Ghost Viewers...

While I contemplate what I can and can't post next reference CANVS V USA (reminds me of the joke: Got any naked pictures of your wife? Want some?), I was playing with Paint Shop Pro to make the image above, it shows the page view history of this blog, the Ghost Nebulae, and a slightly modified version of a Specter Gunship Logo.

All Hallandow's Eve has come and gone yet specters loom in the night, or at least on this blog. Out of the over 2,000 folks who have looked at this Blog ONLY 6 have had the moral courage to actually follow it (that number 6 includes me...). Next year I will begin posting some more stories about Small Business V The Military Industrial Complex (Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave!).

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied...

The following is from notes related to The Nuremberg Trials:

The Trial of the Major War Criminals began on November 20, 1945; British judge Sir Goeffrey Lawrence called the court to order, saying that "This trial, which is now about to begin, is unique in the annals of jurisprudence." The trial ended on October 1, 1946.

That means that it only took 315 days to try, convict, and sentence the entire Nazi high command.

Please note that my Patent infringement case against the US Government was filed on 10AUG10. As today is 25NOV12, that is 838 days SO FAR and we still do not have a date set for the first day actually in court. There is something very wrong in Denmark!

Meet the DOJ team...

This is the legal team representing the Defendant in CANVS V USA.

From Left to Right:

• John A. Hudalla
  Attorney


• Stuart F. Delery
  Acting Assistant Attorney General


• John Fargo Director Commercial Litigation Branch
  Civil Division United States Department
  of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.


• Lindsay K. Eastman, Attorney
  United States Department of Justice of counsel.

Please note that everything above and including this sentence is a presentation of factual information with no commentary or opinion.

The following is opinion and commentary:

• Walter Cronkite would be proud.


• I thought you as Taxpayers might be interested in seeing who the Government is Paying to represent "USA" in this case.

Federal Law Schmedral Law...

In case you fail to understand the significance of this document:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-19.pdf

Let me break it down for you.

The President is worried about having over 100,000 Americans laid off right before the election. Federal Law clearly states what needs to be done, the OMB at the direction of the President, has told the largest Defense Contractors in America not to worry go ahead and break the law and if you incur any costs associated with breaking the law the Taxpayers will pick up the tab. The way this was done is an affront to "Taxation without Representation". Once again Small Business is given a boot to the face and kicked to the curb as Government takes Big Business to lunch on the taxpayers dime!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329106/taxpayers-could-face-billions-legal-costs-due-administration-asking-lockheed-martin-re

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/republicans-rip-white-house-for-putting-tax-dollars-on-line-over-possible/

Size brown shoes don't fit...

In the aftermath of the publishing of the book "No Easy Day" a number of folks in this administration have made some claims about policing up the release of sensitive materials. Sorry I had to stop there for a minute as I was laughing so hard milk shot out of my nose.

While I am in the process of writing a letter to SECDEF, I thought I would post something as my Blogging activities have been nonexistent for a while. The reason for this is that I have to consider an number of things before I put photons on this screen. What considerations you might ask:

• Is the material Classified?
• Is the material Sensitive?
• Is the material ITAR Restricted
• Is the material covered by Nondisclosure or Confidentiality Agreements?
• Is the material covered by a US Federal Court Protective Order?
• Is the material something that your mother would approve of?

While I sort these things out in preparation of continuing this blog as well as writing my book (I am sure a bunch of people at various agencies just did the "spit take" if they were drinking coffee...) in the mean time let me share two real fire extinguisher stories with you!

I was responsible for moving an entire research department from one facility to another back in 1990. The new facility was awesome, but like any new buildings it had some kinks to work out, little things like water leaking onto high voltage panels, and a fire alarm that would arbitrarily decide to go off.

I closed down the laboratory that I was responsible for (my title was Research Analyst III but I built and ran all the hardware in the facility) in 2009. For 19 years the fire alarm was never fixed. The problem was a sensor in an elevator. With the hot and humid weather here in south Florida when the humidity was high enough and the elevator doors were open long enough in the air conditioned hallways when it got to the ground floor the sensor fogged up and the alarm would go off. I kid you not this had to have happened hundreds of times in the 19 years I was there. It was not uncommon for me to work 24, 48, or 72 hours at a time and invariably I was there when the alarm would go off. EVERY TIME I would grab a fire extinguisher and head for the alarm panel, whip out my cell phone and call it in. I would stay on the phone as I confirmed there was no fire, temporarily reset the system and call out the maintenance crew to investigate.

I kept pointing out the "Boy That Cried Wolf" syndrome to everyone that would listen, the alarm goes off, no one cares because of all the false alarms, if there is a real emergency precious time will be lost because everyone will assume all is well just reset the system. One day I am in the lab and the alarm goes off. I pick up a fire extinguisher and head to the alarm panel phone in hand. This time I smell smoke, fortunately I had a key for the door where the smoke was coming from, I open the door (after putting my hand on the metal door to see if it is hot) and there on top of a wooden crate is a pile of newspapers clearly intentionally set ablaze! It couldn't have been lit for more than 60 seconds I must have just missed the arsonist(the door to the "secure" storage area was often left open while people came and went so they wouldn't need to check out a key, same for the "secure" hallway door to the parking lot always left open). I pointed the fire extinguisher at the base of the fire and pulled the trigger. The fire was out but it was so hot it was looking like the top of the wooden crate could re-light. So I ran back to the lab to get a second fire extinguisher (my eyes were killing me at this point, the smoke was bad but the powdered irritant in the fire extinguisher was worse). Fire truck was on the way at this point as I was on the phone with them the entire time.

As I emerge from the lab and head out into the parking lot to go back to the hallway door that led to the door to the storage room (I had propped the storage room door open at this point) I am reaching for the handle of the hallway door as I am confronted by a local law enforcement officer on a Segway. He looks me straight in the eyes and says "You can't go into the building there is a fire!" I had to keep from laughing (he was only doing what the manual says)...without stopping I held up the fire extinguisher with one hand and pointed to it with my other hand and said "We can talk after I put out the fire". Bill Engvall moment "Here's your sign..."

This second fire extinguisher story took place in the University of Miami dorms in 1984. I am in my room studying for a Calculus II test and I smell smoke (NO ALARM), I head out into the hallway (in those days you were allowed to smoke in your room if my memory serves correctly) I see the dude at the end of the hall he is clearly stoned or drunk or both, his room door is open and he is just standing there in front of one of those small metal round trashcans and there is a pillar of fire shooting out of it that is literally taller than he is. I grab a piece of wood (it was a length of 4x4 left over from the loft I built) and smashed the glass between me and the fire extinguisher, run down the hall and extinguish the fire. The dude in the room say "Dude that was crazy!". Just as I am walking back to my room the Resident Assistant in charge of the floor (his name was Bernard) comes running after me screaming...you can't make this kind of thing up...he says to me, "Why the hell did you break the glass?!" Here's your sign...

Sausage and Appropriations....

I found the paper written by S. Peter Worden, "ON SELF-LICKING ICE CREAM CONES" please note his position at the time of the presentation. He is currently the Director of NASA's Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif.

I am still working on an updated treatise on the subject with specific focus on U.S. Military Night Vision Procurement perhaps called: "SELF-LICKING ICE CREAM CONES IN THE DARK".

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!

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.

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).

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!

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

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

It's Time To Play Another Round of The Cover Your Ass With Paper Game.

The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) Office of the Staff Judge Advocate has at least one person who is squared away!

Special thanks to Michelle McLeod CECOM FOIA Officer.

Now that CECOM has assigned CECOM FOIA #FA-12-0069 to my request (thus covering The CECOM Office of the Staff Judge Advocate at Aberdeen Proving Grounds ass with paper), the buck has been passed to the final location where it has to be answered (in theory according to law), Dr. Fenner Milton, The Director of The Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate, Fort Belvoir Virginia.

If this doesn't result in the production of the requested documentation I guess I will be forced to ask for a Court Order for the production of the materials.

************************************************************************************

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Mr. Walkenstein,

Great speaking with you today. Per our conversation.

Your FOIA request is being processed and is under review with the U.S. Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate.

I assigned your request CECOM FOIA #FA-12-0069.

If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Michelle McLeod
CECOM FOIA Officer
443-861-5266


Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Dear Major General Ferrell...

Major General Robert S. Ferrell

An open letter to:

Major General Robert S. Ferrell
CECOM Commanding General
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Dear General:

As the Commanding Officer of CECOM, I can't help but wonder if you are aware of some specific inappropriate activities associated with individuals in your command and the detrimental effect it continues to have on the war fighters under your command.

In support of rectifying the situation and holding individuals within CECOM responsible for their actions, CANVS currently has a case in front of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, ASBCA (Appeal of CANVS Corporation to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Case No. 57784, 57987).

After a number of failed attempts to obtain evidence to be provided to the Federal Judge assigned to the ASBCA case, I filed a Freedom Of Information Act Request with the Army on 20JAN12. After no response I contacted the office of The Army Chief of Staff and resubmitted my request on 18APR12. My request now resides in an office under your command, namely:

U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM)
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
6001 Combat Drive
Room C3-127
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
Telephone: (443) 861-5266

FOIA Request 12-0489

I called the office today and left a message, it should be noted that as of the writing of this letter CECOM may be in violation of the law and Army regulations (AR 25-55 and Title 5 US Code 552) regarding their behavior related to my request.

Specifically:

I quote from AR 25-55:

a. Initial determinations to release or deny a record normally shall be made and the decision reported to the requester within l0 working days after receipt of the request by the official designated to respond. The action office/command holding the records will date and time-stamp each request on receipt. The 10-day limit will start from the date stamped.

I hope that the folks in your Office of the Staff Judge Advocate comply with the law and finally provide me with the requested information, if not I will be writing a comprehensive report on the matter for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein
President, CANVS Corporation

Get ready to PAC its time to visit the Self Licking Ice Cream Cone Factory.

Here is a rough outline of how these things run. Gizmo Corporation is the world's largest manufacturer of Gizmos. The Gizmo Corporation is a US Corporation with Corporate Headquarters on Main Street. Obviously Main Street resides in a city and a state in these great United States, so Gizmo Corporation has two Senators and one Congressman (or Congresswoman) associated with Corporate Headquarters. For really large companies, like Gizmo Corporation, they may have facilities in many states (increasing the ability to support politicians who can help them).

Through various means, some legal and some not, the US Government develops specifications for Gizmos to be purchased by the Government. As luck would have it these specifications can only be met by Gizmo Corporation, so when Congress passes a budget for purchasing Gizmos, only one company can win the contract bid (even though everyone pretends that the bid process for Gizmos is open and honest, we now know otherwise).

Here comes the Self Licking part. Someone in Government has to develop these specifications, for Military related items let us say Colonel Goldbrick is in charge of the unit that uses the most Gizmos. As such he is in the best position to understand all aspects of the need for Gizmos and how they can be improved in the future to meet the needs of the Military. Also Col. Gizmo and his team, by necessity, work hand in hand with Gizmo Corporation to ensure delivery, provide feedback, etc. Clearly when Col. Goldbrick retires he would provide invaluable information to Gizmo Corporation as a person with instant credibility to work with the Military on their Gizmo needs. Col. Goldbrick retires and goes to work for Gizmo Corporation as a Senior Vice President. Col. Greenbacks as the new commander works hand in hand with the now retired Col. Goldbrick on all things Gizmo related. Col. Greenbacks is not an idiot and works towards retirement with an eye on a lucrative Gizmo position upon retirement.

Col. Goldbricks, as a respected member of the military and now a captain of industry marches up capital hill with a briefcase full of checks and a Bill to be turned into law by congress, The Gizmos for American Jobs Act.

This process results in a never ending cycle of pay for favors, get favors, get contracts, pay for more favors, get more favors, get more contracts, pay even more, etc.

This doesn't have to be all bad if the Gizmos in question actually represent the Best Value for the Government, but sadly this is almost never the case. Additionally any attempt by Small Business to produce a better Gizmo is pretty much unilaterally slaughtered. Most of the time new technologies are buried and the developers run out of Dodge or worse, in some rare instances the small entities are purchased by the larger companies and the technology eventually makes it into the hands of the users, more times than not it won't be till after the investment in old Gizmos is paid off.

Imagine this process replicated over every product purchased by the Government in every State and every Congressional district in the United States and you can start to appreciate the power of the PAC's and the moral bankruptcy we are dealing with.

The Self Licking Ice Cream Cone Factory (AKA The Legislative Branch)

I am working on a paper detailing my experience with Self Licking Ice Cream Cone Factories, till then just think about what this really means...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone

Its time to play The Cover Your Ass With Paper Game...

Yesterday I got this in the mail:

• 09MAY12-FOIA-12-0489-Envelope.jpg
• 09MAY12-FOIA-12-0489.jpg

Let me make a few notes about dates and other details associated with this letter:

• The date on the postmark on the envelope is May 14, 2012.

• The date on the letter is May 9, 2012.

• FOIA 12-0489 was assigned to this request no later than May 9, 2012.

• They claim my FOIAR was received on April 18, 2012.

• They claim that their office received my request on April 23, 2012

• They claim my request is being processed in accordance with Title 5 US Code 552.

• Information requested under the purview of the U.S. Army is referred to the proponent agency as per Army Regulation 25-55.

• The request has been forwarded for review and direct response to me to:
  
  U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM)
  Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
  6001 Combat Drive
  Room C3-127
  Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
  Telephone: (443) 861-5266
  
  Any questions regarding the status of the request should be addressed to the agency listed above.

The following is a quote from AR 25-55:

a. Initial determinations to release or deny a record normally shall be made and the decision reported to the requester within l0 working days after receipt of the request by the official designated to respond. The action office/command holding the records will date and time-stamp each request on receipt. The 10-day limit will start from the date stamped.

If I take the date the letter was written (May 9, 2012) as the date that the Big Army FOIA Office forwarded my request, thus officially covering their ass with paper and simultaneously passing the buck to CECOM, then May 23, 2012 would be 10 working days after the material was received. And as you may have already guessed, nothing yet from CECOM. Interesting to note no mention of the fact that this request was actually submitted on 20JAN12 and that this fact was included in the resubmitted request that they are finally responding to.

Later today I will be placing a call to CECOM to have a friendly conversation with them to determine what the current status of my request is (note full powers of concentration are being used to stay calm...).

Not So Freedom Of Information Act...

My (CANVS Corporation) history with the Freedom of Information Act has been semi OK, until recently, all of my requests were eventually answered, even if some were less than forthcoming reference all the materials I requested.

In most cases where I submitted a FOIA request, I already had the information necessary to submit as evidence in Federal Court, but, it is always nice to have ones evidence independently corroborated by official documents provided by the Federal Government.

My most recent FOIAR efforts have been a different story. The request in question was submitted by me to the proper authority within the US Army on 20JAN12, and re-submission at the suggestion of the Office of The Chief of Staff of The Army on 19APR12. 124 days, and 34 days later, both requests are way over the legal limit for a response to my requests. Congress and the President went out of their way to put laws into effect that govern this program in the name of "transparency", in this particular instance I have documented a total break down of not only the system, but also a total lack of enforcement of the law.

As I continue to attempt to hold my Government responsible for their actions, feel free to contact me if you know of any Government Official who has the moral fiber and political horsepower to help. If you listen carefully I am not holding my breath. My hope at this point is that eventually a Federal Judge will be fed up with this blatant disregard for the law and issue a court order for the production of the requested documentation.

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

Isn't That Special...

Is there anyone in the US Government with the moral fiber and horsepower to actually uphold the law?

Specifically I had 18 USC Sec. 1905 in mind.

Well, in my never ending quest for Truth, Justice, and The American Way I just sent the below letter to "The Special Counsel" (read between the quotes with the Church Lady Voice from SNL).

You might want to use the "WOOSAAAA" meditation technique from the movie Bad Boys to keep from having an embolism as you read this.

Enjoy!

To: Ms. Carolyn Lerner U.S. Office of Special Counsel 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 Tel: (800) 872-9855 (202) 254-3670 FAX: (202) 254-3711

From: Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein Chief Executive Officer CANVS Corporation 1172 South Dixie Highway Suite 364 Coral Gables, FL 33146-2918 Phone (305) 582-3301 E-Mail jon@canvs.com

Dear Carolyn:

I am writing you this letter to inform you of an abject failure of the Freedom of Information Act Request process. I have chosen to write you as my attempts to rectify this situation with U.S. Army, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), and other DoD components (including Inspector General Offices) have been thwarted or ignored.

It should be noted that CANVS Corporation currently has two actions against the Federal Government, CANVS Corporation V. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case 1:10-cv-00540-ECH (a patent infringement case) was filed on August 11, 2010 in The Court of Federal Claims, and CANVS Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Case Numbers 57784 and 57987 (breach of data rights cases) filed on 19SEP11.

There are two events I would like you to help me with: 1) My 20JAN12 FOIA Request to the Army, and 2) My 31AUG11 FOIA Request to The Army Research Laboratory (FP-11-039359/FA-11-0018) - PowerPoint Presentation on Modular Multi-Spectral Goggle in Night Vision Applications and related forms request.

1) My initial FOIA request to the Army reference this matter was submitted on 20JAN12 (the request in its entirety is at the end of this section of the letter) and was emailed by me (from my jon@canvs.com account) to:

DAFOIA@conus.army.mil

At the suggestion of:

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

On 19APR12 I resubmitted my 20JAN12 Army FOIA (from my jon@canvs.com account)request to:

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

In light of the Army's inability to comply with the law coupled with their unwillingness to positively communicate with me (along with the fact that over 100 days have passed since I submitted my initial request) I believe that it is appropriate for me to ask for your help in ascertaining the status of my request and when I can expect an answer.

My 20JAN12 FOIA request in its entirety is on the following page.

20JAN12

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

2) My 31AUG11 FOIA Request to The Army Research Laboratory (FP-11- 039359/FA-11-0018) - PowerPoint Presentation on Modular Multi-Spectral Goggle in Night Vision Applications and related forms request.

This incident is less about the FOIAR process and more about the culture of impunity and disregard for the law that exists within pockets of The US Special Forces Command [SOCOM] and The U.S. Army (Specifically The Army Research Laboratory [ARL], and The Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate [NVESD]).

In order for you to more fully appreciate the request the following is a compressed narrative of the events leading up to my 31AUG11 FOIA request.

My company, CANVS Corporation, completed a critically acclaimed SBIR Phase-II contract (Title: Multi-Spectral Low-Light Imaging) for SOCOM (http://www.ussocomsbir.com/success/#6). The deliverables under this contract were Color Night Vision Goggles, Color Night Vision Video Systems (Link to CANVS Color Night Vision Video Sequence: http://www.canvs.com/CANVS-cigar.wmv), and associated technical data packages. It should be noted that the hardware deliverables were received by NVESD who then passed them on to SOCOM (NVESD also received the CANVS generated data packages associated with the program). The CANVS/SOCOM Contract contained clauses associated with limited data rights. What this means is that data delivered to SOCOM by CANVS under the contract can not, by law, be released without express written consent of CANVS.

I was present on two occasions when this trust (and the law) was violated. Once at the 2005 Special Operation Forces Advance Planning Brief for Industry (SOF ABPI) conference (at the NVESD booth), and once at the 2006 IDGA Night Vision Conference (at a presentation given by ARL). My 20JAN12 FOIA request to the Army was for materials related to the 2005 SOF ABPI incident, and my 31AUG11 FOIA request was for materials related to the 2006 IDGA Night Vision Systems Conference incident. The requested information is directly related to CANVS' appeal currently before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA Case Nos. 57784, 57987).

The Primary Point of Contact between CANVS and SOCOM during the SBIR Phase-II contract was an individual by the name of Kurt A. Badertscher. At the time of the contract Badertscher's title at SOCOM Headquarters Tampa Florida was “Project Selection Manager Advanced Technology Program”. At the 2006 IDGA Night Vision Systems Conference a presentation titled “Modular Multi-Spectral Goggle in Night Vision Applications” was authored by Kurt A. Badertscher, Research Engineer, Army Research Laboratory.

Please not the similarity between the title of the talk and the title of the CANVS SBIR Phase-II Contract:

• ARL Talk Title: Modular Multi-Spectral Goggle in Night Vision Applications

• CANVS SOCOM SBIR Phase-II Title: Multi-Spectral Low-Light Imaging

Based on my history with Badertscher I thought it was reasonable to submit FOIA requests to both SOCOM and ARL to obtain a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that was given at the conference (note that I was at the conference, saw the talk in its entirety, and the talk in question was the only one not included on the CD given to conference attendees).

My initial FOIA request to SOCOM asked for a copy of the 2006 IDGA PowerPoint presentation. SOCOM replied saying that they did not have the talk but I could appeal the decision. I appealed the decision and asked for the Form F1 in addition to the talk. The Form F1 is permission to release the material into the public domain. SOCOM replied back saying that they did not have the Form F1 or the talk.

I also made a FOIA request to ARL asking for a copy of the 2006 IDGA PowerPoint presentation. ARL replied saying that they did not have the talk but I could appeal the decision. I appealed the decision and asked for the Form F1 in addition to the talk. ARL's response was astounding. They claimed to not have the ARL 2006 IDGA PowerPoint presentation BUT they produced the Form F1 associated with the talk.

After reading the Form F1 sent to me from ARL, I further asked for and was provided with the instructions associated with filling out the Form F1. It is clear that there are major inconsistencies between the proper procedure for filling out a Form F1 according to the instructions and the completed Form F1 provided by ARL.

• The top of the Form F1 clearly states: “Note: Submit all manuscripts in electronic format or camera ready copy.” The Form F1 is not complete without a copy of the talk.

• Block 10 (security classification) is empty.

• Blocks 32 B and 32 C are not completed (The Division Chief and Public Affair Office Representative Approval Signatures are missing).

In light of the fact that the Division Chief and Public Affair Office Representative Approval Signatures are missing, and a copy of the talk was not attached to the form the Form F1 provided by ARL, the Form F1 provided to CANVS is not a confirmation of authorization to release the material into the public domain by ARL.

Please note that even if proper permission was granted by ARL for the release of the presentation, the separate issue of breech of data rights still stands by virtue of the fact that no written permission from CANVS for release of data protected under the limited data rights in the CANVS/SOCOM SBIR Phase-II contract was obtained(this aspect of the breech is being addressed by the CANVS ASBCA actions).

I would like your opinion on the following points:

• Do you believe that the supplied ARL Form F1 (see attached) constitutes permission by ARL to release the talk?

• What laws, rules, regulations or policies have been broken if there was no permission from ARL for the release of the presentation?

• Is it the responsibility of the Department of Justice or the Department of Defense (or both) to address this issue?

Thank you for consideration in this matter,

Sincerely,

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

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.