Army G1 Responds...

Today I got a nice email from Kathleen Vaughn-Burford (thank you Kathleen), The Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 for the Army Chief of Staff (that's not confusing at all...). I have included the entire email chain including the message I just sent back to her. After reading this you will start to appreciate why most people just dry up and blow away in the face of monolithic bureaucracies and why every time I have to read this kind of material my eyes bleed.

Here is the message I just sent Kathleen:

[To usarmy.belvoir.hqda-oaa-aha.mbx.rmda-foia@mail.mil please read this message in its entirety as it is a Freedom Of Information Act Request that was properly submitted and has gone unanswered since 20JAN12]

Dear Kathleen:

Thank you for your prompt response to my inquiry.

First let me state the chain of events that led me to sending you this email:

1) On 20JAN12 I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIR) to this email address (sent from my jon@canvs.com email address):

DAFOIA@conus.army.mil

The DAFOIA@conus.army.mil address is stipulated as the correct place to submit a FOIAR to the U.S. Army according to this document:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/dfoipo/docs/FOIA_RequesterServiceCenterContacts.pdf

2)The following is a direct quote from your organizations web page:

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/foia/

"Statement: FOIA requesters, who have any questions concerning the processing of their requests at the US Army Freedom of Information and Privacy Office, should contact this center at

(703) 695-7783 / usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g1.mbx.FOIA@mail.mil.

If you are not satisfied with the response from the center, you may contact the FOIA G-1 Public Liaison

usarmy.pentagon.hqda.-dcs-g-1.mbx.FOIA-Liaison@mail.mil

or by telephone at (703) 693-2124."

3) As I have received no response, action, or information on the status of my 20JAN12 FOIAR to the Army, on 18APR12 I sent an email (contained at the bottom of this message and received by you) to the two email addresses above, namely:

usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-1.mbx.FOIA@mail.mil

usarmy.pentagon.hqda.-dcs-g-1.mbx.FOIA-Liaison@mail.mil

4) Today your message directs me to direct all future claims to:

usarmy.belvoir.hqda-oaa-aha.mbx.rmda-foia@mail.mil

(please note they have been copied on this message and I will direct future claims to their attention).

5)I understand that you are the Army G-1 FOIA Office, BUT according to your own web page (http://www.armyg1.army.mil/foia/) and I quote:

"FOIA requesters, who have any questions concerning the processing of their requests at the US Army Freedom of Information and Privacy Office, should contact this center"

This is in direct contravention to your comment: "I believe you have sent this email to the wrong FOIA office"

If the verbiage on your own page (http://www.armyg1.army.mil/foia/) is incorrect, as you have indicated, I highly suggest that your web page be changed to reflect the correct information.

If on the other hand it is correct then my 18APR12 email to you constitutes my officially reporting my concerns to the G1 reference my concern about the lack of response to my initial inquiry and asking for your assistance in this matter.

Please note (http://www.justice.gov/open/responding.html)

"Under the law, all federal agencies are required to respond to a FOIA request within 20 business days, unless there are "unusual circumstances.".

6) 19APR12 I have sent you this email.

Thanks you again for your help in this matter I look forward to obtaining the information that I am requesting in a timely manner. Feel free to contact me if you need any additional information or have any questions.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein
President, CANVS Corporation

On 4/19/2012 7:27 AM, Vaughn-Burford, Kathleen CIV (US) wrote:

> Mr. Walkenstein, this office has no record of a request pertaining to the below subject matter. I believe you have sent this email to the wrong FOIA office. Your original email probably was sent to the DA FOIA office and this is the Army G-1 FOIA office. The email and website address to DA FOIA is listed below, please direct all future inquires to that agency.

www.rmda.army.mil
usarmy.belvoir.hqda-oaa-aha.mbx.rmda-foia@mail.mil

Kathleen Vaughn-Burford
Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1
Management Support Office
300 Army Pentagon, Room# 1D374
Washington, DC 20310-0300
Phone: 703-695-7783/DSN 225-7783


-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein [mailto:jon@canvs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 5:41 PM
To: USARMY Pentagon HQDA DCS G-1 Mailbox FOIA
Subject: Army G-1 Website FOIA Request
Importance: High


Hi to the Army Freedom of Information Act Request officer reading this E-Mail.

I am writing to determine the status of the request I sent to your office on 20 January, 2012 at 07:53.

As almost three months have passed since I submitted my request I think it is appropriate for me to ascertain the status of my request and when I can expect an answer.

Thank you for consideration in this matter,

Jonathan A. Walkenstein

The 20JAN12 request in its entirety is below:

Dear Department of the Army Freedom of Information Act Request Processor:

My name is Jonathan A Walkenstein, President of CANVS Corporation.

I quote CFR 32 Sub Part 249.5 Subsection e

"(e) Clearance for public release. A review is required by DoD Directive 5230.9 5 for all public releases by DoD personnel"

At 16:32 on WE 08JUN05 I was at the Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD) booth at the 2005 International SOF Week and APBI Conference at the Tampa Convention Center, the conference ran form JUNE 6 - 10, 2005.

CANVS Corporation Color Night Vision Technology was displayed by NVESD at their booth (including a CNVS-4949 Color Night Vision Goggle as well as technical data in the form of a poster with color images of and through CANVS Color Night Vision devices).

As the technical data displayed on the poster was released in a public forum (into the public domain) there should be (according to CFR 32 Sub Part 249.5 Subsection e) a copy of the request for release of the presentation as well as a copy of the material that was presented (I believe this approval for release is called the "Form F1").

This email constitutes a formal Freedom Of Information Act request by me, Jonathan A Walkenstein, to The U.S. Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (specifically to the office A. Fenner Milton, PhD, Director, Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate) for any forms associated with request to release the information referenced in the above mentioned Poster presentation, any approvals or denials reference same, and a copy of the materials presented.

As the materials in question were also identified by the U.S. Department of State as International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Restricted at the time of the presentation, there should be corresponding paperwork showing U.S. Department of State approval for the release of the materials in question as there were foreign nationals present at the event in question.

As this request is directly related to the current CANVS Corporation Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Case Number 57784, I am asking for an expedited response to this request.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

If there are any questions or comments please address them to me:

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein
President, CANVS Corporation
1172 South Dixie Highway Suite 364
Coral Gables, FL 33146-2918
Cell Phone = (305) 582-3301
E-Mail = jon@canvs.com

Command Responsibility

Command Responsibility

This concept is most strongly associated with war crimes. But there is an additional interpretation.

When I was in command of troops, I knew that it was to be considered at all times by a commander in every aspect of every detail. For me personally it went far beyond the concept that any bad actions by those under your command are your direct responsibility. Leading by example is the best way to establish an environment where proper behavior and expectations are clearly articulated by a leader (this is in addition to a comprehensive understanding by everyone of the laws, rules, and regulations that are your duty to know) and good behavior is rewarded while inappropriate behavior is punished. Beyond all that how bout common courtesy, I like to sum up my thoughts on this with a simple test: "What would your Mother say?"

The current crop of leaders in our Executive and Legislative Branches of Government are clearly devoid of even a basic understanding of this concept (do you know anyone else who gets to unilaterally decide what they will be paid WITH OUR MONEY...). Additionally, at least for me, I believe that with greater responsibility and position comes an even greater burden to live up to the ideals associated with Representing your Country in an Honorable and Commendable manner. This point is clearly lost on most of the folks in DC and is an experimentally verifiable fact by simply reviewing their actions.

Not everyone will be a Platinum Record Rapper or a Sports Superstar. Where are the heroes for the next generation of youngsters in this country? In an environment where the highest paid skill is the ability to make money with no consideration for the ethics or morals (and in some cases the legality) associated with how that money is made what do you expect will happen? If we don't start demanding accountability for inappropriate behavior, and create an environment where of the champions of Freedom, Democracy, and Advancement of the State of The Art can thrive, George Orwell's 1984 will pail in comparison to where we are headed (one can reasonable argue that we are well on our way).

Freedom of Information Act Request, its not just a good idea, its the law...

I would like to start this entry by sharing with you the Mission Statement clearly stateed on the Army Deputy Chief of Staff (Army G1) web page (http://www.armyg1.army.mil/foia/)

Mission Statement

The Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Office is responsible for the management oversight of the implementation of Army G-1 FOIA and PA programs in accordance with 5 USC, and Public Law 106-554.

For your reading pleasure:

The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 As Amended By Public Law No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524

Public Law 106-554

After almost three months of a total lack of response to my reasonable, properly formatted, and polite request for information from the Army Chief of Staff, I thought it was time to once again remind them of their duty under the law. As such, I sent this reminder today:

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:40:37 -0400
From: Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein
Reply-To: jon@canvs.com
Organization: CANVS Corporation

To:
usarmy.pentagon.hqda-dcs-g-1.mbx.FOIA@mail.mil
usarmy.pentagon.hqda.-dcs-g-1.mbx.FOIA-Liaison@mail.mil

Subject: Army G-1 Website FOIA Request

Hi to the Army Freedom of Information Act Request officer reading this E-Mail.

I am writing to determine the status of the request I sent to your office on 20 January, 2012 at 07:53.

As almost three months have passed since I submitted my request I think it is appropriate for me to ascertain the status of my request and when I can expect an answer.

Thank you for consideration in this matter,
Jonathan A. Walkenstein

The 20JAN12 request in its entirety is below:

Dear Department of the Army Freedom of Information Act Request Processor:

My name is Jonathan A Walkenstein, President of CANVS Corporation.

I quote CFR 32 Sub Part 249.5 Subsection e

"(e) Clearance for public release. A review is required by DoD Directive 5230.9 5 for all public releases by DoD personnel"

At 16:32 on WE 08JUN05 I was at the Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD) booth at the 2005 International SOF Week and APBI Conference at the Tampa Convention Center, the conference ran form JUNE 6 - 10, 2005.

CANVS Corporation Color Night Vision Technology was displayed by NVESD at their booth (including a CNVS-4949 Color Night Vision Goggle as well as technical data in the form of a poster with color images of and through CANVS Color Night Vision devices).

As the technical data displayed on the poster was released in a public forum (into the public domain) there should be (according to CFR 32 Sub Part 249.5 Subsection e) a copy of the request for release of the presentation as well as a copy of the material that was presented (I believe this approval for release is called the "Form F1").

*This email constitutes a formal Freedom Of Information Act* request by me, Jonathan A Walkenstein, to The U.S. Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (specifically to the office A. Fenner Milton, PhD, Director, Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate) for any forms associated with request to release the information referenced in the above mentioned Poster presentation, any approvals or denials reference same, and a copy of the materials presented.

As the materials in question were also identified by the U.S. Department of State as International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Restricted at the time of the presentation, there should be corresponding paperwork showing U.S. Department of State approval for the release of the materials in question as there were foreign nationals present at the event in question.

As this request is directly related to the current CANVS Corporation Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Case Number 57784, I am asking for an expedited response to this request.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

If there are any questions or comments please address them to me:

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein President, CANVS Corporation 1172 South Dixie Highway Suite 364 Coral Gables, FL 33146-2918 Cell Phone = (305) 582-3301 E-Mail = jon@canvs.com

Just to let you know this is a direct quote from this page: http://www.foia.gov/faq.html#howlong

"the standard time limit established by the FOIA, which is twenty working days, or approximately one month"

I would also like to share with you a quote from the current Army Chief of Staff:

"Our Army is the nation's force of decisive action, a relevant and highly effective force for a wide range of missions. Trust is the bedrock of our honored profession -- trust between each other, trust between Soldiers and leaders, trust between Soldiers and their families and the Army, and trust with the American people. I am honored to serve in the ranks of the great men and women who willingly serve our country."

Gen. Raymond T. Odierno
Expectations for the future

Sounds like a reasonable person. I am having a hard time believing that his staff is not aware of the difference between 30 days and 90 days AND THE LAW.

I wonder what the over under in Vegas would be on how many more days this will take...

Ten years is a long time to wait when you are bleeding...

Over ten years ago CANVS Corporation began field testing (with the the end users in the real-world) what would become the United States Military's first tactically deployed Color Night Vision Goggles. Since 2003 The United States Special Operations Command, The Night Vision and Electronics Sensors Directorate Fort Belvoir (known as Night Vision Labs) and a small and select group of elite US forces have been effectively using the CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles with very little publicity or fanfare.

Special Forces Medics were one of the first community to support the project, and in recognition of their interest I participated in a number of experiments and field trials including being present when CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles were used during gun shot wound surgery in the dark.

I never intended or represented the CANVS Color Night Vision Goggle as a replacement for anything (breaking other peoples rice bowls is very dangerous), instead it was pitched as another tool to have in the tool kit. For specific missions where Color provides an increased capability it is an awesome addition.

If you like apples but don't like oranges it is not an issue. But there is a big difference between just deciding you will take an apple and leave an orange, as opposed to going out of your way to destroy the orange farmer, his crop, and lean on anyone who he purchases equipment from, and make sure that NO ONE CAN DEPLOY WITH AN ORANGE!

One of the most disturbing aspects of this is that the folks who still to this day desperately need this technology are being denied (or the capability is being illegally supplied by other vendors). Based on the laws associated with the SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) Program, CANVS Color Night Vision Goggle Technology can only be purchased from CANVS through 2014 (five years from the end of the CANVS SBIR Phase-III effort).

Without the Government leaning on the tube suppliers to work with CANVS (this was done very effectively in the past on numerous occasions when the Government needed CANVS products) it is just not going to happen. Seeing as CANVS currently has two Law Suites against the US Government in Federal Court a snowball has a better chance in hell than CANVS being able to get support to deliver this technology for the troops.

At some point I hope to reach a critical mass through court orders and public opinion to rectify the situation. But till then I have to suffer like I did today when a forward deployed medic with the US Armed Forces called to ask how he could get a pair and I was not able to sell, loan, or give him a set of goggles.

Dear Uncle Sam:

Please Help.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein

What would Andrew Jackson do?

Let us take a look at our 1st Amendment, specifically as it relates to Libel and Slander:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Libel_and_slander

The following paragraph is extracted from this link

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NC%3A+state+employee+sues+for+libel+%26+slander%3A+governmental+immunity...-a0168333884

The public immunity doctrine protects public officials from individual liability for negligence in the performance of the governmental or discretionary duties. However, the public immunity doctrine does not protect public officials whose actions are determined to be malicious or corrupt conduct or beyond the scope of their official duties. In libel and slander cases brought against governmental employees and/or officials, the loss of governmental immunity can only result in situations in which a governmental official or employee acts out of malice toward the one who is allegedly the victim of libel or slander.

This is some pretty heinous verbiage. Can you imagine any other job (besides working for Uncle Sam) where you where totally immune to repercussions associated with negligence on your part that caused real and substantive harm to individuals and organizations?

Without getting into the specifics, some claims were leveled at me personally and at my Company by US Government Officials that, if they occurred in the commercial world, could have formed the basis for a liable and slander suite against the folks leveling the claims. BUT, since they are working for the Government, they may get away with just claiming that they were negligent so tough noogies. Well tough noogies unless I can prove that:

"a governmental official or employee acts out of malice toward the one who is allegedly the victim of libel or slander"

I don't know if I will have the pleasure of pursuing this in court but I must say that I find it distasteful that by combining pure fabrication with materials quoted out of context Government Officials can hide behind

"negligence in the performance of the governmental or discretionary duties"

as an excuse! The folks I am talking about are not stupid so I have to believe that the action constitutes

"a governmental official or employee acts out of malice toward the one who is allegedly the victim of libel or slander"

. There is another aspect of this that I also find highly amusing, numerous highly respected members of the legal community (including a former Assistant Attorney General) told me in person that it was pretty standard operating procedure for the Government to fabricate these kinds of things and that it was actually pretty funny in the context of the truth of the case moving forward and I shouldn't take it personally.

If it were the early 1800's I would challenge the individuals in question to a duel. I quickly realized after writing the last sentence that in order to accept it would require a certain amount of honor and courage so I guess that wouldn't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel#State_constitutional_provisions_and_military_laws_prohibiting_duelling

3 out of 955?

I just upgraded the blogging interface on this page and noticed the ability to track how many folks have read the various posts. I find it astounding that out of the 955 people that have visited this blog, only 3 have openly admitted it and are following this blog (and one of the three is me). I suspect that the vast majority of the folks reading this are in some way connected to the US Government, more specifically the Department of Justice and the other individuals and Agencies that will be thrust into the spotlight when the legal action against them is brought into the public domain. The reason that I have not been posting to this blog for a while is because although CANVS now has a case before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals as well as the Patent Infringement Case in the Court of Federal Claims, the details of the two cases are almost entirely covered by "Protective Order". I am also busy continuing to advance the state of the art on behalf of our Men and Women in uniform. All that having been said I believe that I have enough material of interest that is not protected or classified to start talking about on these pages in an attempt to try and point my Country back in a direction that will be more in line with the ideal put forth by the framers of The Constitution and our Founding Fathers. A note to those reading this text: If you had the courage to read these words prove to me that you care about what is happening to our Country by following this blog.