http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/navy-coast-guard-cutter-rescues-iranian-mariners-011012/
Excellent example of the men and women of the Coast Guard are still doing more with less as all 49 of the 110s were supposed to be replaced by 123s in 2009. Instead of the ICGS performance guaranty taking care of this, after the 123 program was scrapped, the Coast Guard paid more to refurbish many of the 110s so they could keep all 49 in service. Mission performance has dropped 70k hours since 2005. Defensive Cutter Readiness failed and will no longer be released to the public along per the DHS IG. Deepwater cost $17B when it started and is $29B now. By the way – the men and women of the Coast Guard were actually asked to stop saying they are “doing more with less”. I guess that means if you can’t say it that it must not be true?
Your misunderstanding of how “constant year” dollars and “then year” dollars are used in capital planning in government is hurting your credibility Please do yourself a favor and stick to the technical issues where you have some expertise.
He actually has no credibility on technical issues either. Just reference the transcripts of his case where he is forced to admit on the stand that he has no training, understanding or experience in hull or engineering matters.
You are correct I did say that. I actually went farther than I should have but I will fix that at trial. (I do and did have understanding of moments of inertia, centers of gravity etc from a 3 year full motion simulator upgrade I led. We were adding and changing many things on the simulator and those areas were affected. This is the basic knowledge I had when I worked with Hickman and several congressional investigators starting in the summer of 2006 on the hull fraud. Some of them visited the 123s to specifically look at the hull issues. I knew enough to find Scott Sampson and connect him to Clay Foushee and to help set up that whole hearing .)
I have approved all of your posts and responded. You have avoided every discussion on the guaranty and holding ICGS accountable. So here is how it will work from now on. Either address those issues or your posts do not get approved. I have been way more than fair and open while you comment as anon and avoid the topics you don’t like.
Your choice.
Oh and I don’t care if you disagree with me on those topics – have at it.
(And don’t bother changing names because I can see IPs. And if you change that and ignore the topic I will not approve those posts)
Show me that? I was a Sr PM for a defense contractor and worked several huge multi-year programs. Show me where the GAO or CRS made that EXACT argument to explain most of the budget increases as EXPECTED and PLANNED. Show me what the $17B was expected or planned to get to by now and at the end of the 30 year contract in then, now and future dollars? Then show me the cost growth outside of that. Then justify the cost growth and tell me the CG and the American taxpayer got their monies worth with ICGS. Show me how much better the CG is performing and how much better off the fleet is.
Mike:
For all the talk of the millions and billions of dollars you can supposedly win for the Coast Guard, all you have to show for it is a pointedly-worded dismissal or denial or whatever the terminology happens to be and a settlement with Lockheed Martin for an undisclosed sum. Naturally, this would cause many to wonder how airtight your case really is.
In the big picture, while debates about qui tam and declarations and who knew what when can go on and on the Coast Guard has no such luxury to live in the past. I think lots of people, like myself, view the 123′s as old news and of little consequence if any to the current state of the Coast Guard.
R/
YLBDR
You bring up some good points.
It could all be talk. And it isn’t air tight – at least as far as the world works. Remember OJ? Seriously this is a big deal with 8 million docs in discovery and the customer (the USCG) really doesn’t want us to be in this. I understand they don’t like me but I have a hard time believing leaders of that stature can be petty and short sighted enough to obstruct the whole case just to get one individual back. I believe that if you look at all of it over time you see will see a pattern of not wanting to go after ICGS al along. Admiral Allen stonewalled the DHS IG so much the IG complained to a congressional committee about it. Literally every decision made to stop the 123s, ask for the money back or kill ICGS came just before or after major press releases, hearing or report releases. When we found the key doc from them in discovery they tried to claw it back (and are still trying). When Commander Pierce broke with the herd (and good for him) and he signed that declaration saying that info was withheld from the CG by ICGS they literally scheduled him to go to Alaska with no phone or internet access during trial. The CG told our judge there was no hull fraud (now there is with Bollinger?) Then after we were dismissed they promised declarations and reneged. Lastly we know the CG JAG said our case was their best shot. Try to look at all of that objectively. Who does all of that? Hell who does some of that?
I believe their motives are to protect ICGS, protect themselves because ICGS would cause a food fight and to knock me out. Regardless of the reasons or their priority it is still the wrong decision and bad for the Coast Guard.
We have several official contractor witnesses telling us in declaration that the program wide performance guaranty was NEVER actually legally put in to effect. We have the contract documents where ICGS said the “unconditional” guaranty was “executed” and “delivered”. That is fraud and it is fraudulent inducement of the whole contract. ICGS should have never won. Imagine if we win appeal and the public, press and congress pay attention to that $9B fraud? people start asking where the hell was the CG? Why didn’t they catch that? Why did they pay for the buckled 123s to be fixed? Why were they letting ICGS off a huge hook and obstructing us? They dug a huge hole and see no way out other than to keep digging. Oh yeah – and they want to get more money from congress to fill the void – while they blame congress for the situation because they shorted them $.
I understand what I am saying, how it sounds and that one guy is out there shouting that senior leader after senior leader, going back years, did the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I know how it looks, how it sounds etc. I truly believe that if looked at unemotionally and objectively that what I am saying is accurate. Unfortunate – but accurate.
I realize the 123s are thought of as old news. It is getting pretty damn old for me too (9 years). But see that is one of the main tactics. Drag it out. People eventually forget and tire of it. I simply cannot do that until I know I have exhausted every option, that I have done all I can do or it actually ends with a reasonable outcome. And that reasonable outcome will be something that actually helps DW get back on track. Because right now it is not in a good place. Look at the money situation (which the refund and guaranty issue would fix to a large degree) and how many more years assets that should have been retired now will still have to be in service. I understand humans make mistakes, DW was going to cost more than $17B and that it was surely never going to be perfect. But this is a bad situation made that way by leaders who made bad choices for the wrong reasons and they are still doing that. As such the symptoms will change but THEY not just me will ensure it never goes away because there will unfortunately be new and worse symptoms coming for a long time. An asset may very well be lost because of this. Until the root cause is dealt with that will not change.
If we win appeal we get to go after ICGS for the 123s and the guaranty. That will be $9B X3. Now it won’t end at that amount but it will be huge and it will matter because the CG will see that 1/3 and it will be significant enough to make a real difference.
Let me add this.
I not only know the whole damn thing is beyond getting old but that it and I are a giant pain in the a**.
They stay at it. So I have to. Why? The main reason, and the one that got me started, was that I don’t want something bad to be on my conscience. If something bad happens I want to know I did everything I could.
It’s really that simple. I know how rah-rah and BS that sounds. But it’s true.
This is all fine but let’s keep in mind that much of this is either conjecture or opinion on your part. When we get down to the results of all these actions, you’ve given the public (lacking a better term here) nothing to objectively demonstrate to this point in time that you built a successful case. I don’t think anyone expects you to come out say that your case is untenable or unwinnable but there’s an awful lot of bluster on your part for a multi-year effort that has produced nothing for the Coast Guard so far. I don’t know if the Coast Guard got any money from the Lockheed settlement, but nothing I’ve read has suggested it.
What you have put out there as evidence of a strong case is the comment of a Coast Guard JAG with no context or background. Your detractors have a judge’s decision that suggests otherwise.
Any problems with your case or reasons it hasn’t been successful to this point are blamed on the Coast Guard, which you have suggested in various posts and comments has unethical motives, was willingly asleep at the wheel, doesn’t like you and lacks courage to “do the right thing.”
So it makes perfect sense that you would continue to sacrifice stability for you and your family to win this same lackadaisical service that doesn’t like you potentially billion of dollars, making you its great hope for the future where others have failed it.
I think you can see my point-of-view that some may be confused by a message like that.
And naturally, when people figure out that you stand collect a potentially substantial sum from a monetary penalty that has the potential to be billions of dollars, they assume a certain set of motivations on your part is in play. Of course, the law says you’re entitled to that if you are successful. But I think you’ve seen enough comments to understand that some are going to question motives.
R/
YLBDR
Saying that you have seen nothing that says the CG got anything from the settlement isn’t objective or fair. Look at the article again. Are you really going that far to say you see nothing “suggested” the CG received anything? I have no control over the decision relative to the “unspecified sum.” As for the 1/3 for the CG and 1/3 for the general fund – it is the law. (The CG 1/3 may actually go to DHS – not sure)
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101202005516/en/%E2%80%9CDeepwater%E2%80%9D-Whistleblower-Michael-J.-DeKort%E2%80%99s-Minute-Settlement
“-Four years after he first filed his lawsuit, former Lockheed Martin employee Michael J. DeKort settled allegations against the company for an unspecified sum yesterday.”
The judges decision NEVER said otherwise about the claims. The case dismissal was not based on ANY claims. It was based on jurisdictional or realtor issues.
It is not all conjecture or opinion. What I believe some of the facts mean is opinion yes. Especially as far as motive – but not impact.
The facts
- CG tried is trying to claw back critical document from discovery
- CG planned to send Commander Pierce to Alaska with no access to him the exact week we needed him at trial
- CG told us and Sen Cantwell’s staff we would get critical declarations then reneged
- We have official contractor depositions where the witness stated the guaranty was never legally put in place
- We have contract documents showing ICGS said the “unconditional” performance guaranty was “executed” and delivered
- The false guaranty and fraudulent inducement(and joint venture) claim is worth 3X the money spent to date on the program which is $9B
- We have the contract showing the performance guaranty that was supposed to be in place and the performance requirements from the CG. We also have – IG, GAO, CG and other data showing the CG mission performance has degraded several over time
- The CG and JAG both said our case was the best shot and the CG expected the DoJ to intervene in our case.
- Several key program decisions were made by the CG within days and sometimes within 1 day of hearings, report releases or major press articles. (I understand that could be coincidence. Except I was told that the night before my hearing Commandant Allen apologized to congressional members for his action and said he would do better in the future. Given that and how often the “coincidences occur I will stick with believing they were not coincidences)
- Richard Skinner, the former DHS IG, told a congressional hearing that Admiral Allen’s staff several stonewalled his investigators who were investigating the 123 issues.
What bluster about the case? Do you realize how foolish it would be for me to post something in this area I KNOW to be untrue? I would imagine the other side keeps records of every post I make. What would you want me to post that would prove we have an objective case? And given you comment relative to the settlement above, in spite of seeing the article, I am not sure you are open minded, objective and fair enough to let evidence change your mind or to at least to lead you to post it did. Personally I think you are fair and objective enough but are worried about posting agreement with me. But I could be wrong.
As for motives. It is what it is. I worked this issue three years before knowing what a QuiTam was. I contacted the DHS IG who sent agents to my house, did YouTube and lost my job BEFORE I knew what a QuiTam was or FILED one. The guaranty issue was found in the summer of 2010 in discovery. I had no idea that would happen when we filed in 2006. The whole thing never had to get to the point of me or any one else filing an FCA suit. The FCA/QuiTam was simply the next of many steps that should never have had to occur. They did and we keep at it. If there were no money possible for the relator I would be doing every bit of this. And all this blogging and working with the press is not something most relators do. As a matter of fact they are usually told to shut up and let the case work. I didn’t shut up because the case takes too long and I don’t know it will help with a root cause fix for the fleet. No – any objective and informed person would know that money wasn’t and isn’t the main driver. (As for my accepting any money I have a family etc. I will not pass up ways to help take care of them to demonstrate that. Especially since the fair, ethical, moral and objective people who know the whole situation would understand that. I am not going to do something to jeopardize our well being beyond what I have done already to appease or prove something to these people who think I only did it for the money. And that is because most of them are part of the problem. They are unethical, immoral, unpatriotic and probably wouldn’t believe me anyway. NONE of the people that have posted who are against me or think I do this primarily or only for money ALSO think separate of me I am doing the right thing. EVERY one of them pushes back against the case and what we are trying to do as well. NONE of them will even discuss the guaranty, whether or not ICGS should be held accountable etc. NONE of them says they are good with the message but hate the messenger. This shows their true agenda. Coming after me is just a straw man)
This I know. I talk with several senior people who are or were very involved in all of this. They read the articles and a lot of my blogs. They feel I am dead on, should ignore the noise and keep going. So I will.
Actually, this is another lie of yours and you know it Mike. The judge specifically outlined how the Coast Guard disagreed with your claims and had came to an entirely different conclusion. Are you now trying to say he was in cahoots with the Coast Guard against you too?
Post where the judge dismissed on a claims merit basis. Saying he got info from the Coast Guard that countered our claims was noted but not part of the actual dismissal.
I have said the CG disagreed with the fraud claims. Yet the miraculously find them now to be true and are going after Bollinger for them. That is part of the CG constructing our case AND misleading the judge.
The CG claims in the Bollinger suit are EXACTLY the same claims for the 123s. The claim is fraud centered around the contractor withholding or lying about information relative to the systemic hull design issue. The lower level detail beyond that is supporting information.
Have you every seen the CGs investigation document? The entire thing involves ICGS not Bollinger.
Have you read the appeal documents from both sides? They do not deal with the existing claims they deal with the relator jurisdictional issues. (The only claims dealt with are the new ones were are trying to add)
Mike:
It’s not the “unspecified sum,” it’s that the article never says that the Coast Guard received any money from the settlement. That’s why I said nothing I read had suggested that Coast Guard got anything, though I allowed that they could have. This line in particular confuses the issue for me – “The agreement specifies that neither party will disclose the terms of the settlement.” I was also under the impression that part of the Lockheed settlement was connected to you being fired from Lockheed and that the Coast Guard wouldn’t share in that kind of settlement. I’m more than happy to receive clarity on this.
Whatever the reasons for your case’s dismissal, it was dismissed. That’s a fact. The Coast Guard gets no benefit. Again it goes back to what all of your efforts have yielded for the Coast Guard to this point. If the Coast Guard did get some of the settlement from Lockheed we’ll never know how much because keeping it undisclosed was part of the settlement terms. On nothing other than a guess it seems like it wasn’t all that much since the potential monetary damage figures you continue to cite haven’t gone down.
As for bluster, I think that is self-evident.
R/
YLBDR
I am bound by an agreement so there are things I cannot discuss.
Please call a widely known FCA attorney and ask them how the $ breaks out. I was told 1/3 goes to the harmed agency directly. And let’s say that were not the case and it went to the general fund. The CG draws from that and the contractors would be held responsible. Isn’t that enough? There is nothing I can do about the breakout. If it were up to me the whole 2/3 would go to the CG.
There are no and never were any legal actions taken by me other than the FCA. No personal lawsuit whatsoever – including around my loss of employment.
But with the DOJ suit, the government gets 100%. of course then you get nothing, so it makes sense that you continue to bash and slam the Coast Guard for looking out for their best interest.
Why not just get a job instead of trying to make an unearned and undeserved from the hard work of others Mike?
Both our case and the new Bollinger cases are DoJ cases.
The only reason the government would get 100% is if there is no relator. I do not believe that will be the case if they pursue that avenue. As out case made their case possible I believe we would say we are the realtor of that case as well.
I have a job. My Linked In etc are not up to date.
Mike:
I understand you can’t disclose the sum. No problem there. I also recognize that you don’t control who gets what. Cool your jets
Yes or no question: the Coast Guard received some portion of the Lockheed settlement. No need for a dissertation on 1/3 or 2/3 or anything else.
R/
YLBDR
As far as I know the process as it was explained to me was carried out. 1/3 to the USCG. I have no reason to think otherwise or verify. And when we win for the 123s and the guaranty the same will happen. And like I said I wish the CG got the whole 2/3.
Mike:
“Yes” would’ve sufficed. Thanks.
I find the fact that you seem to be in the dark about who got what a little curious, but maybe that’s a lawyer thing.
R/
YLBDR
Sorry – I rarely give a short answer.
I am banned and can’t even read posts on the site.
I have some emails. What part would you like to see?
Bluster =
3. Loud, arrogant speech, often full of empty threats.
I will give you loud even arrogant but not empty.
And “threats” is too harsh or at least not intended as popularly defined. I clearly define and state my intentions. They are not meant as “threats”.
Your case being thrown out pretty much shows you being an empty suit with nothing to offer except unsubstantiated allegations against the government.
NONE of the allegations or claims were shown as unsubstantiated or even close. The judge dismissed on relator/jurisdictional grounds.
I should have also mentioned that the % for the relator also goes for the attorneys who have been subsidizing the government and their case for several millions of dollars now. They should be compensated.
Mike,
You say, “When we found the key doc from them in discovery they tried to claw it back (and are still trying).”
Could you post a link to that doc so readers can see for themselves how “key” it is?
Thanks in advance for your transparency!
Unfortunately I cannot. A few docs are protected. This one is protected by the CG. As with all of the docs they are filed under our case in PACER but this one is protected. If the CG will change that protection I would love to paste the whole thing.
The document is called “Point by Point” as stated in the Commander Pierce declaration. I will post that here. It shows Commander Pierce was trying to help us. This also shows the CG knows are claims were valid and support what I said about their Point by Point doc. IF the CG thought our claims were not valid we could not have gotten this declaration. Now someone might say – see the CG wasn’t trying to obstruct you. I believe the CG walked a very thin line. They didn’t do anything that would go against the court. That is why we got discovery but they tried to claw back the Point by Point. Then we asked for Commander Pierce’s declaration and I believe he wanted to give it. As such the CG didn’t stop him. (Unlike them not trying to make Hickman and D’Armiento feel comfortable enough to give us declarations). So basically I think the CG wants ICGS to see they will only help as far as they have to and cannot find a supportable legal way not too.. Why claw back the Point by Point and stop Pierce from going to our trial? To try as hard as they can to not make it look like the CGs official position was that ICGS committed fraud. I think the CG should have given us everything we asked for and let the case play out instead of obstructing us or at least putting up some huge speed bumps.
Commander Pierce Declaration. Notice these are the same claims the CG has against Bollinger, that this declaration is for our case against ICGS not Bollinger and Commander Pierce says information was withheld and assurances were made that ICGS knew were not accurate. We are saying that is fraud.
DECLARATION OF FRANK A. PIERCE
My name is Frank A. Pierce and I am a Lieutenant Commander in the United
States Coast Guard (USCG). I have testified in this matter on behalf of the USCG as a
Rule 30(b)(6) representative and I offer this declaration as a representative of the USCG.
I have personally reviewed the document attached hereto as Exhibit A and declare the
following:
I. The document attached hereto [and bates numbered CG9-9125-
DOLSSO_0002469 - CG9-9125-DOLSSO_002688] is a true and correct
copy of USCG Contracting Officer Pamela Bible’s December 28, 2007
letter to Defendant ICGS and true and accurate copies of the three
enclosures to this letter: (I) Goverrunent’s Position on ICGS’ Response to
the 123 Revocation of Acceptance, (2) the USCG’s Point by Point
Rebuttal of ICGS response to the USCG’s revocation of eight (8) 123s
(“Point by Point”), and (3) Quantum.
2. I reviewed the entire document including Enclosure 2, the Point by Point,
to refresh my recollection in preparation for my deposition taken in the
above-referenced matter on May 25-26, 2010.
3. Everything stated in the entire attached Point by Point document is within
my personal knowledge and reflected the Coast Guard’s best analysis of
the facts at that time. The ICGS Response on the left-hand column was
directly copied from the lCGS response to the USCG revocation of
acceptance of the eight (8) l23s converted and delivered under the
Deepwater contract.
4. The assurances and representations by lCGS that the 123′ WPB design
and calculations were correct, when they were not, and the representations
that the 123s had been certified for ABS HSC 1997, when only part of the
cutter had been certified, and the certifications that lCGS had complied
with all the specifications and requirements of the contracts, when it had
not, misled the USCG to its detriment. Had lCGS’s assurances,
representations and certifications been accurate and complete, the USCG
would not have allowed the 1101123 conversion to proceed until lCGS
was in proper contractual compliance.
5. As important, the 123s failed to satisfy the Cutter Specific Certification
Matrix requirements, which required, by virtue of Sort 109, that the 123s
be reviewed by a third-party for “unrestricted service;” the USCG relied
on lCGS assurances that the cutter met or exceeded these standards in its
decision for award and acceptance. Furthermore had the Sort 109 review
indicated large cost or schedule differences in the capability to meet
‘unrestricted service’ it may have chosen to the terminate the program.
6. At this time, no contract dispute action, involving Integrated Coast Guard
Systems (“ICGS”), Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Bollinger
Shipyards, or by any other subcontractor to lCGS, Northrop Grumman, or
Lockheed Martin, has been filed by or against the United States regarding
the United States’ May 17, 2007 and June 5, 2007, revocations of
acceptance of the eight (8) 123-ft patrol boats.
7. The Defendants in Deepwater’s 110/123s conversion process have failed
to deliver 123s that satisfy the mandatory Performance Specifications of
the contract. The 123s are incapable of performing any of the Mission
Requirements set forth in Section 3, because they cannot be safely
operated due to hull buckling, shaft misalignment and other classwide
problems unique to the 123s converted by the Defendants in this case.
8. Finally, the Defendants haven’t requested that they be allowed, at their
cost, to fix the eight (8) inoperable 123 WPB cutters pursuant to the
Defendants’ contractual performance requirements. In addition, the cost to
re-establish these platforms after 2 plus years of inaction would be
unreasonably high. All eight (8) decommissioned 123s, presently moored
and inoperative in the Baltimore Yard of the United States Coast Guard,
have little more than scrap value with exception of the propulsion plant,
remain defective cutters and are of no use to the USCG.
9. The position of the Government as stated in Enclosure I, the
Government’s Position on lCGS’ Response to the 123 Revocation of
Acceptance, has not changed and has not been re-evaluated.
10. Enclosure 3, the Quantum, is a reasonable estimate of the damages
sustained by the US Coast Guard.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
You neglect to add the other half of the equation though…that you never even knew who Pierce was, nor had any contact with him. He sure never says anything about you or your claims being accurate. I bet if he knew a proven liar like you were throwing his name out like that he would not be very happy.
Rather, as Judge O’Connor said when he threw out your discredited claims, your failed attempt to try and take credit for the work and efforts of others was nothing more than a a lame attempt to deceive the Court.
No I do not believe we knew who Commander Pierce was before discovery and we certainly didn’t talk to him until after then. But what’s the point? We filed the claims, ASKED for specific things in discovery, got them and used them to build the case. The case for the UCSG through the DoJ.
Of course he says the claims were accurate. They are not my claims. They are the DoJs claims on behalf of the CG. He states the essence of the claims and repeats them in a legal declaration. Since the mirror our claims they support the claims. What do you think the point of the declaration was? it is not his position to support us. It was his responsibility to state what he thought happened and was wrong. We then use that to support the claims. What he saw matches the claims. Same claims the CG has against Bollinger.
Again the dismissal was not about the claims. We were not dismissed due to claim issues. We were dismissed due to realtor/jurisdictional issues and will counter that easily in appeal with the Foushee declaration.
Let me also add that we could lose appeal on the hulls and win on bringing the false guaranty and fraudulent inducement. AND there are NO claim or relator issues there.
Why do you keep avoiding the guaranty issues/claims? Does that mean you cannot show an objective reason I am wrong about them?
As for bringing our Pierce’s name. That is partly on you and your compadre’s. You want to push and ask for proof. Well there you go. It’s a public document.
Oh and notice he is a 30(b)(6) witness. This means the CG officially acknowledged he spoke for them. He was not just speaking for himself.
Who are my compadries? I have nothing to do with the Coast Guard leaders, although maybe I should get in touch with them. From their posts here, they appear to agree with me that you are a liar, opportunist and fraud who will say and do anything if you think it will fatten your wallet.
Compadre=Like minded individuals who post as anon.
Then I have a newfound respect for Coasties then.
Semper P, Coast Guard!
As for deceiving the court that is what ICGS did when they used incomplete and broken up depo quotes of mine and told the judge fraud was not something I even thought of until my hearing. The Foushee declaration completely counters that. The judge was misled but not by me.
Now I am even more confused. I thought you said you had the “key doc” but the Coast Guard was trying to claw it back.
Now I think I understand you to say you do not have that key doc that you got through discovery, but you have another doc called “Point by Point” that you might post here, although it too is being clawed back by the CG.
In the interest of transparency, can you post that doc. Why not post everything someplace so we can read the things you refer to on this blog.
It would go a long way toward removing the skepticism of those who don’t believe you have proof.
Why not do that?
I know it’s a lot of stuff, but cgreport already has hundreds of docs on scribd. Almost all of those are docs taken from someplace else on the Internet. Why not use scribd to share some of the evidence of wrongdoing in this case?
Thanks for considering it. I know you take the CG to task for not being transparent. This is a chance to set the example for them.
I am sorry if I didn’t make it clear. (And that is not a sarcastic response)
The key doc the CG provided was the Point By Point. But when they found out we had it they tried to claw it back. And still are I believe. My only guess is that it was supplied by accident?
I cannot post the doc. It is protected by the USCG. (There are very few docs protected by them. This is one of them. Most of the contractor docs are protected for corporate privacy reasons). If they allow it I would be glad to provide a link to it.
I will look for proof it is protected by the USCG and post that. Please notice Commander Pierce declares that doc was valid.
And you are right my not being transparent would be hypocritical.
What do you mean when you say the Coast Guard tried to claw the document back?
What do you mean when you say a document is protected by the Coast Guard? If you have docs why not post them?
Claw back means to remove the document from discovery
The Coast Guard filed a protective order saying certain things were not for the public. This document is one of them. By court order no one can make the contents public.
Now why would a document detailing the CG investigation into the matter not be available to the public? And why would they want to claw it back? Read the Pierce declaration.
See the claw back was months before the Pierce declaration. Now one would think that if they were really obstructing us, and didn’t make Hickman and D’Armiento comfortable enough to declare why would they not stop Pierce? My theory is that one – these were official 30(b)(6) witnesses. I would imagine that our asking for one from the CG (wronged party) is standard and stopping that wouldn’t work and would expose the obstruction as obvious. Also I think it is possible Commander Pierce wanted to give the declaration. (As such I hope his career has not suffered).
As for the other declarations. The CG agreed we would get them and that they were accurate and legal. Why not encourage people to give them to us and let the judicial system play out?
http://www.lawyertrialforms.com/electronicdiscovery/ELEC3323ClawbackAgreement.htm
“Clawback Agreements. Federal Civ. R., Rule 26(b)(5) provides a procedure that allows the parties to agree that during discovery a producing party who has inadvertently produced attorney-client privileged communications or work product documents can notify the receiving party of the privilege claim. After notice, the receiving attorney must return, sequester or destroy the specified information, retrieve any copies shared with others, and may not use or disclose the allegedly privileged ESI until the claim of privilege is resolved. This is known as a “clawback agreement.”
We are fighting the claw back because we believe the judicial value supersedes the reasons for privilege.
In response we also asked for the 30(b)(6) witness Commander Pierce to declare certain things.
What do you think the CG sees as so damaging they try to claw it back then when they can’t do that they file the Point by Point under seal? What would D’Armiento, Hickman and Martindale declare that is so damaging that the CG needs to stop them even though they agree they were legal and accurate? If our allegations are wrong how could the declarations be accurate and legal? What is the Cg afraid of? Why not let the judicial system play out and if we are wrong we lose? What is so scary about all of those things the public cannot see them exposed at trial?
The document and documents where that document are quoted are under seal. I do not see a way to prove that right now. I will keep thinking about it.
I have no interest in doing the wrong thing or getting in trouble. So let me try to help with the Pierce declaration as the reference.
Look at these parts
“My name is Frank A. Pierce and I am a Lieutenant Commander in the United
States Coast Guard (USCG). I have testified in this matter on behalf of the USCG as a
Rule 30(b)(6) representative. . . ” —-This says he has been assigned by the USCG to speak for them
“Everything stated in the entire attached Point by Point document is within
my personal knowledge and reflected the Coast Guard’s best analysis of
the facts at that time.” ——He says, speaking officially for the USCG, that the Point By Point reflected the USCG best analysis of the facts – not just his.
Then he goes on to list the areas where he believes there was wrongdoing. Same areas of our claims.
I don’t think I can make it any clearer than that. Pierce speaks officially for the USCG and he is declaring the proof as he declares he AND THE USCG SAW IT.
Maybe you need to start offering to pay your witnesses. Your current strategy of you asking people to help you for free and you running off with the money and leaving everyone else with nothing does not appear to have worked for you…
Helping us is helping the USCG and taxpayer. It is not my or our case it is the governments case we are simply handling and funding it for them. Witnesses do not get paid and Commander Pierce etc were all doing their jobs and following court directives etc. 2/3 of the money (more if you count taxes on the relator) go to the government.
As for nothing for “everyone else” I will post this again and let it speak for itself.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101202005516/en/%E2%80%9CDeepwater%E2%80%9D-Whistleblower-Michael-J.-DeKort%E2%80%99s-Minute-Settlement
Mission performance has dropped 70k hours since 2005.\
Mike, what Mission Program are you refering to that measures “mission performance” in resource hours. I am not aware of any. I know for a fact that the Maritime Law Enforcement Mission Program (CD, AMIO, LMR, OLE) do not measure performance in resource hours within its stratgeic performance measures (reported out) and program management measures (not necessarily reported out). Not saying that resource hour utilization isn’t used when evaluating whether of not the SPD is being executed. Its just that resource hour burn rates are just a number…lives saved, cocaine removal rate, migrant interdiction rate, observed level of fisheries compliance, etc…these are measures of mission performance.
Your 70K loss is that comparing 2005 to 2011 in AOPS/ALMIS? That doesn’t seem right to me.
Deepwater cost $17B when it started and is $29B now…and your point? When has any military procurement project not had growth in modern history? Not saying that because the Navy gets away with it we should but don’t hold us to a standard that no one holds the Pentagon to. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-111_Sep11.pdf
I agree just the fact that the $17B grew to $29B and counting is not indicative of a major problem in itself. And you are correct it is par for the course in defense contracting.
I saw the dance many times. Everyone underbids each other on purpose. And to make matters worse the target number starts off too low to begin with because no one in DC really wants to know how much things cost. So you underbid, you win, you move along, costs grow, people in DC complain, there may be hearing and press articles, you get more money. If you deliver the product and works all is forgotten.
That last part is key. That $17B was the total 20 year cost prediction as such it had COLA etc built in. There were some requirement changes along the way but nothing to justify almost double the cost (and it will probably actually be double by the time we are done). Even if some requirements changes were justified the end result is not. This was not a standard contract. It was an LSI performance based contract. The CG provided the high level mission requirements for the whole CG and the asset classes. It was ICGS job to break that down and provide products that would meet those mission requirements. This latest DHS IG report shows more data indicating they not only didn’t meet those requirements but things got worse. (And that is the easy comparison. Look at the post 9/11 RAND recommendations for the 10 and 15 year accelerations.) Now top that off with the CG being fraudulently induced into giving ICGS the contract because they said they “executed” and “delivered’ and “unconditional” performance guaranty.
In the end, even if you take in to account some requirements changes and the fact that we always go through this painful and ridiculous process with defense contracting the Coast Guard and the nation are being ripped off. To make it worse the CG is letting ICGS off the hook for the 123s and the false guaranty while crying woe is me to congress and asking the American taxpayer to foot THE WHOLE BILL. Yes the CG needs money but its bad decisions including letting ICGS off the hook that is a major contributor to their financial calamity. Before they lay a huge guilt trip on congress and the American taxpayer and make them scapegoats for the current state of the fleet or for ant tragedy that occurs because of that they should have the courage to hold themselves and ICGS properly accountable.
Not only that, but 17B is in 1998 $; what year money is 29B, 2010? Not saying there hasn’t been growth, but at least compare apples to apples and also acknowledge that the 17B 1998 baseline program didn’t account for any post 9-11 requirment changes. Over simplified may sell papers but doesn’t nearly reflect the reality being portrayed here.
That is not accurate. It was the full 20 year cost with COLA and other anticipated costs rolled in. And it did not account for all of the post 9/11 changes. But what were those? New or more assets? No.
Like I said I agree $17B was bound to grow. The issue is was it value added? Did everyone get their monies worth? If the CG and the nation better off? (See this is what bothers me. Even if you ignore the decisions of the CG leadership until they took over last year how the hell can you say that they took over something that wasn’t in trouble still? ICGS was the LSI and there was a program wide “unconditional” performance guaranty and it was a performance based contract. How do you not, AT THE VERY LEAST, hold ICGS accountable to that point so you aren’t digging out from that hole? The continual rolling over and giving ICGS a pass is killing the Coast Guard. Unless congress ignores all of this and throws tons of money at them this can never be fixed. Which is why the GAO said the program as it stands is “Unobtainable”
http://www.hstoday.us/focused-topics/information-technology/single-article-page/gao-coast-guard-deepwater-goals-are-unattainable/8de7c46ad0c2a9b1c165a5a646620fad.html). How can you not criticize any of this stuff? That isn’t supporting me. It is supporting the Coast Guard and the country.
——
If your points were correct the GAO would simply have said the same thing and said the cost growth was justified. They did not.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11743.pdf
From page 10
The Deepwater Program as a whole continues to exceed the cost and schedule baselines approved by DHS in May 2007, but several factors preclude a solid understanding of the true cost and schedule of the program. The Coast Guard has developed baselines for some assets, most of which have been approved by DHS, that indicate the estimated total acquisition cost could be as much as $29.3 billion, or about $5 billion over the $24.2 billion baseline. But additional cost growth is looming because the Coast Guard has yet to develop revised baselines for all the Deepwater assets, including the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)—the largest cost driver in the Deepwater Program. In addition, the Coast Guard’s most recent 5-year budget plan, included in DHS’s fiscal year 2012 budget request, indicates further cost and schedule changes not yet reflected in the asset baselines. The reliability of the cost estimates and schedules for selected assets is also undermined because the Coast Guard did not follow key best practices for developing these estimates.Coast Guard and DHS officials agree that the annual funding needed to support all approved Deepwater baselines exceeds current and expected funding levels in this fiscal climate.
From page 13 (Where is the part about justifiable cost growth over time or due to 9/11 changes?)
We previously reported on some of the factors contributing to increased costs for the NSC, MPA, and FRC.10 For example, the Coast Guard has attributed the more than $1 billion rise in FRC’s cost to a reflection of actual contract costs from the September 2008 contract award and costs for shore facilities and initial spare parts not included in the original baseline. More recently, DHS approved the revised baseline for the C4ISR program in February 2011, 2 years after the Coast Guard submitted it to the department. The revised baseline includes more than $1 billion in additional acquisition costs to account for factors such as post-September 11 requirements and the need to maintain a common core system design beyond the previously established fiscal year 2014 end date.
From page 17 (Again no mention of justifiable long term or 9/11 growth)
Our analysis of selected assets’ life-cycle cost estimates found that the Coast Guard did not fully follow best practices for developing reliable life-cycle cost estimates, which is at the core of successfully managing a project within cost and affordability guidelines. The Major Systems Acquisition Manual cites our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide as a source for guidance and best practice information.16 Furthermore, we found that the Coast Guard is not receiving reliable schedules for selected assets from its contractors, which should be inputs into a programwide schedule.
Where is the mention of those acceptable or justifiable factors here?
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/07/coast-guard-deepwater-program-report-072911w/
http://defensesystems.com/articles/2010/07/28/coast-guard-deepwater-cost-overruns-gao-report.aspx
Again with the distortions. I have never attacked you personally, in fact have never met you and doubt you know who I am as well. Additionally, I don’t have any stake in your claims. Frankly Charlotte I don’t give a damn. I have pointed out my disagreement with your interpretation of the events. You and others are reading my interpretation, perhaps lacking in detail as it were, but they will have to take it all in and make their own judgment as to where the truth is. My experience… its always in the middle. While I agree the GAO points out some issues, you have again flooded your response with slight of hand without really answering my basic assertion concerning the baseline year of the numbers you quote. You either don’t comprehend the issue or choice to sensationlize the issue vs talk on common ground.
You are correct you did not attack me. I looked through the text and saw I wrote this
“I get that you don’t like me. Fine. But how can you hide behind that and not criticize any of this stuff?”
I don’t think I thought it was an attack – but nonetheless it wasn’t called for. (The hyperbole of accusing me of hyperbole is frustrating but is surely not an attack) I will delete that text from the post. I should not have made the comment. Not an excuse but I think I was caught up in the mindset of the majority of the comments being one sided or attacking me personally.
I do not believe your experience is in the middle. You take me to task but not the CG leadership and not ICGS. You have not commented on the overall state of the Coast Guard fleet deteriorating, the effects that is having, the performance guaranty issue, ICGS not being held accountable and the CG looking to congress to provide more money and assume responsibility for the problems. Is there no one other than me that should be taken to task, criticized or even questioned?
Also I have responded to all the things you have said were not apples to apples, exaggerated, sensationalized, slight of hand etc and you have not responded to my responses. Pick them all one at a time and please respond.
Lastly you are simply not telling the truth when you say this “. . .without really answering my basic assertion concerning the baseline year of the numbers you quote”. I have addressed it several times including at 20:31. Please actually address my response as opposed to creating the straw man that I didn’t respond. Now if you disagree with the response that is one thing. Saying I really didn’t answer it is not correct. Exactly what part did I not answer?
Since you brought up my attacking you and are relatively new here let me explain my directness. Disagreement is fine. But improper characterizations, avoidance, hyperbole and hypocrisy are not. For example you basically said I use hyperbole. Then after I address the comments you use hyperbole to characterize my responses as opposed to actually responding point by point. As such you are doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing. Let me give you an example of how I think this should go if you are disagreeing with me. Look at LCDR John Fiorentine’s posts. He disagrees with me all the time. But he doesn’t use hyperbole when doing so and he doesn’t attack me personally
Lastly I agree with your comment that the narrow text strings are annoying. I access this through the WordPress tool so I don’t have to deal with that. Hopefully that gets fixed.
Simply, what year money is 29B? it isn’t 1998 is it.
As to the middle, I didn’t claim to be the middle. I certainly have my own bias and those reading are free to assume that the truth lies in th middle, i.e. between what you claim and I those issues I have pointed out.
In response to criticsm of the decisions or leadership, I’m focused on moving forward with the cards that were dealt. Regardless of if the decision was ‘right’ given 20/20 hindsight, those in CG blue made their decisions legally, morally and ethically to my knowledge. Evidently beyond that, only cases that have standing actual proceed forward.
First what I am going to post now I posted before and each time you respond with saying the same thing. That $29B is in today’s $. Then you fail to address my points of rebuttal. Can you please do that this time?
Yes #29B is in 2011 dollars. But saying that is acceptable or planned cost growth is not. It was supposed to be $17B in 2000 money and in 2020 money. SAME $17B. Cost growth and cost of living adjustments were built in to the $17B so $17B would NEVER grow. Again if you were correct the GAO and CRS, in it’s many reports, would have said the cost growth was justified because of 9/11, or cost of living adjustments etc. Those reasons were not in the reports as main drivers. The reasons were the growth in cost of the assets independent, to a very large degree, of the cost of living or requirements changes. I will end with saying again that I agree $17B was bound to rise. But not this far and not for this little value added. The Coast Guard is worse off than before Deepwater began. It was a performance based contract with a supposed guaranty. Performance was hurt. That should be dealt with.
I understand wanting to move on. My focus changed from the 123s because of how much worse off the fleet is. The past is not the past – yet. Those former decisions and current decisions are still haunting and affecting us. When we get full transparency and the leaders actually act politically courageous and at least try to hold ICGS accountable instead of scapegoating congress I will start the clock over. As for their decisions being legal, moral or ethical – time will determine that. What I do believe is that the decisions they made were for the wrong reasons or motivation. I think they put themselves, their careers, buddies and legacies ahead of the men and women of the Coast Guard and the country and while they were probably operational heroes they are political cowards.
Suggesting the enlisted ranks stop saying “More with less” is a HUGE indicator. Using them as pawns and suggesting they not utter the truth while they are living the wretched situation caused by the same leaderships decisions is immoral and unethical. What Admiral Allen should have said is that he will work hard so the day comes that no one will want to say that because it is no longer true. That whole situation is so telling and is so pathetic. (Admiral Papp adjusting to “Less with less” is problematic as well. While it does acknowledge the truth, which is good, it is, at least partly, for the wrong reason and as such is a political stunt. First- Admiral Papp was Admiral Allen’s Chief of Staff, what was his position on “more with less”? Also during that period the senior leadership was saying there were no major issues. Next – the Commandant is pulling back performance measures from public release like Cutter Defensive Readiness. I think the only reason he changed the statement was because they can no longer spin away the deplorable condition of the fleet, realize tragedy is unfortunately around the corner and they are laying the groundwork to blame congress and not take responsibility themselves or blame ICGS for putting them in this position.
If I had the time available you have to focus on this debate I, and I suspect many others would be able to rebut each point as they come. Your response of 1 paragraph to a simple question (and again I assert that your response is not a fact buy your interpretation of the time value of money) grew to 3 times the length in rehashing several other points.
Like the new format of this blog (i.e. manner in which the material is presented in reply) I grow tired of reading.
I sometimes rehash in hopes people will actually respond to them as opposed to avoiding them.
Maybe your problems are not the rest of the world’s fault, but rather your own self-created ones Mike?
Much of them are on me. I made choices, some good and some bad, and here we are. Given the Deepwater issues are much more important than my issues and they necessitate citizens and those who serve or served in the military be involved, that the DW issues themselves are 60% of my problem. All I did was try to the right thing and apply a little tenacity and resourcefulness. No 123 or guaranty issues, no declining status and capability of the fleet and my issues and the issues the men and women of the CG and the country face do not exist. If I stop the DW issues certainly don’t go away. If the DW, 123 and guaranty issues go away I will more than gladly go away.
I see you posted this on POGO
“From the links Mike D. provides and the obvious flaws in his arguements exhibited in his inablity to defend himself on them and back his assertions, it is pretty self-evident he is just as much of a problem as the contractors were, if not worse.”
My response
Thomas Jackson please post exactly what those “obvious flaws” are and areas where I should post more information to support what was written. Let’s try the guaranty. Please post how my claim is inaccurate and information to support that. The issue is important enough to deal with specifics and data not hyperbole.
————-
Curious who pays your check? You don’t have to out yourself. I just want to know if the government and maybe the USCG pays you. It’s one thing to post in opposition but another to sell out the USCG to do it. Tell me how in any way our efforts are bad for the USCG? If we win appeal and we are able to hold ICGS accountable for the 123s and guaranty, to a tune of 2X what their own contract action could get, how in any way does that hurt the USCG. We all know what you think of me. Try to avoid dodging my question and diverting attention to me and answer the whole question. If we are able to hold ICGS accountable for hundreds of millions if not billions of $ how is that bad for the USCG? (And my attorneys spend their millions of $ to do that – saving the DoJ that money)
Dekort posts something that Thomas Jackson posted and then demands me MrJacksonThomas defend it.
Reading is fundemental jackass. As you have been told by me for several years now, I am anything but Thomas Jackson. I have no desire to be him either.
Yes I inadvertently read the names reversed. However I am not sure a mistake was made. Or at least one that really matters.
You post as someone other than yourself. Not only that but you mock Thomas Jackson by reversing his name and using it as your false name. On this site you cannot post as Thomas Jackson because the name is taken. Also the Thomas Jackson who posts on this site has NEVER taken the position the “Thomas Jackson” has on POGO. However what was posted on POGO looks just like the things you post here. Lastly I would imagine the Thomas Jackson name was open available on POGO. As such you wouldn’t have any need to reveres the names.
So. . .is it possible I got the names wrong and attributed something to you I should not have – yes. But given all the things I mentioned I think it was you or if not it’s really not relevant because the points posted fit what you normally post. As such mixing up the names is really not a big deal. No real foul. . .no real harm.
Man, you are indeed a paranoid nut.
I don’t think it is paranoia at all. The facts and circumstantial evidence make sense. Not a slam dunk by any means but good enough to go with.
Circumstantial evidence…just like in your dismissed lawsuit, all you have.
Wake us all up if you ever come across any facts. We are not holding our breath. Like Judge O’Connor said when he threw out your case, you stating the same thing over and over based on what you think might have happened does not amount to proof of anything.
The lawsuit was not dismissed on any of the claim merits.
I have your IP here. Think I should see if POGO will confirm if it was the same one?
So you don’t have time to rebut each point but you have time to use hyperbole while you criticize me for using hyperbole? And you have the time to state that I provide too much information and repeat myself while you provide no data to support your points or refute mine? I repeat myself because you and most of the others who push back on me ignore or avoid the specific points I make and the associated data I provide. You main point was that there $17B to $29B program cost was justified or understandable because $29B is in today’s dollars thereby inferring it is mostly due to expected inflation and there is no problem with it. I responded to that several times showing you where I, the GAO and DHS IG say you are not correct.
Oooops. Did I just repeat myself again and type an overly long response you don’t have time to address. Maybe you could nap and then return?
As for your growing “tired of reading” what I think you are tired of is not having your unsupported hyperbole challenged with points and data you cannot refute.
Look this is an important issue. Either make the time to handle all of it seriously or stop the flyby unsupported nonsense, hyperbole and hypocrisy.
Should I gather my points and supporting data again and posted them in one set so you can respond to each?
For YLBDR, did you get banned the same way Dekort banned Thomas Jackson?
YLBDR is not banned as far as I know. And if he is it was not because of me and unless something happened I am unaware of I would argue for his return.
I have banned no one. What I said is that I would ban specific threats, harassment and libel against me.
I’ve been threatened with banishment here, but I’m not sure how Coast Guard Report would ever manage that since I’m not actually registered with website and post in guest status.
R/
YLBDR
Can you tell me who said you would be banished and why?
I have only suggested the banishment of people who have gone over the line and libeled me, by saying I have stalked CG personnel including going to their homes and suggested I commit suicide etc. Disagreement, names calling and even attacks up to that point I believe should be posted. The audience should see the good, the bad and most of the ugly. Again up to a point.
Sorry, I just found your message.
The previous management here, under various sock puppets, told me a couple of times that “Jerry Johnson,” the mysterious owner of Coast Guard Report who supposedly bought the site from “Thomas Jackson,” was thinking of banning me.
Having heard nothing from “Thomas Jackson,” who made the occasional triumphant return to Coast Guard Report’s corner of the web and relatively little from “Staff,” I assume they’ve moved on and given the reins to you, Mike!
R/
YLBDR
I can’t prove this of course but I have never heard the name Jerry Johnson before. I also have no idea why you would be banned. Lastly I don’t have the reins or anything close. All I have is rights to post new threads and to control them.
I would be glad to discuss this with you privately if you would like. Email me with a method you prefer.
I don’t think there’s any need to discuss anything, at least privately.
“Jerry Johnson,” as far as I can tell, was a fake identity set up by the ownership of Coast Guard Report and presented as the owner of a mystery company called “Sea Service Group.” At some point, in 2008 I think, Coast Guard Report ownership felt some need to pretend that the site had been sold to other interests. Buyers in the form of “Jerry Johnson” and “Sea Service Group” were created. “Thomas Jackson” made a very big show of disassociating himself for the as a result, though he would occasionally appear from the mists over time.
It’s silly when you think about it. This site is a built on a free hosting platform, probably had zero advertising or other revenue, and wasn’t home to any writers of particular note. It would’ve been just as easy for some company looking to attract a Coast Guard audience to their own site. My theory is that Coast Guard Report ownership probably had some sort of scare that they had been found out and decided to concoct the story of being bought.
So during the time that this phantom group was in charge, it was suggested in the comments and chatroom of Coast Guard Report that I was on the verge of getting banned. This was a year or two ago, not recently. That would’ve been ok with me. A website owner has the right to run their site however they wish. But I was never sure how they’d actually follow through with it, since I’ve never registered in anyway.
Since the true ownership of Coast Guard Report seems to have basically hit the road, and “Thomas Jackson” hasn’t emerged to address she of the recent discussions surrounding the ownership here, I’d say you’re running the show now!
Do you even communicate anyone associated with this site from an ownership perspective?
R/
YLBDR
Understood on the private conversation. Figured I would offer.
Thanks for the history. I actually didn’t know most of that.
I have never had a talk with anyone about owning the site. To be honest I wouldn’t want it. This kind of thing should be run with someone who wants to stay engaged with all the various CG issues. I was never in the CG, so don’t htink I am qualified, and after DW is gone I plan to retire from blogs and causes.
I understand people thinking I might be involved more than I am saying but it’s as limited as I am stating. I have communicated with TJ several times. Mostly on DW issues and what should be acceptable and what should not be and banning. But none of that ever involved you. He has been good to me relative to supporting me in so far as he has given me the ability to author here. Beyond that, except a random comment here and there. he stays with civil rights and I stay with DW.
If you are right about no one using real names, especially given your point about this site championing real transparency, that would be unfortunate.
“Thomas Jackson” is a fake name. The owner has never used his real name on this site.
Understand that when I say you’re running the place now, it’s partly tongue-in-cheek
But you are, by far, the most active author here now, probably because the name of the owner got leaked here several weeks ago. Since then, posts from “Thomas Jackson” and “Staff” have become extremely rare.
R/
YLBDR
I should have added that I never post as “staff”. If you look back at the past month you can see several things posted by “staff”.
“By the way – the men and women of the Coast Guard were actually directed to stop saying they are “doing more with less”.”
-Another falsehood peddled by Mr. Dekort in a feeble attempt to slander the Coast Guard and its people. As usual, he makes accusations, but with no evidence!
I remember an article on the CG saying that term should no longer be used. I will look for it.
And, of course, as we all found out from Judge O’Connor what you “remember” is often far from the truth.
Good one.
Yes I made a mistake because I did not know until the summer of 2010 there were two shaft issues.
I am still looking for the data on being asked to stop saying “more with less”.
The closest I found is Ryan Erickson posting on it and that link is dead.
“Foreseeing changes and waiting for more; the Coast Guard in 2000
Feb 23, 2010 – Though we’re trying not to use the phrase “more with less” in today’s Coast Guard the fact remains that we’re being asked to go even further. . . ”
Since I cannot find it and do not remember if it was Commandant Allen who directed or “asked” for the change or the Masterchief of the CG I will change the wording from directed to asked until I find the data on it. (Maybe you could provide that data? i believe it was a CG internal article on an All Hands the Commandant and or Masterchief attended).
In the end whether he “asked” to told people to stop using that term the issue is the same. It was all an effort to try to deal with the “less” part. Since no one was admitting Deepwater was a failure at that time and Commandant Allen’s legacy was on the line he wanted the men and women of the CG to stop saying “less” so they would not be providing even more evidence of his bad decisions.
I do think it is interesting though that Admiral Papp wants “more with less” changed to “Less with less” to add to the PR campaign to scapegoat congress for the condition of the fleet and any tragedy that comes with it. While I agree the CG needs more money it was not a lack of money that got them in the Deepwater mess. It was and is bad decisions. It is disingenuous and shows and acute lack of political courage take the position the Commandant is taking.
Years ago when he was Admiral Allen’s Chief of Staff they were all part of the spin train that tried to tell everyone all was well with the program. But the press and congress put a spotlight on that. So now that things are getting much worse the win shifted and now all of a sudden the Coast Guard is in desperate straits and is that way because congress short changed them. Of course what they do not say is that it was ICGS who screwed and is screwing everyone, through an LSI contract with a false performance guaranty, and the leaders in the CG let and are still letting ICGS roll all over them. (Brave move to go after little Bollinger and let ICGS off the hook for the 123s and to completely ignore the whole false guaranty and fraudulent inducement of the whole contract).
What the Coast Guard leadership should do is to follow their own advice. Transparency breed self corrective behavior. The amount of correction depends on the level of transparency. They should say that they made errors in letting ICGS off the hook and are going after them for the $9B. That will demonstrate actual courage and give them the credibility they need to ask congress for additional help.
While being disrespectful and having a lack of professional and military courtesy has been your M.O. for years now, please stop. There is no “Commandant Papp”, his title is Admiral and his position is Commandant.
You know this, but for some odd reason you seem to think that being intentionally disrepsectful will somehow warm us to your failed cause against us.
No disrespect intended. Just the opposite actually.
I have been using that term for a while and have seen it used by others. I have seen Commandant used third and first person.
I have no issue using Admiral. I actually thought it would be a slight not to say Commandant.
Looking at the State of the Coast Guard message that has UCSG Commandant Admiral Papp
I will start using Admiral Papp.
Things like this make it confusing. Others do it all of the time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/commandant-robert-j-papp-jr-on-leadership-lessons-from-the-us-coast-guard/2012/01/04/gIQAOluYaP_story.html
As for my knowing better – obviously I did not. My 6 years in the Navy were a long time ago and I don’t remember ever having to differentiate between titles and positions. Again not an excuse – just a reason and there was no disrespect intended at all.
Curious if I were actually talking to him would I say yes Commandant or Yes Admiral?
Thank you! I needed a laugh.
From what I’ve seen since I started watching this blog, you should be more concerned about the fact that hell will have frozen over before that meeting.
Mr. DeKort, I wouldn’t worry too much about how to address Admiral Allen or Admiral Papp in person.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. The question was a serious one whether that day came or not.
Well according to your false accusations and slander, we are all conspiring against you with the contractors to impede your attempt to “recover” millions of dollars for yourself (and supposedly us) so why would any of us meet with you?
What slander?
As for “supposedly” trying to get money for the Coast Guard you are misleading the reader. The case is a False Claims Act or QuiTam case
From Wiki
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.[1]
————–
The 2/3 that goes to the government (Which is the least amount it can get. First there is the realtor having to pay taxes. Next the amount can go up if the Realtor gets less than 30%.). Of the 2/3 – 1/3 goes to the general fund and 1/3 to the agency wronged. What is also not mentioned is that the math for damages is 3X. That means the government goes after three times the damage because it is a fraud case. (This is unlike a contract case which is only 1X)
It’s amazing to me how far out you are willing to go. Pushing back on me is one thing but trying to distort or lie about a situation so easily proved otherwise hurts your credibility. Do you deny we filed and FCA, that the definition about is accurate and that the government/Coast Guard would see at least 2/3 of the money should we win?
Yep, we deny it. We had our own DOJ case ongoing. You filed and tried to jump on the gravy train, then tried using discovery of our own investigation material and tried to add hull issues to lend credence to your case which was on the ropes.
Let’s be clear on this. You deny my case would provide 66% or more – or that my case should be the one to provide 66% or more?
As for using discovery that is a two way street. And with the guaranty our side of the street is MUCH wider. Yes we used docs provided by the CG (including one very important document they want to claw back. Now why would that be?). However the DoJ and CG have the depositions we took as well as all the discovery we acquired from the contractors. Which we got 1.5 years ago. WAY before the CG filed their FCA. Lastly we found the false guaranty and fraudulent inducement of the contract with ZERO involvement for the Coast Guard. And that DWARFS the 123 issue.
Also there would be no DoJ V Bollinger case without our filing and our discovery and depositions.
And I will tell you how I know that. The CG JAG said our case was their best shot. And the CG was never in any hurry, and still isn’t to hold ICGS accountable. Bollinger gave them a way to avoid that.
One more thing. You take the time to post in defense of the Commandant and can’t even find the courage to do that named?
Yes referring to the Commandant or Admiral Papp improperly should be addressed. But where is your righteous indignation with regard to the false guaranty, the state of the fleet and the Coast Guard leadership letting ICGS off the hook and passing the buck to congress? You avoid all of those discussions. The men and women are so much better off with brave nameless people like you focusing on titles and letting the real issues go by.
Given the political qualifications needed by the Chief’s of Staffs and Commandants over the past decade or so you should fit right in. No doubt your courageous stand on important issues and brown nosing has made you a candidate for that pipeline?
Actually the couragous stand is correcting your misrepresentations of the Coast Guard and exposing your unproven assertions about our leaders. Consider it a service we are happy to provide the public so long as you continue to speak untruths about us in the Coast Guard.
Ryan Erickson is not an authority on CG policy, but don’t let that stop you from making unfounded accusations that you cannot back of about us (as usual).
I never said he was.
I posted the statement as an example of the policy existing.
No, instead you implied it and tryed to snow everyone else that he was by using the young LTJG as a (poor) example to buttress your (once again another) unprovable assertion against the Coast Guard.
Whatever someone who spoke with no authority whatsoever does not make “policy existing”. LTJG Erickson is no more qualified to speak about CG policy than the likes of someone who has been legally and publically discredited as you are.
Let’s assume for a second you are defending the actual CG itself and not the leadership.
If you are an officer or senior enlisted member who is doing it from inside the CG, with the CG stating they prefer people use the internet to defend policies etc, then it isn’t courageous at all – it is your job. If you are doing the right thing is the courageous part being anonymous?
Courageous would be being named AND taking on all of the issues not just libeling or harassing me in the name of the USCG and actually discussing all of the issues not just those that protect the leadership and ICGS.
I will let the named part go. However dodging most of the issues will not be. Why not discuss subjects like the guaranty, the current mission performance issues, how the policies of the leadership hurt the men and women of the CG, the fleet is worse off than before DW began and the CG leadership is trying to make congress a scapegoat while excusing ICGS?
As for LTJG Erickson I wasn’t using his quote in support of my point. I used it to show that the men and women of the CG were at least asked to stop saying “More with less”.
What are you going to do when we win the appeal?
You likely won’t win anything. But good luck trying.
You are still dodging the guaranty, the current mission performance issues, how the policies of the leadership hurt the men and women of the CG, the fleet is worse off than before DW began and the CG leadership is trying to make congress a scapegoat while excusing ICGS?
The most important part of us winning the appeal is holding ICGS accountable on behalf of the Coast Guard.
Dekort claims that he is acting on behalf of us. What he refuses to realize is the Coast Guard does not want nor need the likes of him using our good name and credibility to lend creadence to his discredited claims under the guise of “helping” us.
Over 2/3 of what we get from ICGS, which is over 2X what the CG could get for itself through a contract action, goes to the government and the Coast Guard. With the CG getting 1/3. With the 123 and guaranty claims combined that could be billions of $ for the Coast Guard. That money could go a long way to rebuild the fleet including Ice Breakers.
As for “US”. You don’t speak for “US” (The men and women of the Coast Guard.) And you surely do not as anonymous. As for the leadership speaking for the men and women of the Coast Guard they abdicate that authority when they make decisions that are not in their benefit. As for us speaking for them – we do. Through a False Claims Suit we brought on their behalf. Maybe one of you nameless criticizers should have filed first?
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101202005516/en/%E2%80%9CDeepwater%E2%80%9D-Whistleblower-Michael-J.-DeKort%E2%80%99s-Minute-Settlement
I will let the article and our comments speak for themselves.
What speaks volumes about you are Judge O’Connor’s decision dismissing your case and outlining our position with regard to hull analysis which is 180 degrees out from yours.
What part exactly is 180 degrees out?
The dismissal was not for on ANY of the merits or claims. The dismissal was ONLY for relator/jurisdictional issues. Said differently the judge had issues with me not the claims.
Again I used the LTJG Erickson data to show the CG was at least asked to stop saying “More with less”. As for proving it was more than just a suggestion I am still looking.
And we both know when senior leaders “ask” or “suggest” people do or not do something they pretty much mean for it to happen. It’s not a choice.
You know nothing.
If you actually knew something instead of pretending you did, you would not be on the outside looking in and wishing you were still on the inside.
Even if the Commandant, Admiral Papp mentioned that during an all hands and that statement was reported in CG Magazine It would rise to the level of policy until it was officially promulgated. Haven’t seen that have we.
That’s splitting hairs. He should have never even suggested it not be said. Why? Because it is true and even suggesting it is not or suggesting the men and women of the CG say it is not is devious, unethical and surely not TRANSPARENT.
So what is the common thread in “More with less” and “less with less”? THERE IS LESS
Funny though we see now Admiral Papp wants people to say doing “less with less”. Help me here was there really not less before Admiral Papp took over? So on Admiral Allen’s watch there wasn’t less and now on Admiral Papp’s watch there is less? Obviously that isn’t the case as proven by the new DHS IG mission report which shows a steady decline over time. (Besides Admiral Papp wa Admiral Allen’s Chief of Staff and Admiral Allen was the Chief of Staff for Admiral Collins before him. As such it’s all really one big thing led by basically the same person – or type of person)
It’s all political spin and hurts the Coast Guard.
I know it seems I get worked up about some things. But this one really has me bothered. What kind of political COWARD even suggests the men and women of the Coast Guard stop speaking what they know to be TRUE especially when they have to live through and COVER for the horrendous decisions the senior leadership made. He is basically saying – hey guys I know you bear the brunt of my and ICGS BS bit could you help us out and not actually state the way things are?
Truly horrendous leadership. Shame on them.
Dekort once again slanders CG leadership with no basis in fact, then wonders why nobody in the CG trusts him. LOL!
Where has Thom Roddy been anyway?
What slander? Where did I knowingly say something was one way when I KNEW it was the other?
Here is fact.
You just said the CG told the judge there were issues with our hull fraud claim. Now they sue Bollinger for the exact same claims they said did not exist.
Thanks for helping me make that point.
You dodged my question about Mr. Roddy.
I figured it was a rhetorical slight since you post as someone you are not.
I have never met or communicated with Mr. Roddy. Other than seeing his website I have no idea who he is. And I have no idea what he has to do with Deepwater.
Maybe if you supeoned him, you might know.
BTW, I am not Thom Roddy aka Thomas Jackson, I am MrJacksonThomas. I have no desire ever to be Thomas Jackson.
You are none of them. So differentiating is a joke.