Total Pageviews

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Excuse me Senator, I think you dropped this...



As our representative form of government continues to wipe their asses with our Flag and Constitution in plain view of anyone that actually looks at what is really happening in this country, I had hoped that there would have been a bit more backlash from "We The People...".

Let me see if I get this right, a law was passed that had a fine in it if a citizen didn't do what the law said. The Supreme Court says House and Senate can't do that BUT it would be OK if it were a tax. Can someone explain to me why the law is not invalidated and the House and Senate forced to now vote on the exact same bill but with the word TAX replacing the word penalty, or fine?

If you have not figured this out yet it has nothing to do with providing anyone with anything. I take that back, they will be providing criminal elements access to an extremely large Government mandated revenue stream. Last time I checked Social Security isn't working too well. Here is how I know it is all a crock, if the members of the House and Senate were serious about providing healthcare that really worked for the entire country, then they should all be willing to trade in their gold plated existing policies for the lowest coverage afforded by the proposed system (Perhaps they would also return all the money they have stolen from Tax payers as well...).

A good friend of mine once told me that it is easy to know when you are in Washington DC, as you are shaking someones hand they pull out a knife with the other hand and stab you in the chest, meaning they don't wait to stab you in the back, and it is done shamelessly in plain sight.

The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves, I am almost glad they are not here to see what is being done to the beautiful concept and vision they had. On the other hand if they were here I think there would be some good old fashioned Andrew Jackson style ass kickings!

Monday, June 18, 2012

Dear Jon Letter from The Inspector General Department of Defense


In case you missed it, this is flawlessly executed buck-passing at the highest level. The DODIG responds to me, this allows them to claim they took action and have fulfilled their legal responsibility, and they hand it off to "appropriate authorities within the Department of Defense". Ass covering and hand washing while simultaneously passing the buck, an absolutely text book hall of fame worthy buck passing performance!


The "appropriate authorities within the Department of Defense" carrying out "action they deem appropriate".

A Source Close to The Source...


"To insinuate that sensitive intelligence was not properly acted upon by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) in a timely manner is an outrage. That implies that we are sensitive, intelligent, are capable of acting, and can tell the time. Based soley on experimental evidence associated with the track record of this office, this is clearly not the case."

An Undisclosed Source close to The Source.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

For Official Use Only (FOUO)...Should be renamed FU


In case you didn't know, we the voters are the Neighborhood Watch For The House and Senate. We have allowed the neighborhood to descend into a place where the magnitude and scope of criminal activities (against us no less) is so beyond the pale that it almost defies comprehension. If the criminal activity were to be measured in dollars, it is most likely the worst neighborhood in the history of the planet!

In the context of my (CANVS Corporation's) cases in front of the Court of Federal Claims for Patent Infringement, and in the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals for breach of data rights, there seems to be a veritable cornucopia of laws covering various aspects of individual wrong doing (as in a person who did something against the law and should be held responsible for their actions) in both cases. If only enforcement were proportional to the number of laws on the books perhaps our country would be in much better shape.

Below are some of the words, I can only hope that the deeds will some day catch up to these words...if you listen carefully I am not holding my breath!

Proprietary Information & Trade Secrets

The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 USC 1831-39) defines trade secrets as all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if:

The owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret, and; The information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.

There is no general definition for proprietary information in the U.S. legal code. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 27.402 Policy) does, however, provide a definition.

"…contractors may have a legitimate proprietary interest (e.g., a property right or other valid economic interest) in data resulting from private investment. Protection of such data from unauthorized use and disclosure is necessary in order to prevent the compromise of such property right or economic interest, avoid jeopardizing the contractor’s commercial position, and preclude impairment of the Government’s ability to obtain access to or use of such data."

This regulation is intended to protect from disclosure outside the government proprietary information that is provided to the government during a bidding process. Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act exempts from mandatory disclosure information such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained by the government from a company on a privileged or confidential basis that, if released, would result in competitive harm to the company, impair the government's ability to obtain like information in the future, or protect the government's interest in compliance with program effectiveness. The law on Disclosure of Confidential Information (18 USC 1905) makes it a crime for a federal employee to disclose such information.

State laws may also apply to unauthorized disclosure of proprietary or trade secret information.

Statutory/Regulatory Responsibilities & Obligations for Safeguarding Proprietary/Trade Secret Information

Effective enforcement of laws governing unauthorized disclosure of proprietary or trade secret information generally requires that the owner of this information must have taken reasonable measures to safeguard it from unauthorized disclosure.

Reasonable measures include building access controls, escorting visitors, marking sensitive documents, non-disclosure agreements, and shredding material when no longer needed.

In the case of defense contractors, the government contract may require a contractor to follow certain safeguarding requirements. The government, in turn, is required to protect proprietary or trade secret information submitted to it during the bidding process (FAR 14.401). Bids must be "kept secure" and remain "in a locked bid box or safe."

Marking Proprietary/Trade Secret Information

Effective enforcement of laws governing unauthorized disclosure of proprietary or trade secret information generally requires that this information be clearly identifiable through appropriate markings. The nature of these markings is left to the discretion of the company. The terms "Company Sensitive" or "Company Proprietary" are sometimes used.

In soliciting bids, the government is required to inform potential contractors how to mark proprietary information (FAR 15.407) to ensure its protection. When a contract is granted, a data rights clause must be included in the contract (FAR (52.227-14) to advise the contractor how to mark proprietary data for protection. The title page and each page containing proprietary information must be marked. The regulations provide no guidance on marking of electronic media while on an electronic system (screen display or file marker).

Enforcement

The Economic Espionage Act contains two separate provisions that make the theft or misappropriation of trade secrets a federal criminal offense. The first provision, under Section 1831, is directed toward foreign economic espionage and requires that the theft of a trade secret be done to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent. In contrast, the second provision, under Section 1832, makes the commercial theft of trade secrets a criminal act regardless of who benefits.

A defendant convicted of economic espionage under Section 1831 can be imprisoned for up to 15 years and fined $500,000 or both. Corporations and other organizations can be fined up to $10 million. A defendant convicted for theft of trade secrets under Section 1832 can be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined $500,000 or both. Corporations and other entities can be fined no more than $5 million.

Three other laws apply to disclosure of specific types of proprietary information, especially disclosure by government personnel:

For knowing disclosure of non-government information to which a government agency has gained access in connection with a procurement action, Title 41 USC 423 - Procurement Integrity, provides both civil and criminal penalties. The criminal penalty is up to five years imprisonment. The civil penalty is a fine up to $100,000. This applies mainly to government employees who receive non-government information, but also to non-government personnel who receive sensitive procurement information from government (for example, if government gives industry a bid package containing information from a potential subcontractor). This procurement integrity law applies only prior to the award of a contract. Once a contract has been awarded, other laws with lesser penalties may apply.

Title 18 USC 1905 applies to disclosure by a government employee of any information provided to the government by a company or other nongovernment organization, if the provider of the information identified it as proprietary or as being provided to the government in confidence. The penalty is mandatory removal from office (termination of employment), and the offender may be fined not more than $1,000 and imprisoned not more than one year.

For disclosure of non-government financial information in the custody of the government, civil remedies are allowed under 12 USC 417 Civil Penalties, which also requires the director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to conduct an investigation and recommend disciplinary action on federal employees found culpable.

Legal & Regulatory Authorities

Title 5 USC 552(b) – Exemption b.(4),- Freedom of Information Act. Title 12 USC 3417 – Right to Financial Privacy, Civil Penalties. Title 18 USC 1831–39 - Protection of Trade Secrets [Chapter 90]. Title 18 USC 1905 – Disclosure of Confidential Information. Title 41 USC 423 – Procurement Integrity. Executive Order 12600 – Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information. Title 5 CFR 734 – Employee Responsibilities and Conduct. Title 36 CFR 1234.10 Paragraph l. FAR 3.104-1 – Procurement Integrity, General (48 CFR). FAR 3.104-3 – Statutory Prohibitions and Restrictions (48 CFR). FAR 14.401 – Receipt and Safeguarding of Bids (48 CFR).

Friday, June 8, 2012

Administrative Remedy?



Just to give you some perspective, according to The Guiness Book of World Records, In Search of Lost Time, a novel by Marcel Proust is the longest Novel ever written at 4,211 pages long. So far I have produced around 110,000 pages of hard copy evidence for CANVS-V-USA (not counting soft copy materials).

Over the past ten years I have gone over the same material so many times that my ability to find documents in a Multi-Terabyte database is faster than any search database yet created to extract contextual relationships between events, Agencies, individuals, dates, etc (I also got used to my eyes bleeding every time I look at the material, well not entirely used to it...). I guess living through it and generating every page of the documentation gives me a unique insight into the material. The reason that I have had to revisit the same material over and over and over is that if you read through all of the 22 boxes of hard copy (that is 110,000 pages if you are counting, that is about 41 time longer than the 2,700 page Obama Care Bill, not to mention all of the soft copy evidence...) I turned over to the Court, one would have to be very technically and tactically literate to fully understand and appreciate the true meaning of the material in question, AND RETAIN EVERY DETAIL IN THE 110,000+ pages. In the Intelligence Community this is the difference between raw intelligence, and an intelligence briefing or a final product.

This should be a pretty straight forward case, I have a patent, many devices purchased by the US Government are infringing on that patent, the Government has indemnified the Companies from Patent Infringement, The Court of Federal Claims has the Jurisdiction to pay me a "reasonable royalty" for the use of my invention.

A few months back the Markman Hearing was scheduled for July 2012, it has now been moved to December 2012. This may just be a scheduling issue but with the stroke of a pen the Government gets an additional six months. The Government has monolithic Agencies on its side with positions that stay the same for the most part, BUT the individuals in the positions change depending on the direction of the political wind, or who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. By moving the hearing to December, the Government will know if the current administration will be in office for another four years, or if they get to walk away and let a new team take the case (nice work if you can get it...). I am pretty sure the Judge will be the same, but if there is a new administration one can reasonably expect that the Attorney General will be a new Political Appointee. Of course on my side of this fight it is me and the two other stock holders in CANVS, and I don't know about you but today versus six months from today is a pretty big deal.

One might think that after living through this for the last twelve years that I might be used to it or at least built up an immunity to it, but for me Bureaucratic stupidity is like Cyanide, there is no building up an immunity to it.

Before being forced to obtain lawyers and file a patent infringement case against the USA in The Court of Federal Claims, I personally spent over a decade trying to settle this Administratively without invoking lawyers. Here is a list of my efforts to avoid having to go to court:

  • Army Material Command Bid Level Protest
  • Office of Management and Budget Protest
  • Letter to the Secretary of The Army (who directed the matter to Mr. Alan P. Klein Intellectual Property Counsel of the Army U. S. Army Legal Services Agency)
  • An Army Administrative Claim
  • An Army Administrative Claim Re-Examination
  • An Armed Services Board of Contracts Appeal

All of those efforts took around five years. For five years prior to that I was trying a number of other informal means of solving the issue to no avail. On January 5, 2005 there was a prebidders conference at Fort Belvoir's Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate that I attended. Shortly after the meeting the Army granted a $560,000,000 sole source contract to IT&T Night Vision for the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle (ENVG). It was after the 05JAN05 meeting that I started my formal Administrative Action campaign to try and resolve the problem.

My advise to anyone who has a problem with technology stolen by Uncle Sam is to find a lawyer and go directly to the US Court of Federal Claims (a word of caution, you had better be prepared for the fall out). I chose the route that I chose for a number of reasons.

1) I was hoping that I might actually have a chance of solving the problem Administratively (I don't know what I was thinking, oh yea I remember now, I thought there might be some integrity left in the system...).

2) I wanted to give the Government every opportunity to solve the problem prior to my invoking Lawyers.

3) I didn't have the monetary resources to stage this battle in court.

4) I really did believe that if I found a technically literate person who was rational and had any integrity that after looking at the evidence they would agree with me and we could settle on a reasonable licensing fee.

Instead I was simply battered around Administratively for over a decade (no wonder I feel like i got run over by a truck...). Well like they, "Christmas is coming".

They can't all be Cox!


Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox

Here is a link to a letter I recieved in the mail today from the OSC:

http://www.canvs.com/CANVS-V-USA/OSC-01JUN12-Hardcopy.pdf

I would like to point out a detail about "Consent Ststement 1"

Consent Statement 1

I consent to OSC's communication with the agency involved in my complaint. I agree to allow OSC to disclose my identity as the complaintant and information from or about me, to the agency if OSC decides that such disclosure is needed to investigate the allegation(s) in my complaint (for example to request information from the agency, or seek a possible resolution through mediation or corrective action). I understand that regardless of the Consent Statement I choose, OSC may disclose infoormation from my complaint file when permitted by the Privacy Act (including circumstances summerized in Part 5 below).

I would like to quote Major Valentina Koslova (a character in the movie The Jackel): "The Good Guys Don't Hide"

What I mean is that I have no reason to be anonymous because I know who and what they did to me and my company, and so do they. And the law (in theory) is on my side. I have yet to see experimental evidence of the last by the way. What I am getting at is why is this a one way street? The folks on the other side can say things like "four hours were spent looking for the requested materials" but no information about who did the looking and where were they looking. If the Janitor looked in an empty trash can for four hours that would be the same as the Director of an Agency searching the Security Authorization Archives based on the non-specific information coming from the other side on most of these transactions.

I think it is time for me to either warm up some milk or open a bottle of Single Malt Scotch, OR BOTH!

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

FOIAR PONG (Are we there yet?)



On 6/6/2012 3:00 PM, USARMY APG CECOM Mailbox FOIA wrote:

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Mr. Walkenstein,

We have received your request to appeal FOIA #FA-12-0069. It will be referred to the Initial Denial Authority for processing. This email serves as notification of receipt. You will receive formal notification.

Regarding the additional information you are requesting under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), your request must be revised to be considered a proper FOIA request.

In order to accept your FOIA request as a commercial requester, you must state your willingness to pay a fee.

Commercial requesters are charged a fee for search time, review time and duplication costs. You will be charged a rate of $75.00 or $44.00 per hour for search and review time. Duplication costs are $.15 per page.

Please be advised under the FOIA, a record must be in possession and control of the agency at the time of the request. Additionally, agencies are not required to answer written questions, or to create records in response to a request.

Please respond with your willingness to pay a fee and include the amount you are willing to pay up to.

V/r

Michelle McLeod
CECOM FOIA Officer
443-861-5266.


My Response:

Dear Michelle:

Please note that my request is for information to be provided to a Federal Judge in support of resolving a contract dispute currently under appeal at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (CANVS ASBCA Nos. 57784, 57987). In answer to your question, I am willing to pay a fee up to and including $0.00 (Zero Dollars and Zero Cents). If the requested information is not provided through the FOIA process, I am sure that the cost to the US Government (Translation: Cost to the US Tax Payers) of a Court Order to produce the requested documentation will far exceed the costs associated with a full and complete comprehensively documented response to my FOIA request.

I look forward to receiving the requested documentation.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein
President, CANVS Corporation

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Close But No Cigar...


PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY NEEDS TO BE PLAUSIBLE

Politicians and Bureaucracy's are very good at talking a lot and saying nothing, my Latin 5 teacher at Miami Beach Senior High in 1983 has a word for this, BLATHERING!

Below is my 05JUN12 response to the "No Records" response from The CECOM FOIA Office:

Subject: CANVS written request for referral of this matter (FOIA #FA -12-0069) to the Initial Denial Authority (IDA) to initiate the formal denial process.

Dear Michelle:

Thank you for your email and letter dated 01JUN12.

This email constitutes my written request for referral of this matter (FOIA #FA -12-0069) to the Initial Denial Authority (IDA) to initiate the formal denial process.

In addition to my initial request I would also like to ask for the following information:

Copies of all the rules, regulations, policies and procedures that were in place at The Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD) reference what forms had to be signed in order to approve release of military/scientific information into the public domain on June 6th, 2005.

I would also like to know where the posters that were presented were printed and if there was a Standard Operating Procedure in place at the time for the destruction or storage of posters presented by NVESD after an event.

In order to help facilitate the process I suggest that these questions be posed to Dan Hosek, please note I have copied Dan as a courtesy on this correspondence as he will know where to direct this request, (he was the technical POC for the project, dan.hosek@nvl.army.mil, 703-704-3130), and Tom Soyka (he was the SOCOM liaison officer for NVESD at the time, thomas.soyka@nvl.army.mil) at NVESD.

As this request is in direct support of an appeal currently in front of the ASBCA (CANVS ASBCA Nos. 57784, 57987) and looks to resolve a contract dispute I would like to request the waiving of any fees associated with the requested actions.

In addition to the CANVS ASBCA appeals, I am currently in discussions with the Office of The Special Prosecutor (U.S. Office of Special Counsel file number: ma-12-3224) reference potential criminal activities identified within the Command, as such I am requesting an expedited response to my request.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter and I look forward to obtaining the materials in question.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein
President, CANVS Corporation


PS:

Please note that Dr. A. Fenner Milton, Director, CERDEC Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD) (fenner.milton@nvl.army.mil) has also been copied on this message in order to remove any plausible deniability that Dr. Milton was not aware of these activities that took place under his command.

Once More Into The Bleach Dear Friends...

My 07MAY12 Post and Letter to the Office of The Special Prosecutor was actually responded to. I had better prepare some warm milk in order to stay calm. I would love to finally find a component of Government that actually gives a shit and has the authority and horsepower to hold some folks responsible for their actions, but after over a decade of watching this freak show I reserve the right to comment AFTER THEY DO THEIR JOB.

Also for the record, a Government Agency can do their job to the letter and still have a horrible outcome for the future of our Nation and the World.

In case you were wondering what the United States Office of Special_Counsel is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Special_Counsel

Before I post the response from the OSP, we need to take a look at some verbiage and consult Mr. Spok to make sure our conclusions are logical.

The following is a direct quote from the footer of the E-Mail I got from OSP:

CAUTION: The information contained in this message, including any attached files, is intended only for the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. This message may contain information that is sensitive, confidential, and/or protected by the attorney work product, law enforcement, deliberative process, or other privilege. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.

I read this as follows:

  • I am the "intended recipient"
  • Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.
My conclusion is that as I am the "intended recipient", if I choose to re-transmit the message I am good to go! So in the name of transparency, below is the message I received on 04JUN12:

Mr. Walkenstein,

I am the examiner who has been assigned to review your complaint with OSC and I am sending this message as a courtesy to outline the complaint process. OSC generally processes complaints in the order in which they are received. If an interview is necessary, I anticipate contacting you sometime in the next 30 to 60 days to conduct the interview. More information about the complaint examination process can be found here.

In the meantime, if you wish to provide updates or other documents that you believe will assist us in processing your complaint, my contact information is below. Please respond by whichever means is most convenient for you. Also, please include your OSC file number (ma-12-3224) somewhere with your reply as this helps us to track the information that comes to our agency.

Gregory Giaccio

Attorney, Complaints Examining Unit
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
1730 M Street, NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-254-3634
Fax: 202-653-0015

CAUTION: The information contained in this message, including any attached files, is intended only for the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. This message may contain information that is sensitive, confidential, and/or protected by the attorney work product, law enforcement, deliberative process, or other privilege. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.

Anyone care to place odds on the outcome of this interaction?

"We Own The Night...Because we don't care about respecting Patents, IP, or the Rule of Law..."

For the record Michelle has been awesome and is doing her job and is a pleasure to interact with (a government employee that actually knows their job, is competent, and pleasant to talk with, let me be very clear on this point, IN MY EXPERIENCE THIS IS AN EXCEPTION, any organization would be blessed to have her working for them).


Below is the email I received on 10JUN12:

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Mr. Walkenstein,

Thank you for returning my telephone call this afternoon.
I was following up with you on the status of your FOIA request.
Your FOIA request resulted in a "No Records" response.
Attached you will find the final FOIA response to FA-12-0069.

V/r
Michelle McLeod
CECOM FOIA Officer
443-861-5266

This is a link to the letter that was attached to the above E-Mail:

http://www.canvs.com/CANVS-V-USA/FA-12-0069 Final FOIA Response.pdf