote a letter to AUSA Kirsch explaining his theory of the case and suggesting how the case could be prosecuted. This relates to Harvey Silverglates famous assertion that the vagueness of federal law makes it relatively easy for a federal prosecutor to successfully prosecute any business person or public official, especially those in financial embarrassment. The fact that the first grand jury to hear the governments case refused to indict (a rare occurrence) suggests that the governments initial theory of the case and its prosecutorial strategy were seriously flawed. In other words, it is likely that both AUSA Kirsch and the defendants genuinely believed their very different narratives.
BUILDING A COMMON PEACE CONSENSUS 3415 Ainsworth Court, Arlington, Texas 76016 817.688.6765 www.friendsofjustice.net
FRIENDS OF JUSTICE
Why did the staffing companies decide to engage with IRP? Part of the reason was, as the government suggests, that they realized that if IRP did sign a contract with an agency like the NYPD or the DHS, a staffing relationship with IRP could prove very lucrative in the long term. But there is another side to this storythe side the jury never heard. Trial testimony suggests that a staffing company run a Dun and Bradstreet credit check on prospective clients that is largely related to a companys payment history. Since, in the beginning, IRP had no payment history to speak of, and since, as the story developed, their payment history became progressively worse, none of the staffing companies could justify a decision to provide staffing to IRP. Or, if services were provided, it was only in the belief that, although IRP was a clear credit risk, the staffing company would win big if IRPs cash flow reversed in a dramatic way. In other words, IRP executives shared their genuine belief that they were poised to do major business with law enforcement agencies and the staffing companies decided to roll the dice. Unfortunately, the jury never heard this explanation because the presiding judge barred the testimony of the only witnesses who could have explained how staffing companies evaluate potential clients and make business decisions. Andrew Albarelle, a veteran of the staffing industry with a wide-ranging knowledge of the IT field, was prepared to testify that IRPs outreach to staffing companies was reasonable and legal and that a quick review of the Dun and Bradstreet credit check would have revealed that IRP might have trouble paying invoices in the short term. If these companies decided to do business with IRP anyway, Albarelle believes, it was because they were motivated by the potential for windfall profits. In this view, the staffing companies entered into business with eyes wide open. Because this testimony was disallowed, the governments story was amplified, the defendants story was effectively silenced, and the jury responded accordingly. This story could be told by interviewing Mr. Albarelle, Mr. Silverglate, the defendants (or their attorney), AUSA Kirsch (if he is agreeable), former IRP employees, church members and friends of the defendants, staffing company representatives and FBI special agents Moen and Smith. The story would be about the growing potential for prosecutorial tunnel vision and wrongful conviction created by the vagueness of federal fraud law.