Feral Jundi

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Legal News: Sexual Assault Is The Act Of Cowards–The Story Of Jamie Leigh Jones

There is so much about this story that is wrong and unjust. The men who did this to Jamie, and the way KBR staff treated this woman afterwords is despicable. Sexual assault/rape is the act of cowards, and I truly hope those that are responsible will pay. For that, I totally endorse Jamie and her legal fight to seek justice.

I am also highly disappointed in the management of that camp at that time. Locking Jamie into a conex box to ‘protect her’ was a cowardly act. (Big Boy Rules?–pfffft…) It sounds like what they were really trying to do, is lock her up so it would buy that management team at that camp some time to figure out how to deal with the case. Pathetic…..

There is something severely wrong with a management team that locks up the victim, as opposed to locking up the rapists.  How many other women did these men assault, and did the management lock up those victims as well? Talk about a total failure of leadership.

For that, I certainly hope Jamie and Tracy (the other woman in this video) who were sexually assaulted or harassed in the war zones, will get the justice they deserve. These women, also define what Jundism is all about. They have the courage to do what is right, and come forward publicly about what happened to them. Any company that refuses to hire these women because they came forward with their cases against KBR, should strongly reconsider. These are the kind of brave employees or contractors you would want in your organization! –Matt

Edit: 07/08/2011- After news came out about the details of this case, and after the ruling in the courts, I would like to personally apologize to KBR and the men that were accused of rape in this deal. I have also removed the ‘Jamie Leigh Jones foundation’ from the links section. Although I still stand by my statement up top that sexual assault is the act of cowards, I also believe that lying about sexual assault is equally despicable. I truly hope that this particular case will not stop women who were truly raped and sexually assaulted, from coming forward and pursuing justice. My heart will always lean towards the true victim. In this particular post, I was only reacting to the available information.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Legal News: Security Officers, Driver For LV Sands CEO File Lawsuits Alleging Violations Of Overtime Law

The lawsuit claims Las Vegas Sands employed the agents routinely in excess of 40 hours per week and frequently for more than 150 hours per week.
“The defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the lawfully compelled legal overtime rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay at which plaintiffs were employed” in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the suit charges.

Thanks to Matt for sending me this one. Cases like this emphasize the importance of why companies should do things right or take care of their people. Now of course this company will have some fantastic lawyers working this case. But they will still get the negative press on this, and if the plaintiffs win in this case, it will set precedence, and the Las Vegas Sands Corp. will have to pay damages.

With that said, let me throw my two cents in on this matter. Besides the violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, working guys into the ground like this would certainly degrade the security of the principal(s). In my experience, anything over a 12 hour shift that lasts for weeks or months, is dumb. If these guys were working longer than 12 hour shifts, and for an extended period, that is uncool.

Personally speaking, the optimum shift schedule would be three eight hour shifts if the client can afford it. (hell, four six hour shifts would be really cool if they paid a daily rate) Weekends off are excellent as well, or even just one day off a week. Your protection force needs time to cut away from being in sheepdog mode in order to recharge, and I am a big fan of very sensible and rest conducive shift schedules.

At the most, 12 hour shifts would suffice, if cost is a factor or if it is a short term gig. Anything more, and the client is being cheap and they really do not care about the quality of their security and the welfare of their protection team. I am not alone in this thinking either, and if you go to Tactical Forums, they have an excellent thread about this topic.

Now of course there are the other issues in this case. If the company is not paying a daily rate, and paying an hourly rate, then of course they should follow state laws in regards to overtime rules. That is why I hope these guys win this one, so it can build on ‘precedence’ for this industry. Other legal cases that are similar, can draw on this one.  Perhaps even OCONUS cases can build off of this one?  You never know..

There is another point I want to bring up about overseas contracting, on land and sea.  Because this work seems to be out of the reach of any labor laws, companies seem to try and get away with all sorts of horrible labor and pay practices. With that said, if cases like this become successful, contractors can use mimicry strategy and contact the same lawyers that were successful. Litigation is one way of getting the companies to do things right, and it is only when companies pay a price for bad behavior will they then get the picture that doing things right is actually ‘cost effective’.

The downside with litigation like this is cost and time.  It is also a threat to your career, and this is why guys really don’t pursue this stuff to it’s fullest degree. The odds of success are kind of low as well, just because companies have the resources and contractors do not. The companies know this reality, and the contractors do as well. So that is why companies really don’t get too upset about this stuff.  They will drag their feet and try to make litigation as costly for the contractor as possible and the companies definitely have the advantage here. But as more class action law suits come up, where contractors get organized and pool their resources, then the scale gets balanced somewhat. It is still a fight, and most contractors choose to ‘let it go’.

Now I am not a big fan of unions, because I mostly see them as negative to the business. They are like using a hammer for surgery, and unions not only bash the poor companies, but also end up ruining the good companies as well. Nor do I want to be required to join a union and pay dues, just to work in this industry. I like being an independent contractor and not answering to groups like this.

But I also understand why unions form, and if the abuses within an industry are too great, then labor movements happen. I am a fan of preventing that from happening by promoting how to do things right in the first place. Because if companies do not do things right, then unions do happen, and these groups will certainly cut into your profit margin. Pay now, or pay later as they say….

Either way, it will be interesting to see how this goes.  If anyone has anything further to add to this story, please feel free to do so in the comments. –Matt

Security officers, driver for LV Sands CEO file lawsuits alleging violations of overtime law
By Steve Green ?11 June 2011
Nine executive security officers and a driver for Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson filed lawsuits Friday claiming violations of overtime law and other laws.
The suits were filed in federal court in Las Vegas by the Las Vegas law firm Campbell & Williams — the same firm representing fired Sands Macau executive Steven Jacobs in his lawsuit against Las Vegas Sands and Sands China Ltd.
One lawsuit was filed against Las Vegas Sands on behalf of Vincent Burlingame, Richard Carty, James Jackson, Christopher LaCascia, James Martin, Jonathan Molnar, Benjamin Ness, DeJuan Robinson and Michael Statkiewicz.
The suit described these plaintiffs as “executive protection agents” who provide or provided security services to Adelson, his wife and children on a 24-hour basis, including frequent air travel in the United States and around the world.

(more…)

Friday, May 27, 2011

Legal News: Donnelly Amendment To Improve US Oversight Of Private Security Contractors Passes House

You know, better late than never.  We will see how this goes and if in fact this impacts the industry positively.  Stuff like this only helps to legitimize security contractor use in the war and ensure that this industry is more asset than liability. I would be curious to hear what any industry folks have to say about the amendment and it’s possible impact on the war? –Matt

Donnelly Amendment to Improve U.S. Oversight of Private Security Contractors Passes House
May 25, 2011
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Joe Donnelly offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, legislation authorizing Pentagon programs for the coming year and setting forth our nation’s defense policies and priorities.  Donnelly’s amendment would direct the Department of Defense (DOD) to devise a comprehensive strategy setting out standards for oversight plans governing all private security contracts funded by the DOD and designate a single official in the country of operations with the responsibility of certifying that each private security contract has an effective oversight plan and that the contractor’s employees are properly licensed and permitted to do their work.

(more…)

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Legal News: Britain To Give Legal Backing To Armed Guards On Vessels

This is interesting, and this will certainly be a legal nightmare to produce. The reason why is the UK is a signatory of the Paris Declaration and the Second Hague Conference in 1907. Not to mention their local laws that deal with citizens owning and using weapons.

Although there is precedence for Britain to ignore these treaties. During WW 1, they implemented a strategy against German U-boats called ‘Q Ships’.  Or basically they armed merchant vessels to attack the enemy at sea. What made this strategy interesting is that they actually wanted the vessel to look like a defenseless merchant vessel so German U-Boats would attack them. The point is, is this was a violation of these treaties, and that is precedence. (someone please correct me here if I am wrong, but Global Security identified this point as well)

Now is this a revival of a modern day version of Letter of Marque and Reprisal?  It could be, but they probably will not call it that. But it is a license to arm a merchant vessel, and that is significant. The article below also identified Denmark as seeking a similar path of creating an arming license.

It’s kind of like how the US licenses private companies to be armed or provide defense related services abroad via the ITAR and DSP 73. I guess the point is that states will work around the law and treaties, if it is within their best interest to do so. But as the Export Law blog has identified, there are many ‘technical’ obstacles to arming vessels.

My thoughts on the matter is that they might as well revive the Letter of Marque and Reprisal, just because the laws created continue to morph into exactly what the LoM is all about.  It will also give vessels more legal authority to sail and not get screwed with by other countries for being armed. The incident between India and the Danish flagged Danica Sunrise highlights the complexities of being armed on the open ocean, and these vessels need internationally recognized authority to be armed.

A LoM is essentially a license that ‘puts the flag of a country’ on that vessel to do what it is doing. A LoM is also signed by the highest authority of that country and there is law (admiralty law, prize courts) and history (hundreds of years of it’s usage) to support the concept. All other licenses pale in comparison.

The other interesting thought that came to mind is if a vessel had armed guards, could that vessel defend itself against a state sponsored act of piracy or outright attack?  Let’s say China or Iran wanted to detain an armed merchant vessel, seize the loot on the boat and imprison or even kill all the crew.  If the threat was imminent, would a vessel and it’s armed crew have the right to defend itself against such a naval assault?

Who knows, but as it stands now, a merchant vessel being attacked by a country could be viewed as a company versus a state, and less like an act of war. If that company has arming authority through a license, then how does that work in such an example presented? It is an interesting question, but as we allow shipping to be armed, these kinds of scenarios will present themselves. In this case, if ships are to be armed, then these possible scenarios should be covered by laws and licenses, and international treaties should be made or modified.  Hence why I go back to the LoM, because it has such historical precedence throughout the world.

The other point that needs to be addressed is the rules for capture or enemy prisoners. Because what if the guards on a vessel fire upon a skiff with pirates, and their boat starts sinking?  Or the pirates just give up and surrender to the vessel for some reason. Or a wounded pirate is the last survivor on a boat, and asks to be given care?  What about prisoners?  There should be a mechanism in place that allows for the detention of pirates, and the legal processes an armed merchant vessel must follow for that detention.  Perhaps video cameras on ships would be a good thing to have, just to legally protect the ship in a court of law when these pirates are detained and charged. The way I envision this is that video tape, witnesses, and GPS coordinates for where the incident took place, would be some excellent tools for a vessel to have in order to help protect themselves legally and to help in the prosecution of pirates. Without provisions like this, then in essence the whole ‘catch and release’ game continues.

And like with the early privateers, unless they have an incentive to detain prisoners, they will not be that enthused to take them. Do we want armed guards of a vessel to be in a position to ‘turn away’ pirates that are surrendering to them, just because it is not profitable or legal to do so? Or the ships insurance or budget does not provide for the care or detention of prisoners. For those of you who are students of ‘offense industry‘ you will recognize quickly what I am getting at here. At present, there is no offense industry in place to capture prisoners and reduce the number of pirates that continue to ravage the shipping industry. There is only ‘defense industry’, which only profits from the continuation of piracy. Reducing the number of pirates through culling or capture is not a main focus of defense industries.

Also, to be technical, the terms of the treaties signed have more significance between all the parties that ratified the thing. The main threat to shipping is pretty much from Somali pirates, so the LoM’s to be issued would be against folks who come from a failed state. (Somalia is not a signatory of these treaties either.) But of course I am simplifying this, and any legal eagle out there could probably find some portion of the treaties or international law that would still prevent the LoM being used against pirates. If any lawyers or readers have any legal input on where this will go, or what this will potentially look like if they create an arming license, let us know in the comments. –Matt

Edit: On a side note, JLT has been itching to fire up their private navy, and legal authority is what they have been seeking.

Britain To Give Legal Backing To Armed Guards On Vessels
May 16, 2011
Britain is preparing to give firm legal backing to the deployment of armed guards on UK-flag ships.
Legislation is being drawn up that will formally accept the use of private security personnel on ships sailing through waters where pirates are active.
Although many ships are known to have armed protection, including a considerable number operated by UK-based companies, the legal position remains uncertain. Both the shipowners who employ armed personnel and the guards themselves could, technically, be in breach of the law.
The UK is now poised to remedy that situation, changing the law where necessary to ensure shipowners whose vessels have firearms on board are not at risk of prosecution. The British government is thought to be one of the first to promise statutory changes. Denmark has taken similar action
“We have to accept [piracy] is happening, but if a UK-registered ship has armed security on board, I must make sure the legislation is fit for purpose,” UK shipping minister Mike Penning told Lloyd’s List.

(more…)

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Legal News: Former Attorney General John Ashcroft To Become Independent Director Of Xe Services

This is a very interesting move, and bravo to the investors and to Xe for bringing on this heavy weight. John Ashcroft is definitely taking on a risky move as well, and I salute his courage for jumping on board.

So what does this mean in terms of the future of Xe? There are three things that come to mind.  The first is the ongoing litigation that Xe has been up against, both by lawsuits and with the stuff going on between the US Gov and the company over various incidents. The second is the legally complex and highly dangerous missions that Xe is a part of, and especially as the DoS builds and expands their army of private security contractors. Third is how to structure the companies policies to best fit in with the new codes of conduct and licenses that companies will have to abide by as budgets are approved and laws are implemented.

Probably the one thing that keeps coming to my mind about this industry is that companies will continue to risk a lot, and in order to protect themselves legally, they have to have an army of lawfare warriors. That whole saying of ‘send guns, money, and lawyers’ is absolutely true, and the companies that want to survive and continue to provide their services, need really kick ass legal firms or legal eagles to protect them.

It will be a complex legal environment as we press forward in this war, and as we involve industry in the counter-piracy or counter-transnational criminal organizations game, and picking a former Attorney General of the United States (with all of his connections and influence) is a good move to help navigate that.

What is also interesting about this move, is that having him on board might help to attract a CEO and/or management team of a higher caliber.  It will add ‘value’ to the company, because they have added a significant player to the team.  These things matter at the upper level, and the investors are doing all they can to not only maintain the company’s current value, but to increase it and grow.  And if the customer (meaning the US government) knows that the company has a high level legal heavy weight and a strong lawfare army, then that gives them and the tax paying public a little bit more of a warm and fuzzy about the intent of the company. The narrative says that ‘the company wants to do good, and provide an excellent service for it’s clients’. –Matt

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft to Become Independent Director of Xe Services
Past Department of Justice Head to Chair Governance Subcommittee
May 04, 2011
USTC Holdings, LLC, the investor consortium that acquired Xe Services, LLC, including its main holding U.S. Training Center, Inc. (“USTC”) in December 2010, today announced that former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft will serve as an Independent Director of the company. USTC is a leading provider of training and security services focused on worldwide operations in support of the United States Government and other customers.
“Attorney General Ashcroft’s accomplished career will certainly provide a strong reference for the Company as we continue to strengthen its governance and accountability.” (more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress