"CANVS neglects to highlight that the first six years of this time period precede its filing of an appeal with the board"

"CANVS neglects to highlight that the first six years of this time period precede its filing of an appeal with the board"

The above is quoted from this document:

http://www.canvs.com/SOCOM-Response-to-Writ.pdf

The document was signed by these individuals:

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. Director

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY Assistant Director

ANTHONY F. SCHIAVETTI Trial Attorney
Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division
Department of Justice
PO Box 480 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 305-7572
Fax: (202) 307-0972
anthony.f.schiavetti@usdoj.gov

The following material is cut and pasted from CANVS' request for a writ forcing the ASBCA to render a decision in 30 days.

http://www.canvs.com/Request-for-Writ-of-Mandamus.pdf

The Government misused CANVS technical data related to CANVS’ night vision technology, including publishing a conference poster that was displayed at a week-long industry conference called the International Special Operations Forces Week and Advance Planning Briefing to Industry Conference (“SOF/APBI”) that was held in Tampa, Florida, and which took place on 8 June 2005. Thus exposing CANVS's most valuable and closely held internal technical information to the entire night vision and special operations industry.

CANVS followed proper procedural channels, notified the contracting officer and ultimately filed an appeal to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in 2011.

Note to DOJ, here it is highlighted:

Since the second half of 2006 Mr. Walkenstein, Petitioner CANVS’s President, has been attempting to resolve the issue of misuse of CANVS’s technical data package provided under Contract No. USZA22-03-C-0027 by the Federal Government. After submitting its contract claims to the USSOCOM contracting officer in June 2011, SOCOM was able to reach a decision within seven months. However, despite the filing of an appeal to the ASBCA on September 19, 2011, by CANVS Corporation, the ASBCA has been unable to render any decisions for almost seven years.

In addition to the quotes above, in the beginning of CANVS V SOCOM I was representing CANVS before the ASBCA. The SOCOM lawyers at the time claimed that the only reason I could possible have for waiting 6 years till the last day of the statute of limitations to file was that I didn't care about the safety and security of the troops all I cared about was the money. I responded with over 10,000 pages of evidence proving that that was not true, and that the reason I waited to the very end was I was trying to exhaust every administrative process to settle this matter without having to talk about this in open court. After briefing numerous folks in Congress, Federal Law Enforcement, Department of State, SOCOM, Army, Intelligence Community Members, and many Inspector Generals, there was no serious attempt by SOCOM to settle this matter out of court. Only after an agonizing six year highly toxic battle that took significant time and resources from both CANVS and me personally was I forced to file CANVS V SOCOM at the ASBCA. This is part of the Rule 4 File (all of the evidence in the case). So how is it OK for representatives from the Department of Justice to so grossly improperly characterize the facts in evidence in the case? That was rhetorical. This is not OK and I am very upset.

Dear Chad, Robert, Patricia, and Anthony:

If you thought that you were going to be able to continue to lie and improperly characterize the facts in evidence in this case in a vacuum while leveling libelous and slanderous charges at me and my company you must have mistaken me for someone who doesn't understand his Constitutional rights.