Archive for category Legal News

Legal News: Congress Legalizes Cyber War

In language discussing the bill, conferees say that because there is no historical precedent for what constitutes traditional military activities in cyberspace, “it is necessary to affirm that such operations may be conducted pursuant to the same policy, principles and legal regimes that pertain to kinetic capabilities.”

This is big news, and historical. The rules and laws of kinetic war now apply to Cyber War, and this brings up all sorts of ideas. For example, will we see more Cyber Lance type activities?  Maybe a US special forces team combined with civilian hackers to locate and kill/capture enemy hackers or whomever?  Who knows, and who knows how these new rules will apply?

Perhaps we will see the same issues that have popped up for today’s modern wars. Especially with the hybrid of private and public forces in conflict. I say this, because the US does not have the monopoly on ‘hacking force’. If they want the best, they can try to develop that capability internally, but inevitably they will have to reach out to private companies or individuals that are experts in these fields and pay them to do it.

Here is one quote below that really perked me up. Check it out:

Since the military cannot afford to pay enough to recruit qualified software and Internet engineers for this sort of work, it has turned to commercial firms. There are already some out there, companies that are technically network security operations, but will also carry out offensive missions (often of questionable legality, but that has always been an aspect of the corporate security business.)
Some of these firms have quietly withdrawn from the Internet security business, gone dark, and apparently turned their efforts to the more lucrative task of creating Cyber War weapons for the Pentagon. It may have been one of these firms that created, or helped create, the Stuxnet worm.

I read this and thought, why not just fire up the Letter of Marque and Reprisal and give these firms the legal authority and protections necessary to take part in offensive operations?  The LoM is sitting right there in the War Powers clause in the US Constitution, and it just seems to me that we are missing the boat when it comes to doing this stuff. We could be legally authorizing the companies to steal funds and intellectual property from all sorts of enemies out there, and label these companies cyber privateers. (which if the military helped at all, would those commanders or the US be entitled to a cut? lol)

My other thought about all of this is when will we see a Cyber Weapon used in such a way as to actually kill like a real weapon?  And with this public/private partnership we will have, we could potentially see IT Security companies build these weapons, and possibly even launch it. Just imagine if Stuxnet actually caused deaths in some weapons plant or nuclear facility? That would definitely put the ‘War’ in Cyber War. Very interesting….-Matt 

 

America Legalizes Cyber War
December 18, 2011
The U.S. Congress approved a new law on December 14th that allows the Department of Defense to conduct offensive Cyber War operations in response to Cyber War attacks on the United States. That is, the U.S. military is now authorized to make war via the Internet. The new law stipulates that all the rules that apply to conventional war, also apply to Cyber War. This includes the international law of armed conflict (meant to prevent war crimes and horrid behavior in general) and the U.S. War Powers Resolution (which requires a U.S. president to get permission from Congress within 90 days of entering into a war).
The U.S. Department of Defense has long advocated going on the offensive against criminal gangs and foreign governments that seek (and often succeed) to penetrate U.S. government and military Internet security, and steal information, or sabotage operations. Over the past year, and without much fanfare, the Department of Defense has been making preparations to do just that.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Legal News: US Pursuing Legal Protections For Contractors Still In Iraq

You know, this would have been cool if they would have figured this out before this transition. To not have some kind of protections in place will really suck for the contractors that are operating in Iraq still. Hopefully something is put together in a reasonable time. -Matt

 

U.S. pursuing legal protections for contractors still in Iraq
By ERIK SLAVIN
December 14, 2011
The United States is still pursuing an agreement with the government of Iraq that could provide defense contractors working for the U.S. State Department with some legal protections in 2012, U.S. embassy and military officials said last week.
While diplomats and service members working for the State Department are shielded by diplomatic immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, the thousands of private contractors who will be working for the agency have no such protections.
Contractors have lacked immunity from Iraqi law since 2009, when a new status of forces agreement excluded them.
However, with the pullout of the remaining 50,000 troops from Iraq this year, contractors say they now feel more vulnerable to danger, both from potentially corrupt Iraqi police and from anti-American groups.
“You have to cross a major Iraqi road and, should the [Iraqi police or Iraqi army] decide, they might begin detaining American personnel,” said one contractor, who asked for anonymity because his company has not authorized him to speak publicly.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

Legal News: Contractor And MOH Recipient Dakota Meyer Sues Former Employer BAE Systems

“We are taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving it to guys known to stab us in the back,” Sgt. Meyer wrote to Mr. McCreight, according to the lawsuit. “These are the same people killing our guys.”
While in the Marines, Sgt. Meyer had served along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Many in the military who have served on the border have said in interviews they view Pakistan as an unreliable ally, as likely to help Taliban insurgents as they are to aid American troops.

Wow, Smedley Butler eat your heart out. lol Although in this case, this is pretty common with contracting. Guys sue their former employers, bosses, and coworkers all the time–some with success, and some without. Although in Dakota’s case, he has a lot of visibility and celebrity backing him up. I would imagine a pretty solid law firm has backed him up as well, just because of that celebrity and visibility.

The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that Dakota is a contractor and is very much a part of this industry. That’s cool and I hope Dakota is able to use his celebrity to promote good leadership and work ethic within this industry. If anyone has anything to add to this story, please feel free to do so in the comments section below. -Matt

Edit: 12/16/2011- Well it looks like BAE and Dakota settled. Here is a quote from CNN about what the settlement said. No word on any monetary settlement.

“BAE Systems OASYS and I have settled our differences amicably,” Meyer said in a joint statement issued by the company, referring to the company by its full name. Meyer praised the defense firm’s support for veterans and generosity to the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation.
There were no details of any possible monetary settlement.
“During my time there I became concerned about the possible sale of advanced thermal scopes to Pakistan. I expressed my concerns directly and respectfully,” Meyer said. “I am gratified to learn that BAE Systems OASYS did not ultimately sell and does not intend to sell advanced thermal scopes to Pakistan.”

 

Legal News: Contractor And MOH Recipient Dakota Meyer Sues Former Employer BAE Systems

Decorated Marine Sues Contractor
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
By JULIAN E. BARNES
Two months ago, Dakota Meyer was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Barack Obama for his service in Afghanistan, the military’s most prestigious award. On Monday, Sgt. Meyer alleged that a defense contractor has called him mentally unstable and a problem drinker, ruining his chances for a job in the defense industry.
Sgt. Dakota Meyer alleges BAE Systems blocked him from a defense-industry job by claiming he is mentally unstable and has a drinking problem.
In legal papers filed Monday, the Marine claims that BAE Systems, where he worked earlier this year, retaliated against him after he raised objections about BAE’s alleged decision to sell high-tech sniper scopes to the Pakistani military. He says his supervisor at BAE effectively blocked his hiring by another defense contractor by making the claims about drinking and his mental condition.
Sgt. Meyer’s complaint is likely to pose a more difficult challenge for BAE, a British company with extensive U.S. operations, than a typical employment dispute. In the September White House ceremony, Sgt. Meyer was hailed for braving enemy fire as he tried to save the lives of fellow Marines who had been trapped in a Taliban ambush.
BAE said it would defend itself, but comments by BAE officials Monday made clear they don’t want to be seen as denigrating a Medal of Honor recipient. “Although we strongly disagree with his claims, which we will address through the appropriate legal process, we wish him success and good fortune in his endeavors,” said Brian J. Roehrkasse, a BAE spokesman. He declined to discuss any specifics of the suit.
Through a lawyer, Sgt. Meyer declined to comment on his suit. Representatives of the Pentagon and Marine Corps said they weren’t aware of the suit.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Legal News: Reflex Responses Hires Patton Boggs LLP For Lobbying In DC

Every once in awhile, I like to flex my ‘Google Fu’ skills and do some digging around. Low and behold, I found an interesting little tidbit about the UAE’s mercenary army called Reflex Responses Management Consultancy LLC or R2 for short.

They just hired the services of Patton Boggs LLP for lobbying in Washington DC in the ‘trade’ department. So my question here is what does R2 plan on selling to the US? Could they offer training services, or maybe even maritime security services to US flagged vessels? Who knows, but I do know that Patton Boggs LLP is no small potatoes law firm/consultancy. They also have a long history and relationship with the UAE.

It is also interesting that all of this lobbying registration happened on 10/20/2011, which was the same time that a consulting firm registered to lobby for Maersk and International Org/Masters/Mates/Pilots. Now what I speculate is that Maersk is seeing the writing on the wall when it comes to having armed guards on boats, and they need some folks in DC to help clear things up.

Maersk is up against a Jones Act based lawsuit filed by crew members involved in the famous Maersk Alabama pirate attack that happened a few years back. They are claiming that Maersk put them needlessly at risk for not providing armed security on the boat. It would make sense that Maersk would lobby DC to alleviate some of the legal concerns about having armed guards on boats.

So how does this connect with the R2 deal?  I don’t know, and maybe it is just coincidence. But it is also interesting that Secretary Clinton put out her memo in support of armed guards on boats a couple of days after these lobbyists registered. hmmmm

The other thing to note is that the UAE is on a blitz of sorts to promote anti-piracy efforts. The article I posted below lists a pretty extensive effort and strategy to tackle the problem. So does R2 play into that anti-piracy strategy?

Even if they are not connected, I think Maersk, the unions, and R2 are all interested in getting armed guards on boats. Either for capturing market share in the maritime security industry, or for liability reasons so they don’t get sued by the unions and crews for not protecting seafarers out there. Worse yet, if unions strike because vessels are not providing security, then that could have a serious impact on commerce. Hence why it behooves the government to do something about this. -Matt

 

Patton Boggs LLP for Reflex Responses Management Consultancy LLC
Issues: Trade (Domestic/Foreign)
Specific issue: Issues related to security consulting and related licensing matters.
Lobbyists: ?Farber, David J ?Garrett, John C ?McHale, Stephen (covered positions: Acting General Counsel, Treasury, Jan-Jun 2001; ActGCTreasury01 ) ?Oresman, Matthew Scott (covered positions: Sen.E.Kennedy,Intern,99;SenateJuducCom,LawClrck,05 )
Link to report here.
—————————————————————
Turner Pollard Strategies for Maersk Inc.
Issues: Defense; Marine/Maritime/Boating/Fisheries; Taxation/Internal Revenue Code; Trade (Domestic/Foreign); Transportation
Specific issue: All issues relating to the U.S.-Flag Merchant Marine, including the Jones Act, the Maritime Security Program, the establishment of a Marine Highway, Cargo Preferences Statutes, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Tonnage Tax, Title XI (the Federal Ship Financing Program), and the protection of U.S. merchant ships from piracy.
Lobbyists: ?Pollard, John J III (covered positions: Staff of Rep Ike Skelton ans HASC ) ?Turner, James T
Link to report here.
—————————————————————-
Turner Pollard Strategies for International Org/Masters/Mates/Pilots
Issues: Defense; Marine/Maritime/Boating/Fisheries; Taxation/Internal Revenue Code; Trade (Domestic/Foreign); Transportation
Specific issue: All issues relating to the U.S.-Flag Merchant Marine, including the Jones Act, the Maritime Security Program, the establishment of a Marine Highway, Cargo Preference Statutes, the Harbor Maintenance Trust fund, the Tonnage Tax, Title XI (the Federal Ship Financing Program), and the protection of U.S. merchant ships from piracy.
Lobbyists: ?Pollard, John J III (covered positions: Staff of Rep Ike Skelton ans HASC ) ?Turner, James T
Link to report here.

——————————————————–

UAE renews support to all military operations and critical measures aimed at ending piracy off the Coast of Somalia
Nov 18, 2011
The United Arab Emirates renewed its strong support for all military operations and critical measures aimed at improving the process of pursuing and prosecuting those responsible and involved in piracy acts, considering these measures as a strong deterrent for preventing this phenomenon from continuing.
In an intervention made by Permanent Representative of the UAE to the United Nations Ahmed Al-Jarman before the Meeting of the Contact Group on Combating Piracy off the Coast of Somalia on Thursday at the UN Headquarters, he added : “At the same time, the UAE emphasizes that such measures are not sufficient to eliminate totally and permanently these serious acts at sea, and the international community is required to adopt a comprehensive cooperation strategy that ensures the total elimination of this phenomenon, which constitutes a form of organized crime that threatens countries and is subject to international laws”.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Maritime Security: Britain To Allow Armed Guards To Combat Sea Piracy

Outstanding news. Glad to see Britain taking the necessary steps to legalize armed guards on boats. It just makes sense, and seeing how most of the maritime security companies working right now are British, this will be an added boost.

Now the question I have is how will these new laws mix with Britain’s position on privateers or the Letter of Marque? They are a signatory to the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. No telling what other treaties they have signed, and how these sanctioned armed guards fit into that bigger picture?

I would also be interested to see the firearms regulations on what the companies can actually use for protection duties. Remember, today’s pirates are using weapons of war, not firearms used for hunting. You must give these guards weapons that will give them advantage, or at least match the pirate’s fire power. Anything else is just unacceptable in my view. -Matt

 

Britain to allow armed guards to combat sea piracy
By DAVID STRINGER
October 30, 2011
Ships sailing under Britain’s flag will be permitted to carry armed guards on some perilous routes to combat the threat from pirates, the prime minister said Sunday.
David Cameron said Britain was reversing its opposition to the use of weapons aboard ships, amid mounting concern about the risks of vessels and crew being seized by pirates — particularly off Somalia’s coast.
Cameron’s office said the use of weapons on British-flagged ships is banned under firearms laws, but that new rules would be in place within a month.
Britain’s announcement follows the decision in February of the International Chamber of Shipping, the major trade association of ship owners, to support members hiring private security companies to provide protection.
“The evidence is that ships with armed guards don’t get attacked, don’t get taken for hostage or for ransom, and so we think this is a very important step forward,” Cameron told BBC television during a visit to a Commonwealth summit in Australia, where he discussed the issue with leaders from the Seychelles and Mauritius.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

Legal News: Does The OMB Policy On Inherently Governmental Conflict With The Constitution?

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. – The enumerated powers of congress, war powers clause, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the US Constitution.

The other day I came across the OMB’s new policy letter on what the government deems ‘inherently governmental’.  I posted the Apendix A portion, because that has the most relevance to this discussion and to our industry.  For the most part, self defense or defense of others is not a problem, but contractors engaging in combat is.

With that said, let’s look at the legal definition of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal and the various sources that confirm that definition:

LETTER OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, War. A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, or of the citizens or subjects of such state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. A vessel loaded with merchandise, on a voyage to a friendly port, but armed for its own defence in case of attack by an enemy, is also called a letter of marque. 1 Boulay Paty, tit. 3, s. 2, p. 300. 2. By the constitution, art. 1, s. 8, cl. 11, congress has power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. Vide Chit. Law of Nat. 73; 1 Black. Com. 251; Vin. Ab. Prerogative, N a; Com. Dig. Prerogative, B 4; Molloy, B. 1, c. 2, s. 10; 2 Woodes. 440; 6 Rob. Rep. 9; 5 Id. 360; 2 Rob. Rep. 224. And vide Reprisal.

And then let’s look at the legal definition of combat.

COMBAT, Eng. law. The form of a forcible encounter between two or more persons or bodies of men; an engagement or battle. A duel.

So you can see here that in fact, the ability to grant a Letter of Marque and Reprisal is an enumerated power of congress. That by definition, authorizes private individual to take the property of a foreign state or the citizens and and subjects of that state. That is not self defense. This is totally a forcible encounter between two or more persons or bodies of men.

Now onto the question. How is the policy of the OMB on what is inherently governmental, not conflict with the constitution? You have one agency saying that a private individual engaging in combat for this country is not authorized, but you have our top legal document of the land saying that private individuals can participate in combat and seize the assets of an enemy if given a license or Letter of Marque by congress.

Or legally agencies must abide by this policy, but congress still has this right to issue the LoM?  Anyone want to take a swipe at this one? lol  -Matt 

 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Publication of the Office of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy
Letter 11-01, Performance of Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Procurement Policy
ACTION: Notice of Final Policy Letter
In addressing security operations, for example, the list
identifies where security operations would be inherently governmental in connection with
combat. This should not be read as a determination that all security performed in any
hostile situation other than actual combat may be performed by contractors. Rather it
means that those situations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine what
security functions and activities are inherently governmental and what can be performed
by contractors with appropriate management and oversight.

Appendix A. Examples of inherently governmental functions
The following is an illustrative list of functions considered to be inherently governmental.
This list should be reviewed in conjunction with the list of functions closely associated
with inherently governmental functions found in Appendix B to better understand the
differences between the actions identified on each list.

Note: For most functions, the list also identifies activities performed in connection with
the stated function. In many cases, a function will include multiple activities, some of
which may not be inherently governmental.

1. The direct conduct of criminal investigation.

2. The control of prosecutions and performance of adjudicatory functions (other than
those relating to arbitration or other methods of alternative dispute resolution).

3. The command of military forces, especially the leadership of military personnel who
are performing a combat, combat support or combat service support role.

4. Combat.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Maritime Security: Cyprus Merchant Ships To Carry Gunmen Against Piracy, CNA Says

Unfortunately, this is all I could get on this story. There might have been stuff hidden in Cyprus news sites, but I could find anything, and translation mechanisms kind of sucked. Either way Lloyd’s List reported in June about Cyprus lawmakers introducing legislation that would make it legal for their flagged vessels to have armed guards. So hopefully this story below indicates some movement towards this becoming a reality?

I also imagine that the ‘cooking beans‘ incident, where a Cyprus vessel was set on fire by pirates as the crew cowered in their little safe room, probably brought just a little too much negative attention to the matter. lol  Hopefully we will see this law passed, and armed guards can get on these boats. -Matt

 

Cyprus Merchant Ships to Carry Gunmen Against Piracy, CNA Says
By Stelios Orphanides
Sep 26, 2011
Cyprus’s government is preparing a change to the law that will allow its merchant ships to carry gunmen as protection against pirates, Cyprus News Agency reported, citing a shipping official.
The east Mediterranean island is close to completing a bill which will be submitted to the parliament aimed at protecting Cypriot ships, CNA said, citing Sergios Sergiou, director of the Cypriot Department of Merchant Shipping.
Story here.

Tags: , , , , ,

Letter Of Marque: The Original Understanding Of The Capture Clause, By Aaron Simowitz

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. -the enumerated powers of Congress, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Para. 11 of the US Constitution.

This is cool. When discussing the Letter of Marque and Reprisal portion of the war clause, the capture clause is always forgotten. But for privateering, the capture clause was very important. It gave congress the right to establish the rules and laws for the capture of enemy vessels or prizes, and for the capture of combatants. That last part about the capturing of combatants is what has been falsely interpreted over the years and forgotten, and Mr. Simowitz has done a great job of disputing this false interpretation.

The reason why this is important to discuss is that like in the past, prisoners are very much a part of conflicts on land or water today, and if private industry is to be involved in such ventures, there must be rules and laws in place that dictate what is to be done with prisoners. Especially on water, just because armed guards on boats are big thing right now. The big one here is the legal capture, detention and treatment of prisoners, and of course, the costs of capture, detention and transport of prisoners. Private industry must be compensated and incentivized, or else taking prisoners will not be a priority. (hence why Congress dedicated funding for captures/bounties during wars like the one in 1812)

I have talked about offense industry in prior posts, and the key to this concept is to create a mechanism in which private industry profits from the destruction of the enemy. Well profiting from the ‘capture’ of enemies is included in that mechanism because the act takes combatants off the battlefield. You can see shades of that in today’s modern bailbondsmen industry as well.

And if there are specific rules and laws on how captures are to be done, then those captures could be recognized by a prize court or current court of law as legal. If a bounty or fees associated with the capture/detention is to be awarded, a court of law must be satisfied that it was legally conducted. As of right now, there are no laws or rules for private industry to use for the capture/detention of pirates. Yet states could easily provide such a thing via their right to grant a license or Letter of Marque to private industry.

Now lets discuss today’s modern piracy problem. We are well on our way to creating a vibrant ‘defense industry’; one in which there is no mechanism in place to reduce the numbers of pirates other than to kill them during times of self defense. This is an odd arrangement that we have, where we allow armed guards to take the life of a pirate during combat, but we do not give them the legal authority necessary to capture that pirate? Or what about the rules for when a pirate surrenders or we have wounded that pirate or destroyed their vessel during a battle, thus leaving them stranded in the ocean?

Sure, a company could contact a naval force nearby and give them a GPS coordinate of the position of that pirate vessel, but what about those companies who could care less about such things?  Or maybe those companies are getting strict guidelines that they are not to stop or deal with any kind of pirate detention. And for those companies that do bring pirates on board that surrendered or were stranded, then who will pay those companies for the effort? That is what boggles the mind right now, and there are no laws or rules for capture or detention. Oh but we can shoot at the pirates all day long…..

So this is what I am trying to do here. We need a serious discussion about the ‘rules concerning captures on land or water’, and how that could apply to private industry and their current task out there on the high seas.  The US Constitution is a great starting point for that discussion, as well as the history of privateers and the rules for capture they followed in the past. The War of 1812 is just one historical example, and our forefathers had a greater understanding and appreciation for the issue than our modern legal councils. And if you think about, our forefathers were more humane, just because they had a legal means of private industry removing combatants off the battlefield, other than just killing them.

Either way, check it out, pass it around, chew on it for a bit, and understand that we can learn a lot from the past about how to use private industry during times of war. -Matt

The Original Understandings of the Capture Clause
Aaron D. Simowitz
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
March 12, 2008
Abstract:
The Congress shall have power to . . . To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. US Const Art I, § 8, cl 11.
Although the Capture Clause may seem obscure today, the power it embodies was crucially important to the early republic. General Washington declared, even during the Revolutionary War, that a centralized and standardized system for the handling of prizes was vital to the war effort. The first court established by the fledging federal government was the federal appellate court of prize. This court heard over a hundred and eighteen cases before it was dissolved by Article III of the Constitution.

The federal government, first under the Articles of Confederation and then under the Constitution, was responsible for prescribing the rules under which enemy ships and prisoners could be taken. The value of captured ships was the chief means by which the early navy and privateer system was financed. However, the early law of capture also concerned captured persons, who could sometimes be redeemed or ransomed for head money. Later scholars have correctly concluded the capture of property was more important to the Framers of the Constitution. However, they have also assumed that the Capture Clause did not cover people. This is not the case.

This paper will show that the received wisdom that the Capture Clause covers only property is based on a faulty and possibly disingenuous statement dating from 1833. This paper will also show that the received wisdom is inconsistent with the era’s admiralty law and with Congressional practice. The Framers made prescribing rules concerning captures on land and water an enumerated power of Congress. This power covered enemy persons as well as property.
Link to paper here.
—————————————————————-
Shortly before the War of 1812 broke out, Congress passed the latest version of “An Act Concerning Letters of Marque, Prizes, and Prize Goods.” Section seven of the Act, enacted pursuant to Congress quasi-war powers, provided, “[t]hat all prisoners found on board any captured vessel, or on board any recaptured vessel, shall be reported to the collector of the port in the United States in which they shall first arrive, and shall be delivered into the custody of the marshal of the district . . . who shall take charge of their safe keeping.”  Section nine of the same act provided a bounty of twenty dollars for each enemy killed in the event that the enemy vessel was destroyed. -2 Stat 759, 763 (June 26, 1812)

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to make such regulations and arrangements for the safe keeping, support and exchange of prisoners of war as he may deem expedient, until the same shall be otherwise provided for by law; and to carry this act into effect, one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same are hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any monies in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.”-An Act for the Safe Keeping and Accommodation of Prisoners of War, War of 1812

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Legal News: Corporate Whistle Blower Center Reaches Out To Contractors

I like it. Anything that gets the companies to do the right thing is a good thing. So if the Corporate Whistle Blower Center can help contractors that have identified waste, fraud, and abuse in their companies, then I dig that. Especially if they can help those contractors get the reward that comes with reporting such abuse.

What I believe this organization is referring to when talking about a reward is the provisions within the False Claims Act. I mentioned this law as a primary driver on why AGNA settled in the case with James Gordon. Here is a quick summary of the Lincoln Law.

The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, also called the “Lincoln Law”) is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies (typically federal contractors) who defraud governmental programs. The law includes a “qui tam” provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file actions on behalf of the government (informally called “whistleblowing”). Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15–25 percent) of any recovered damages. Claims under the law have typically involved health care, military, or other government spending programs. The government has recovered nearly $22 billion under the False Claims Act between 1987 (after the significant 1986 amendments) and 2008.

The other reason why there is more interest in these kinds of cases is that companies will be hurt in any bidding process for government contracts, if they are charged with False Claims or in litigation. It is the primary reason why AGNA settled, so that it would not stop them from pursuing contracts. Here is a link to the FAR 52.207-1 that details what I am talking about.  I also put that section up below this article.

Now just for clarification, I am not affiliated with this group, nor can I vouch for their effectiveness. They are just another option for contractors to use, and of course do your own research and put together a good strategy before getting into this stuff. -Matt

 

Corporate Whistle Blower Center Urges U.S. Contractor Employees in Afghanistan and Iraq to Step Forward for Huge Rewards if They Can Prove Massive Fraud
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Corporate Whistle Blower Center is urging employees of major U.S. federal contractors, or subcontractors, that have been defrauding the US taxpayer in Afghanistan, or Iraq to step forward, for what could be enormous rewards, provided they can prove it. An independent panel investigating wartime spending estimates that as much as $60 billion has been lost to waste and fraud over the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. In its final report to Congress, the Commission on Wartime Contracting said the figure could grow larger as U.S. support for reconstruction projects and programs wanes and Iraq and Afghanistan are unable to sustain the schools, medical clinics, roads and power plants already built with American tax dollars. The Corporate Whistle Blower Center says, “In actuality we are pretty sure in many cases the schools, power plants, or medical clinics were never completed, and in other instances we know federal subcontractors gouged the U.S. government, and the taxpayers on everything from over inflated fuel, or food prices, to pretty much you name it. As long as you can prove it, and the amount exceeds two million dollars, there can be huge rewards for this type of information, as long as its substantial proof, and credible. If you possess this type of information please call us at 866-714-6466, because we would welcome the chance to explain the federal whistleblower reward programs to you.”
September 06, 2011
The Corporate Whistle Blower Center is strongly encouraging employees of federal contractors, or their subcontractors, that were providing any type of service in Afghanistan, or Iraq to step forward, if they possess significant proof of overbilling, or defrauding the U.S. federal government, because the rewards can be enormous. The group says, “If a government type panel says the fraud is sixty billion dollars in Iraq, or Afghanistan, its probably more like a hundred billions dollars plus, and provided you have substantial proof, and the proof is easy to understand, and black, and white, the rewards can be huge.” The Corporate Whistle Blower Center says, “When it comes U.S. contractors, or subcontractors defrauding the U.S. taxpayer we think in some instances it could be in the tens, or hundreds of millions of dollars, and it runs the gamete from construction, or infrastructure projects, that were not properly done, or not done at all, to food, fuel, engineering services, to you name it. And, we are pretty sure there are hundreds, or thousands of individuals, who possess the proof it happened. To us this type of solid proof is like having a winning lotto ticket, and we’d like to explain how the U.S. Federal Whistleblower programs work.” For more information please contact the Corporate Whistle Blower Center anytime at 866-714-6466, or contact the group via its web site at http://CorporateWhistleBlowerCenter.Com
Simple rules for a whistleblower from the Corporate Whistle Blower Center:
•    Do not go to the government first, if you are a major whistleblower. The Corporate Whistle Blower Center says, “Major whistleblowers frequently go to the federal government thinking they will help. Its a huge mistake. Frequently government officials could care less, or they are incompetent.”
•    Do not go to the news media with your whistleblower information. Public revelation of a whistleblower’s information could destroy any prospect for a reward.
•    Do not try to force a government contractor, or corporation to come clean to the government about their wrong doing. The Corporate Whistle Blower Center says, “Fraud is so rampant among federal contractors, that any suggestion of exposure might result in an instant job termination, or harassment of the whistleblower. We say, come to us first, tell us what type of information you have, and if we think its sufficient, we will help find the right law firms, to assist in advancing your information.”
Any type of insider, or employee, who possesses significant proof of their employer, or a government contractor fleecing the federal government is encouraged to contact to Corporate Whistle Blower Center anytime at 866-714-6466, or they can contact the group via their web site here.

—————————————————————

52.209-5  Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters.

As prescribed in 9.104-7(a), insert the following provision:

Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters (Apr 2010)

(a)(1) The Offeror certifies, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that—

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Fish And Game: The Pork Chopper Bill Passes–Texas Legalizes Helicopter Hunting Of Feral Pigs

Pretty cool. Hopefully this will create it’s own little industry that thrives. Anything that can reduce the population of these feral pigs and is self sustaining is a great way to go. It looks like Vertex is advertising itself as a helicopter hunting outfit if you are interested in doing something like this. -Matt

 

19deom.St.58Fish And Game: The Pork Chopper Bill Passes  Texas Legalizes Helicopter Hunting Of Feral Pigs

Serious shooters are lining up for a chance to hunt feral hogs from helicopters
August 27, 2011
By Steve Campbell
“Pork choppers,” Texas’ newest weapon in the war on feral hogs, will take to the skies Thursday when it becomes legal for hunters to buy seats on hog-hunting helicopters and gun down as many pigs as they can put in their sights.
With more than 2 million feral hogs rooting around the Lone Star State, there will be plenty of targets for aerial gunners willing to pay $475 for an hour of heli-hunting.
Vertex Helicopters is already bringing home the bacon as a result of the measure passed by the Texas Legislature this year.
The Houston-based firm requires shooters to take a $350 hunting safety course before they can book a hunt, said President Mike Morgan, a former Army helicopter pilot.
Sixty hunters have taken the course, and two more 15-person classes are already filled, he said.
“These are people who are really, really serious about shooting things,” Morgan said, noting that hunters from New York City, Missouri and Kansas have taken the course, which includes a four-hour class and 30 minutes of learning airborne target practice.
Vertex has secured landowners’ permission to hunt on more than 150,000 acres across the state and is negotiating to add another 550,000 acres, he said.
The company has booked more than 30 hunts with a three-hour minimum of flight time. Most shooters are scheduling five hours to six hours, he said.
“In the big picture it’s not that expensive,” Morgan said. “You have people paying $10,000 for one deer. At $475 an hour, it’s barely a drop in the bucket for serious hunters.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,