“He’s requiring a high level of proof that a contractor that obtained a juicy award on dubious grounds was 100 percent fully aware that it was planning to cheat the government.”

Well, any Republican contractor.

Remember that DoJ itself was claiming “no harm, no foul” in frauds involving the Bremer CPA gang, on the fascinating theory that the CPA was not a US entity — so whatever happened, happened, and it was nothing to do with us.

Hundreds of tons of hundred-dollar bills. Bales of them, on pallets. Poof! Gone!

It’s the Republican magic show. Step right up, folks!

With kind regards,
Dog, etc.
searching for home

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this, although I agree completely with your intent. If you read this ruling carefully, the judge actually ruled there was no evidence. I used to think CusterBattles was the epitome of what is wrong in Iraq, but now I’m not so sure. If you read things objectively, it looks pretty strong that the whistleblower’s attorney is in this for the fame and fortune and trying to obfuscate the truth. I read Ellis’ full opinion, and he’s basically saying that he’s looked at all the facts, and that the whistleblowers provided no credible evidence that CusterBattles committed any fraud. If you objectively read the evidence, it actually looks like they did a pretty good job. This guy Grayson is pretty out of control and saying things that don’t appear to be accurate (fyi, I’m from Orlando, FL and watched this clown Grayson try to run unsuccessfully for Congress on this same platform of war profiteers).

I agree Iraq is a mess, and I agree that many of these contractors need to be severely punished. What I know think though, is that CusterBattles is not one of these bad guys. They’ve had their day in court, and they have been proven innocent (yeah, shoot me, I still believe in the system). Halliburton and Bechtel can’t hide behind this ruling, and if anything this sets the foundation for bringing them to justice. Ellis’ opinion does not preclude going after war profiteers, it just says Custer Battles isn’t one of them.

The case is one of two brought against Custer Battles over its work in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion until a government was elected. A jury found the company, which had offices in Northern Virginia, liable for fraud in an earlier case, but Ellis dismissed that verdict. He ruled that it was improper to bring the charges up in U.S. court because the authority was not a U.S. entity.

It’s always a good sign when somebody endorses the “you can do whatever the fuck you want in Iraq” theory.

And then this was priceless:

They alleged that the company failed to make good on a commitment to provide 138 people as part of its airport security contract. Instead, Alan Grayson, an attorney for Isakson and Baldwin, said Custer Battles moved airport personnel to other contracts and illegally double-billed for their work.

Ellis, however, ruled that the contract didn’t call for a specific number of security personnel…

Evidently “greater than zero” is too vague an expectation for this asshole.

And then there’s this incident:

Retired Brigadier General Hugh Tant III told the court that Custer Battles fraud “was probably the worst I’ve ever seen in my 30 years in the Army.” Tant told that, in one case, Custer Battles contracted to supply trucks to the military, but provided vehicles that did not run and had to be towed to the site. When confronted, Mike Battles is said to have responded: “You asked for trucks and we complied with our contract and it is immaterial whether the trucks were operational.”

Has anyone seen Alberto Gonzales and Mike Battles in the same room? They seem to think along the same lines.

Anyway. Yeah, I feel so totally satisfied with this outcome. Soon Mike Battles will be out golfing in Florida, searching for the Real Profiteers.

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

Since the same could be said of him under your “I believe in the system” policy.

Unfortunately either you or the WaPo is completely lying about what the judge actually ruled in the Custer-Battles case, and having been following details on this company and its owners for some years now I am inclined to suspect that WaPo for once got it right.

Their story says the judge ruled for CB on two grounds:

(1)A jury found the company, which had offices in Northern Virginia, liable for fraud in an earlier case, but Ellis dismissed that verdict. He ruled that it was improper to bring the charges up in U.S. court because the authority was not a U.S. entity.

This is the same load of crap that’s getting everybody off: the CPA, despite being staffed entirely by US government assignees, was somehow “not a US government entity.” And then there’s the point I cited above:

(2) Ellis, however, ruled that the contract didn’t call for a specific number of security personnel, and he found that Custer Battles did not knowingly commit fraud.

Being as I am not a lawyer I don’t know the technical term for “load of shit” in legal parlance. But between the quote cited by the professor of government-contracting law, and the principle known to every kid who ever tried the “But MOM, you never said I couldn’t have something out of this cookie jar”, aka “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, I must pound my gavel atop your knuckles and label you a concern troll.

If you’d like to try again to explain how this Get Out Of Jail Free card that is cited above as Point 1 justifies your comment that “Halliburton and Bechtel can’t hide behind this ruling, and if anything this sets the foundation for bringing them to justice” I would be most interested to hear it.

as we are clearly sharing brainwaves tonight we may as well share seating, this bag of popcorn and easy access to the bar. :)

Fareal. I glanced at your comment and thought I had double-posted.

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

… because it seems a little, um, vague.

Almost like some insider wanted to give the store away to Custer Battles.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

I admire your zeal, Xan, but you are basing your conclusions on press clippings instead of facts. If you read the hundreds of versions of the story on Custer Battles published in just the last few days, you get a different wording or answer each time. If you truly want to understand this, and not the rhetoric put out there by both sides, you have to look at the underlying facts of the rulings (not the facts as reported in the paper).

In the latest Ellis opinion, it is quite clear and not at all up for discussion. The judge looked at all evidence presented, and with the stipulation that he look at every single piece of evidence in the light most favorable to the whistleblowers, he decided there simply was enough question of fact to go to a jury. Despite what this guy Grayson says about an appeal, this one’s a slam dunk.

The opinion from last year is more dubious, and more troubling to me as well. It was at this opinion that I actually became involved in this, and as a law student (you got me!) I was able to research the actual documents of the case. Ellis’ ruling last year in throwing out the jury verdict has been by far the most misinterpreted opinion I’ve ever seen…mostly because the politicians became involved. Ellis did NOT say that Custer Battles got away with fraud because they submitted their bill to the CPA and not the US government. He ruled that the whistleblowers failed to present any evidence showing that Custer Battles submitted a bill to anyone! (and consequently, that no damage was ever done because no one had to pay a bill). The press doesn’t report this, they just say a “technicality.” It really wasn’t a technicality..it was a complete lack of proving one of the points necessary to prove a false claim.

You have to remember that this is a False Claims Act case, and has very specific rules regarding liability, etc. A lot of people (including your blog) keep trying to point out very irrelevant facts. The truth is, Custer Battles actually completed all their contracts and received very high marks from the people in charge of their contracts. What they are accused of is submitting a false claim…and that has been adjudicated fully in a court of law. You make reference to OJ, but this is nothing like that…False Claims have nothing to do with guilt or innocence..it is about whether they are liable to give money back or not. The whistleblowers had a 20 day trial to prove it, and they came up short!

FYI…you have to ask yourself why the whistleblowers are appealing this. It is not Custer Battles against the government, it is Custer Battles against an individual who stands to make MILLIONS of dollars if this case is successful. You have to wonder why our system of government allows an individual to sue someone else when they have no stake in the fight! It’s completly un-American if you boil it down….for example: you and your neighbor have a dispute over a contract and are trying to work it out. the guy down the street, who neither of you know well, decides to sue you on behalf of your neighbor (even though your neighbor doesn’t want to sue you and doesn’t support the suit). The guy down the street hires a pit bull lawyer, sues you, and tries to win a bunch of money..only some of which will go to the neighbor who may have been wronged…the rest goes to the lawyer and the guy down the street. Ridiculous!

As to the Point 1 question pertaining to Bechtel and Halliburton…it’s quite simple and again, also completely misreported in the press for political reasons. Of the $18 billion in reconstruction, less then a few hundred million were NOT administered by the CPA. ALL, 100%, of Halliburton and Bechtel’s contracts are with the US government directly, and none with the CPA. Ellis’ ruling has absolutely zero bearing on the major defense contractors…all of which contracted with the US government and not the CPA. Sorry if this doesn’t fit nicely in with what everyone wants to believe.

I never thought it could happen to me! Last night I got to talking with a Pentagon psy-ops/”mindwar” propaganda agent…