http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/24/43278.htm
Hopefully the Coast Guard sees this whistle blower as someone who is trying to help them and is able to return the favor.
———–
Updated 1/25/2012
“Lt. William D. Spoon told The Times-Picuyane that the Coast Guard hasn’t opened a formal investigation into Walter’s allegations but is concerned about them.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/25/fired-bp-worker-says-he-was-asked-to-fake-spill-data/
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ex-bp-worker-claims-in-whistleblower-lawsuit-he-was-axed-for-airing-concerns-about-oil-cleanup/2012/01/25/gIQAL6RaQQ_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop)
When I posted the first set of info I didn’t comment because I didn’t see any reason to look for a pattern that might not be there. After seeing this new article and the quote above I am going to mention my concern about a potential pattern.
My worry is that the Coast Guard leadership, especially when it involves former Commandant Admiral Allen who was in charge of the Deepwater platform efforts, tends to circle the wagons and shoot whistleblowers when the whistleblowers efforts expose the CG leadership not doing what they should have. (If they stonewalled DHS IG Skinner they surely wouldn’t hesitate is stonewalling us)
As I understand it the CG is 51% responsible for clean up and makes the call on when the clean up ends and restoration begins. That call means a LOT to BP. If the Coast Guard was duped then all may be fine (then again ICGS duped them and is letting ICGS off the hook.). But what if the Coast Guard knew about the issues and made the decision to end the clean up anyway? In that case there might be a problem here?
Given how the Coast Guard handled ICGS and the Deepwater program, especially involving the Commandant Admiral Allen and his Chief of Staff Admiral Papp, I think that the Coast Guard not deciding to investigate yet it a bit troubling. If you don’t investigate then you don’t find things you don’t want to find. Now having said that they could choose to investigate, find things they don’t want to find and obstruct this whistleblower too.
Then again, as I am sure several will rightly point out, there may be a good reason they haven’t investigated, they may decide to investigate and whether they do or not that doesn’t necessarily mean there is something nefarious going on.
Time will tell
Why did you submit knowlingly false statements to the court then?
NEVER happened. What statements are these?
If it involves the two shaft issues. I made a mistake. A mistake I did not know existed until 2010.
The judge questioned that, we responded and there was NO FINDING that I lied. On anything.
Find where the judge determined, not questioned, I lied.
No need to MrJacksonThomas, I got your back here. When the judge in his case found him to nnot be the original source: “Relator does not
present any evidence that he was the original source of the information underlying those
allegations”
and finds him to have been intentionally misleading to the court…
“As is apparent from these documents, and others, Relator’s testimony and arguments have
been consistently imprecise or deliberately misleading. The Court is separately reviewing pleadings and deposition testimony where it appears Relator has pursued claims in which he admits he had no basis for pursuing them and/or instances in which he has testified one way on occasion and contradicted that testimony when it suited him on other occasions and will take action on these issues as appropriate.”
…and found him to be trying to use the investigatory work of the government in a feeble attempt to claim it as his own: “The Coast Guard learned this as a result of its own investigations and DeKort relied on the information uncovered by those investigations to lend substance to his design defect claim.”
It established what he claims is anything but truthful in his quest.
ICGS misled the judge to this conclusion. The Foushee declaration, the CG now admitting there was fraud in the Bollinger suit and our explanation of the two shaft issue mistake clears all of this up. Which is why we will win the appeal.
Keep in mind what you posted is ONLY for the 123s.
The false guaranty and fraudulent inducement claim is new and has no relator issues. Even if the panel found against us relative toi the 123 claim we can still win on adding the guaranty and fraudulent inducement claim.
Wow! So the judge finds you deliberately mislead the court and your explanation is that someone else mislead him into believing it was YOU misleading the court? WTF! You expect that anyone will buy that line of BS, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you too.
He didn’t find I deliberately mislead anyone. He was concerned I did and asked us to explain. We did, apologized for the error and that was it. It was the combination of my not knowing there were two shaft issues, a very poorly worded paragraph on my part (which we removed BEFORE anyone said anything was wrong. I saw it first and removed it) and my attorneys didn’t file that change properly.
Do you know how much we were fined for doing something wrong in the whole process $0
On the other hand the defendants were fined over $100k for improper activities during the process – specifically discovery.
Having your case dismissed is enough for me.
Nice dodge of the Foushee declaration showing the judge was misled in to the wrong decision.
You get caught being deliberatly deceptive and misleading and you have the arrogance to claim a judge is wrong? Excuse me, but your inability to see the forest through the trees is self-evident to all of us.
I was never “caught” being deliberately deceptive. It was mistake not deception and we caught it but didn’t fix it with the right legal notice MONTHS before it was brought up by anyone else. You keep trying to make it into something it was not.
Clay Foushee says the judge is wrong. You keep glossing over that.
The FACT of the matter is I am not dumb enough to even TRY to lie in official court documents. I caught the bad paragraph months before anyone brought it up and deleted it. The problem was we didn’t file the change correctly. The judge specifically noted we tried to delete but did it wrong. Then the shaft issue came up. This was brought up in depositions. The defendants brought it to the judge and they convinced him to file the contempt motion where he asked for answers. We provided them and apologized.
It would be absolutely insane and massively counter productive for me to lie or come even remotely close to lying.
You were caught being deliberatly misleading to the court, the judge himself specifically cited that in as one of the many reasons he dismissed your case WITH PREJUDICE.
I could care less what Clay Foushee has to say about anything as his opinions have no legal standing. I do care what an officer of the court has ruled about you and your lack of ability to deal in a straightforward and honest manner though.
I wasn’t caught being delibereyly misleading. That was suspected, which is actually understandable to some degree, it was explained, we apologized and that was it. Again the defendents have been sanctioned for over $100k. We have not.
Of course the Foushee DECLARATION of FACT and his opinion have legal standing. It’s a DECLARATION. It may not have enough legal standing but it has legal standing.
The court made no ruling that said I wasn’t honest. Again, and try to not avoid facts that hurt your case so obviously, there was a question of my trying to purposefully mislead, it was explained and that was it.
You really do reach very far away from the record and the facts. Shows desperation.
I admit mistakes and errors when they exist. You don’t. That is why you have absolutely no shot in these threads. Your can’t argue even remotely honorably or ethically.
Given you did this all day and your IP I assume you remote in from home and use a USCG router?
http://www.ndtexblog.com/?p=653
“Judge O’Connor agreed, finding that DeKort’s design defect claim was disclosed in Congressional hearings in 2007, and that he was not the original source of this information (i.e., he did not have direct and independent knowledge of this information and he had not voluntarily provided the information to the government before filing suit). Accordingly, Judge O’Connor dismissed this claim pursuant to § 3730(e)(4).”
Post whatever you want the Foushee declaration counters this- specifically section 5 below. Foushee specifically tells the judge his reason for dismissal was wrong. The appeal’s court will see ICGS/NG misled judge O’Connor.
Foushee declaration
1.
My name is H. Clayton Foushee. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. I am over the age of 21, and I have never been convicted of a crime.
2.
My discussions with Mr. DeKort began in February 2007. My position at that time was Senior Professional Staff Member and Lead Investigator for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. As the lead staffer for the Committee’s 123 investigation, I contacted Mr. DeKort in February 2007, and he informed me, well prior to the April 18, 2007 Congressional hearing, of his allegations of C41SR design problems, as well as allegations of significant hull structure and shaft defects. Mr. DeKort charged these defects were known prior to the delivery of eight 123s to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and during their construction. Mr. DeKort expressed, in substantial detail, his concerns about systemic design problems with the C41SR electronic systems and with the 123s’ hull and shaft design and the structural modifications performed by Integrated Coast Guard Systems, LLC (lCGS) contractors. During our interviews leading up to~the hearing, Mr. DeKort testified to me that he was aware of evidence that the contractors failed to follow contract requirements and specifications, were aware of design flaws, and he stated that ICGS concealed that information from the USCG. The evidence presented during that hearing is a matter of public record.
3.
During our interviews leading up to the April 2007 Congressional hearing, Mr. DeKort provided me with the names of, and contact information for, various witnesses for different subject areas, including Mr. Scott Sampson,then Section Chief of the Development Section of the United States Coast Guard Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic, Vessel Specifications Branch. Mr. Sampson became the lead witness on hull structure issues before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure at the April 18, 2007 hearing on the “Deepwater” contract performance failures. Mr. Sampson also placed me in contact with U.S. Navy (USN) officials who were also involved in identifying design problems with the 123s, and the USN also provided a statement to this effect, which was also part of the hearing public record.
4.
I am aware that the eight 123s converted by ICGS experienced almost immediate and severe hull cracking, when placed in sea trials, and were defective to the extent that the USCG was forced to remove them from service for safety reasons, and that the 123 conversion program was terminated primarily for that reason. Those findings were a major thrust of the Committee’s 2007 investigation. I am aware that the eight ships, produced by ICGS before the 123 conversion program was discontinued, were mothballed at the Baltimore Coast Guard Yard. I was told by, then USCG Commandant, Admiral Thad Allen that they were considered to be defective beyond repair, and the last information provided to me by USCG was that the ships were slated to be scrapped. Without Mr. DeKort’s assistance and early direction, our investigation may have missed key evidence that shed light on the 123 hull failures and their underlying causal design defects.
5.
I am providing this Declaration only because I was informed by Mr. DeKort and his Counsel that the Court has been provided with information suggesting that Mr. DeKort first learned of the subject of the design flaws and the resulting hull buckling and shaft misalignment problems solely from testimony during the April 2007 Congressional hearing. I have been told that the Court dismissed the “hull structure and shaft claims” pleaded by Mr. DeKort, primarily because of this information. If the question of the timing of Mr.DeKort’s awareness of hull defects was a critical consideration for this Court, I felt compelled to make this statement if I can help to clarify the record for the Court that Mr. DeKort’s awareness of the C41SR and hull and shaft problems predated the testimony presented at the April 2007 Congressional hearing. In fact, Mr. DeKort pointed me in the direction of the evidence confirming the hull and other significant program failures that were presented during the hearing.
6.
I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct
Editorial opinion which the judge obviously did not believe any more than your own discredited testimony and claims.
The judge never saw the Foushee declaration. In is part of the appeal.
And that is the point. ICGS misled the judge came at the very last minute with their last minute motion. Everything else failed to that point. All 4 prior motions had failed. The misleading of the judge was desperate and worked.
The appeals court will reverse it.
Last minute motion? You one to talk in that area considering you attempted to change your story and/or amend your complaint SIX DIFFERENT TIMES!!!
You have much work to do in your own house first before you can expect anyone to listen to you as having any sort of crediblity in this area.
None of ours were last minute. They were all clarifications the judge allowed.
I am not objecting to the last minute part. Just saying they only avoided trial by a last minute deception. The Foushee declaration clearly demonstrates that.
I think you’re reaching here and trying to establish parallels between your experience and this one that just don’t exist. From the comment made by the lieutenant, it sounds like the Coast Guard is paying attention to what’s going on. They may not have started an investigation because it’s not clear what needs to be investigated specifically or because they don’t want to duplicate an already on-going effort. And:
Point 1: What benefit or advantage does the Coast Guard gain from going along with whatever shenanigans BP is alleged to have committed in the clean-up?
Point 2: If these charges are fairly new or recent, there may have been no indication to the Coast Guard that BP was allegedly messing around with the clean-up guidance and no perceived need to investigate. If they were, the whistleblower would’ve been exposing old news, you know?
Point 3: The whistleblower isn’t blowing the whistle on the Coast Guard, he’s blowing the whistle on BP. Unless you’re suggesting some vast conspiracy of underhanded dealings between the Coast Guard and BP (if you are, see Point 1), why would the Coast Guard feel the need to “circle the wagons” in this particular case?
Point 4: The similarities you’re trying to draw between Deepwater and Deepwater Horizon are non-existent.
R/
YLBDR
I agree it may be a reach I stated that in the original post.
Point 1 – What benefit or advantage does the CG have in letting ICGS off the hook? (Therein lies the potential parallel). The benefit is if the process could or would yiled congress getting involved in what the CG should or could have done. If the CG did the right things at the right time there is no issue. But like with ICGS – the CG originally got screwed and were the victims – then they rolled over and protected them and themselves because they made incredibly bad decisions and still are. The example being letting ICGS off the hook for the 123s and the guaranty. The last benefit is if the issue touches the legacy of Admiral Allen. If any of what this whistleblower shines a negative light on him they will try to shut him down.
Point 2 – I agree. However the call to end clean up was a while ago. bet this thing has been brewing during that time and involved the CG all along. It comes down to who knew what when and what they did or did not do.
Point 3 – I agree the whistleblower isn’t blowing the whistle on the CG. My original issue and the whole FCA is against ICGS. In both case the CG at least started out as the victim. In my case the CG protected ICGS and circled the wagons with respect to them and their own relative decisions. We will see what happens here.
Point 4 – The parallel may not exist in the end. The jury is out right now. They were both started out as the CG being the victim. The issue is how much of a victim and how do they handle that going forward.
It’s a huge reach and it’s reaches like this that feed the notion that you’re simply out for yourself and not working for the benefit of the Coast Guard. You automatically assume the worst with the Coast Guard even in cases where it’s not clear the Coast Guard has any culpability at all.
Reading your rebut, you’re not even considering BP’s involvement here and they’re the main party in this whistleblower case. You don’t even mention BP but you mention ICGS five times! They have nothing to do with this!
R/
YLBDR
It’s not a huge reach. A reach maybe but not huge. it is supported by FACTUAL events. Now that doesn’t mean 1+1=2. But it does mean it is plausible and possible.
I will give you five events.
- DHS IG Richard Skinner telling congress Admiral Allen and his staff stonewalled their NSC and 123 investigations.
- The USCG not holding ICGS accountable for the 123s or the guaranty. And going so far as to obstruct that process by reneging on promised declarations, trying to claw back a critical document and scheduling a key witness to not be available for trial
- Admiral Allen suggesting his people stop saying “Less with more”
- Admiral Allen meeting with congressional members on board a 123 the night before my hearing and telling them he apologized for stonewalling and not doing thew things he could or should have.
- Recently the CG , against the DHS IG wishes, has been adding to its list of mission performance measures it is keeping from the public. The most recent is Cutter Defensive Readiness. A measurement that has FAILED among other failure points like overall mission performance capability since 2005.
Does all of that look like inconsequential or dissociated events? Does all of that look like a transparent and effective leadership who has the men and women of the CG and the countries interests as paramount? All of this points to a CG leadership that is more invested in protecting their legacies and ICGS than doing the right things. How would this tie in with the BP issue? If the CG was wronged and truly the victim here and NONE of it stands to make Admiral Allen look bad then there may very well be NO ISSUE. If however the CG was not a victim and/or Admiral Allen stands to have his legacy tarnished (ass well as others) then the CG will circle the wagons and lash out against this whistle blower.
I am not assuming the worst I am assuming, based on history, that the worst is possible. As for BP I have said the CG may be the victim here several times. If the CG is a victim then the nation is. No matter what the CG did or does BP is the bad actor here. Just like the protected ICGS was the bad actor. In that case the CG was the victim but then made it worse.
To answer the question of “dissociated events,” I think it might be a textbook example of such.
What do any of those events you listed have to do with the BP whistleblower case?
This is what I’m talking about with parallels. Factual or not, none of those events you refer to have anything to do with what’s going on with BP or Deepwater Horizon.
I don’t mean to get all “debate team” on you, but basing an argument on history, i.e. it’s possible because Coast Guard leadership has covered itself in the past so says I, is a huge logical fallacy. Of course this is not a proctored debate and things like that occur in discussion in the comment section here. In fact, the “appeal to tradition” is the most commonly committed fallacy.
But you should see why this sort of argument combined with references to a completed unrelated event aren’t very convincing.
R/
YLBDR
The two events are physically disassociated yes. (Though sharing the Deepwater name is interesting and maybe associated on a Karma level?) The association , if there is one, would be relative to what the CG knew or didn’t know, what they did or didn’t do and how that effects the legacies of senior leadership when dealing with major public events. As such there could be a parallel not in a physical nature but in the world around those dissociated physical events.
As for basing my argument on history it supports my contention that my idea s POSSIBLE far more than yours does that it is not. How do you KNOW there is NO parallel? UNLESS you KNOW there isn’t one in the areas I suggest I would submit your stating there is NO parallel is far less probable than my ascertain that there is a possible parallel. (I will even take my “possible” a little further. Since almost anything is possible I would like to raise my possible up to more than possible. And I say that based on history)
As for history. Of course it is relevant. As it involves the same people and there are current political problems with their leadership and the Deepwater program (not platform) the history is more than history – it is still current events.
Your aversion to even a a possibility my argument is correct defies the odds, history and common sense to a large degree. saying it is NOT POSSIBLE is just not credible. If you said it were not PROBABLE – that would make sense. Additionally given recent history and events I would suggest the odds are more in my favor than yours – unfortunately. My link or parallel is reasoned and based on y relevant data points. Your argument that there is No chance I am right is really not reasoned. Wanting something doesn’t make it so.
How do you KNOW that there is no link or parallel as I described?
I would imagine the CG is going to have to comment soon on what it knew in this case and what they did. I would offer that silence is telling and a bad sign ofr your argument. Basically the issue is did the CG make the decision to stop the clean up prematurely and based on fraud. They need to answer that – and soon.
This is a prime example of why Dekort has been banned from every CG-related site but this one. YLBDR should be running this site not Dekort.
Perhaps in the near future Dekort will be banned from here too? We can all hope.
Yes it is a PRIME example of why I was banned from those other sites. WE HAVE AGREEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those sites banned me from saying things they did not like. And you are the same.You guys can’t stand the heat in the kitchen can you? Especially when it is founded on reason and supported by data and history. You want to give control over to someone who agrees with your point of view. (Though YLBDR does it in a far more professional manner).
I on the other hand allow for all of this to be said INCLUDING what you and others on your side day.
I do want to point out you are ignoring the thread topic.
If you were so “professional” you would not have been banned.
Your arguement that you are the sole person who is right and the entire rest of the world is wrong and/or out to get you is why you are seen to be a less than stable person.
So never criticizing or questioning leadership is the only way to be “professional”
Maybe DHS IG Richard Skinner wasn’t being professional and was unstable when he told congress Admiral Allen and his staff were stonewalling his 123 and NSC investigations?
Blind adherence to leadership is foolish. You think exactly like those who got us in the mess.
That is not correct. Again you exaggerate to the point of being ridiculous.
In these threads I have agreed with you, McCoy, YLBDR on several points, And I have stated where I thought the Cg did some good things.
As you were told by the judge when he called out and cited your lack of honesty and dismissed your case: You saying the same thing over and over again “that is not correct” does not make it so. Find a different line, what you have is not working with any of us.
Yes he cited my APPARENT lack of honesty and we explained that to his satisfaction.
The case was dismissed for realtor jurisdictional issues the Foushee declaration counters.
OK here is the drill just like McCoy. You either address all or most of the topics in the threads or your posts will not be approved.
I am tired of you reverting to old points I have addressed. if you want to keep doing that fine. But address the things you avoid first.
I avoid no relevant topic. You do the same or you won’t get posted on thread I control.
We obviously both have an agenda. I handle mine fairly by posting opposing views. You do not. You avoid.
My agenda is the rights of the taxpayers and the best interest of the government. Those interests obviously conflict with your self-promotion at the expense of others. On that we agree 100%.
Nice of you to once again threaten to censor any view which does not coincide with your own agenda either.
OK so let’s go with that.
How is it in the best interest of the taxpayer and gov’t to let ICGS off the hook for the 123s and the false guaranty? And even if you say Bollinger can pay the 3X for the 123s that still leaves ICGS off the hook for a false program wide performance guaranty. Both can literally be worth $ billions.
Your attack in the form of a “question” is as fatally flawed as “When did you stop beating your wife.” Thus no rational answer is possible.
Lets just say that the government has its own means of achieving justice and us involving ourselves with the likes of you does nothing to advance our case…not to mention your theories have been proven to be anything but an honest and accurate assessment of the situation.
Let’s not an attack at all. I would really like you to answer the question. You made the statement about the taxpayer and gov’t and what is in their or its best interest. Now I am asking you to apply that to what I asked. Feigning outrage is a straw man. You are avoiding the question. There are several rational answers on both sides of the issue.
As for gov’t means the False Claims Act or QuiTam is that means. It was SPECIFICALLY started by President Lincoln to allow for citizens to tell the government when it was defrauded. And unlike a contract case it is 2X damages not 1X.
So again
How is it in the best interest of the taxpayer and gov’t to let ICGS off the hook for the 123s and the false guaranty? And even if you say Bollinger can pay the 3X for the 123s that still leaves ICGS off the hook for a false program wide performance guaranty. Both can literally be worth $ billions.
Well said as usual YLBDR!
We appreciate your valued input. You, McCoy and MrJacksonThomas are the few voices of reason here!
Stating a parallel “doesn’t exist” is just as much as a reach as saying the IS one. You are being definitive I was not. As such your comment is more of a reach especially give the CG leadership’s track record over the past decade. Again I am only stating at this time that what I described was possible nor probable or definite.
I think my comment is much less of a reach. I guess it’s a bold statement.
R/
YLBDR
It’s not bold to defend the establishment. It is bold when you do not defend them or at least question them. Not saying that it isn’t usually a good thing to defend your employer – but it is not bold to do so. Unless of course you defend them in spite of them being a bad actor.
The BP whistle blower is bold.
bold
1.
not hesitating or fearful in the face of actual or possible danger or rebuff; courageous and daring: a bold hero.
2.
not hesitating to break the rules of propriety; forward; impudent: He apologized for being so bold as to speak to the emperor.
3.
necessitating courage and daring; challenging: a bold adventure.
4.
beyond the usual limits of conventional thought or action; imaginative: Einstein was a bold mathematician. a difficult problem needing a bold answer.
5.
striking or conspicuous to the eye; flashy; showy: a bold pattern.
But around here, you ARE the establishment.
R/
YLBDR
By default only
Only because Mr. Roddy saw you as a sock puppet who he could manipulate right?
Why have you been banned from every other CG related site? Can the entire world really be against you or is it more likely the problem is not everyone else, but your own reprehensible behavior?
How am I being manipulated by anyone who owns or runs this site? That’s just silly and has no basis in any kind of reality) You really are a shameless propagandist. I would imagine that level of brown nosing has secured your career path? It’s Chief of Staff and Commandant for you!
What is reprehensible about my behavior? That I question CG leadership and do so providing well documented and relevant history?
All I stated is that there MAY be a parallel. Feel free to disagree and form an argument.
I have yet to see an arguement from you. When you actually make one instead of unsubstantiated and illogical rants which were specifically cited in court by the judge as being an entirely different position than the government, maybe you will see one from us.
You ignore all the substantiated points – ROUTINELY. You still ignore the false guaranty for example. Won’t even type the words.
I will try again. These are some of the reasons I gave to suspect why the CG leadership MAY not handle the BP issue correctly.
- DHS IG Richard Skinner telling congress Admiral Allen and his staff stonewalled their NSC and 123 investigations.
- The USCG not holding ICGS accountable for the 123s or the guaranty. And going so far as to obstruct that process by reneging on promised declarations, trying to claw back a critical document and scheduling a key witness to not be available for trial
- Admiral Allen suggesting his people stop saying “Less with more”
- Admiral Allen meeting with congressional members on board a 123 the night before my hearing and telling them he apologized for stonewalling and not doing thew things he could or should have.
- Recently the CG , against the DHS IG wishes, has been adding to its list of mission performance measures it is keeping from the public. The most recent is Cutter Defensive Readiness. A measurement that has FAILED among other failure points like overall mission performance capability since 2005.
Now feel free to ignore and not respond to any of them.
If we were on a live panel or in a hearing I would eat your for a snack. You don’t do your side ANY justice. Look at McCoy and YBDLR. They ignore a lot of the data and guaranty as well but do at least find some areas they are courageous enough to dig in to the weeds on other than constantly repeating incorrect information like I lied etc.
I think you have finally figured it out Mike. Others ignore what you say because you lack credibility are are known to have been dishonest with everyone from the CG to your former employers to your own attorneys to the courts and to all of us who initially supported you and were going to write statements in support of your lawsuit. People tend not to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore and it is yourself who put you here.
Send someone who is interested in doing the right thing instead of trying to go about hoarding all the money for himself like you are. Share the profits instead of being out for yourself all the time and trying to screw everyone else out of their fair share.
The government gets over 2/3. That 2/3 is 2X the damages because it is an FCA not a contract case.
That math is for ANY relator and is how this DoJ process works by law.
Sending someone else changes nothing.
These aren’t “profits”
And if they were exactly who would they be shared with? EXACTLY
The CG leadership’s track record has been outstanding. Unlike you, we have not found to have been deliberately deceptive to a court of law!
While I am sure the CG senior leadership over the past 10 years is comprised of individuals who showed excellent and courageous leadership skills in the past their overall leadership, especially relative to their political leadership, has not been courageous or excellent since then. The decisions to let ICGS off the hook, to blame congress for a lack of funds, to stifle the men and women of the CG and to leave them with a fleet that is far worse off than before DW began is not excellent leadership at all. Some specific examples of that are below.
The place where the excellent leadership exists is in the performance of the officer and enlisted leadership below them who are doing more with less and has to compensate for the senior leadership’s political cowardice.
Areas where it is clearly demonstrated the senior leadership is coming up way short
- DHS IG Richard Skinner telling congress Admiral Allen and his staff stonewalled their NSC and 123 investigations.
- The USCG not holding ICGS accountable for the 123s or the guaranty. And going so far as to obstruct that process by reneging on promised declarations, trying to claw back a critical document and scheduling a key witness to not be available for trial
- Admiral Allen suggesting his people stop saying “Less with more”
- Admiral Allen meeting with congressional members on board a 123 the night before my hearing and telling them he apologized for stonewalling and not doing thew things he could or should have.
- Recently the CG , against the DHS IG wishes, has been adding to its list of mission performance measures it is keeping from the public. The most recent is Cutter Defensive Readiness. A measurement that has FAILED among other failure points like overall mission performance capability since 2005.
What decisions the CG makes are not made in a vaccuum. While you may not like them, and are welcome to whine about it all day, in the end what you have to think about the matter is irrelevant. Nobody seems to agree with you anyway.
What “vacuum” might that even be? If the “vacuum” is the needs of the CG and the country independent of their own legacies and political considerations then maybe they should be in a vacuum.
As for Nobody” agreeing with me. I don’t think either side has even a remotely fair sampling here. Especially since so many of you, who are probably the same person, post from the same IP/server. (Interesting there are several of you on the same server, working on a weekend who are also anonymous)
I work closely with several senior people who are extremely connected to Deepwater and its history. They read most of what I post and the articles I am associated with. They assure me I am on the right path. I will stick by them, the data and history as opposed to a few (or maybe just one) nameless Kool-aid drinking, brown nosing, cowardly, ate up stooges.
I will give you an example of one vacuum.
The CG leadership deferred to ICGS (which I realize was before they knew ICGS lied to them) relative to the 123s, FRC composite hulls and NSC hull longevity and blew off ELC. The void was ELC.
So long as he doesn’t turn out in the end to be a fraud, liar and opportunist the way you did, they will probably continue to view him favorably and help him.
Well he isn’t part of the CG so I guess by your definition he is an opportunist.
As I didn’t lie and never committed fraud I assume we have nothing in common there.
Curious – there is no relator issue nor even a hint of my not telling the truth with respect to the false guaranty. Given that are you good with my defending the CG on that one? After all WE FOUND the issue.