I guess it's going to be like that...

This is footage of a demonstration I did for Lieutenant General Sorenson (was a Colonel at the time of this video) at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Orlando in 1998. This sequence demonstrates CANVS PROPRIETARY "image blending" techniques utilizing a CANVS Low Light Level Color Night Vision sensor (visible and near infrared) and a Lockheed Martin Thermal Imager.

This was a very black room and not just because of the replicated night sky spectral distribution at .0001 Lux...

High paid second rate thugs hired by a Felon repeat offender.

This is how one man stood against arguably the largest and most powerful Defense Contractor of all time. Enjoy the Reading! If you have to ask if you are a rock star, you're not. CANVS Corporation v Lockheed Martin

CANVS Corporation v Lockheed Martin, aka How Sausage is Made.

Behold with your own ears the epic battle between the Smallest Defense Contractor in the World and the Largest Defense Contractor Ever!

This is the mpeg audio file of my deposition in support of CANVS Corporation v Lockheed Martin, if you like bad spy novels, conspiracy theories, and a dystopian view of the present then you are in for a treat! I give you Parts 1 through 9.  

Part 1 of 9

Part 2 of 9
Part 3 of 9
Part 4 of 9
Part 5 of 9
Part 6 of 9
Part 7 of 9
Part 8 of 9
Part 9 of 9

Below is the top ten list of institutional shareholders in Lockheed Martin. Now your shareholders know.

• SSgA Funds Management, Inc.
• The Vanguard Group, Inc.
• Black Rock Fund Advisors.
• Capital Research Management Company.
• Geode Capital Management LLC.
• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC.
• Wellington Management Company LLP.
• Capital Research Company.

Bullied the wrong guy this time...

"Of all the things the President of Lockheed Martin could have said, that Lockheed Martin and its President, and I quote, "never heard of Mr. Walkenstein or CANVS Corporation" is the most arrogant, deranged, and insulting untruth they could have said about me.

News flash, CANVS won CANVS v USA

http://canvs-v-usa.blogspot.com/2013/10/unclassified-top-ten-list.html

I was the Army Night Vision and Electro-Optics program manager with Lockheed as subcontractor to CANVS on what become The Arrowhead Program.

We (CANVS Corporation) have signed NDA's and a signed contract with Lockheed Martin.

You do not have to pay child support if you did not build the baby I spent my entire life designing, why are you so afraid of a DNA test, oh yeah we don't need Jerry Springer to know that, I am the Father!

- Mr. Walkenstein

#MrWalkenstein
#CANVS
#AbuseofVeteranOwnedSmallBusiness
#MarillynAHewson
#JamesDTaicletJr
#LockheedMartin

Look beyond the makeup...

https://www.whistleblowerattorneys.com/blog/lockheed-martin-settlement-unlikely-last/

"Look behind the makeup..."

- Mr. Walkenstein 

#MrWalkenstein 

#MarillynAHewson 

#LockheedMartin 

10 Days in Virginia

2,624 pages, ten days of trial. Want to read something that will make your blood boil as an American? This is the unholy offspring of a Tom Clancy Spy Thriller, with a John Grisham Conspiracy and a Terry Gilliam Monty Python episode.

Enjoy :CANVS v SOCOM

Note: Tuesday 14 July, 2020 The Air Force asked me to remove this transcript link. 1st Amendment isn't what it used to be folks.

John 8:32

CANVS Corporation v. Secretary of the Air Force Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Case #: 0:19-bcaag-01190 Case Filed: Nov 09, 2018

So this went to the Director of The FBI, each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and to The President.

"You have now!"

Enjoy!:

Dear Director Wray:

I am writing this letter to inform you that Department of Justice Civil Division Branch Attorneys threatened my witnesses and tampered with evidence in direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1512 (witness tampering) and 25 CFR 11.440 (Tampering with and fabricating evidence).

I reported these activities in a letter dated Thursday 03MAY18 to: Michael E. Horowitz

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 4706

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

These violations occurred during an ongoing contract dispute case, CANVS V SOCOM that was previously in front of The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals but is currently being appealed by CANVS to the Federal Circuit Court:

CANVS Corporation

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Case numbers 57784, 57987

Under Contract No. USZA22-03-C-0027 Currently renamed to:

CANVS Corporation v. Secretary of the Air Force Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Case #: 0:19-bcaag-01190 Case Filed: Nov 09, 2018

I am appalled at the numerous criminal and Constitutional violations that my Company, my friends and I have been subjected to during this battle that has been ongoing since 2005.

Mr. Michael E. Horowitz, The Department of Justice Inspector General, The DOJIG forwarded my DOJ IG complaint to the Civil Branch (the very same individuals that I was reporting for criminal behavior) and told me to take it up with Mr. Joseph H. Hunt Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Civil Division. I do not believe that the DOJIG responded appropriately and my response was to file a GAO complaint against the DOJIG, and send you this letter.

I have so far been unable to make an appointment with Mr. Hunt to discuss this matter face to face, if you can help me make an appointment to meet Mr. Hunt that would be appreciated.

CANVS has previous extensive experience with The Department of Justice: http://canvs-v-usa.blogspot.com/2016/09/16-years-in-making.html

I have four questions for you to which I am requesting direct and actionable answers to:

1. Who do I present my evidence to that proves that Department of Justice Civil Division Branch Attorneys threatened my witnesses and tampered with evidence in direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1512 (witness tampering) and 25 CFR 11.440 (Tampering with and fabricating evidence)?
   
   
2. Who is responsible for enforcement of 18 U.S. Code § 1512 and 25 CFR 11.440 violations?
   
   
3. Here are two examples of US Government employees wrongfully calling me a liar in the public domain (for the record, I do not take kindly to being called a liar).
   
   
   http://canvs-v-usa.blogspot.com/2018/03/canvs-neglects-to-highlight-that-first.html
   
   
   http://canvs-v-usa.blogspot.com/2018/12/liable-and-slander-are-words-i-am.html
   
   
   Here is an example of a Federal Judge Threatening me in front of a room full of witnesses: http://canvs-v-usa.blogspot.com/2018/03/i-think-you-should-take-penny-on-dollar.html
   And here is some information that documents that US Government representatives tampered with a critical piece of evidence in CANVS V SOCOM:
   
   
   http://canvs-v-usa.blogspot.com/2016/01/sabotaged.html
   
   
   In all of the above instances CANVS has volumes of evidence that comprehensively documents every aspect of the Un-Constitutional behavior of US Government representatives. Over One Terabyte of evidence was turned over by me to Federal Authorities so far.
   
   
   My question to you is: What is my legal recourse in these matters (does this behavior raise to the level that Government employees can be sued for Liable and Slander and Tortious interference of business)?
   
   
4. Can you suggest that The Senate Judiciary Committee call me and my colleagues in to talk with them on this matter?

This highly inappropriate behavior must be stopped and those who ordered and carried out these atrocities against me must be held responsible for their actions. I swore an oath when I was sworn in as a US Army Aviation Warrant Officer to uphold and defend The Constitution against all threats both foreign and domestic, this oath has no expatriation date. If you believe, like me, that Government employees threatening witnesses and tampering with evidence in a Federal Court Case is a clear example of a domestic threat to our Constitution then I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter, do not let this gross miscarriage of justice

stand.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein President, CANVS Corporation

Honorably discharged US Army Aviation Warrant Officer,

Veteran Small Business Owner, and proud Citizen of these United States.

CC Members of The Senate Judiciary Committee:

Senator Lindsey Graham 290 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-5972 Fax: (202) 224-3808	Senator Dianne Feinstein 331 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 Phone:(202) 224-3841 Fax: (202) 228-3954 TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501
Senator Chuck Grassley 135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Phone: (202) 224-3744 Fax: (202) 224-6020	Senator Patrick Leahy 437 Russell Senate Bldg. United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-4242
Senator John Cornyn 517 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2934	Senator Dick Durbin 711 Hart Senate Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2152 Fax: (202) 228-0400 TTY: (202) 224-8180
Senator Michael S. Lee 361A Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Phone: 202-224-5444	Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Hart Senate Office Bldg., Rm. 530 Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2921 Fax: (202) 228-6362
Senator Ted Cruz 404 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-5922	Senator Amy Klobuchar 425 Dirksen Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-3244 Fax: (202) 228-2186
Senator Ben Sasse 136 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-4224	Senator Christopher A. Coons 127A Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Phone:(202) 224-5042

Senator Joshua D. Hawley B40A Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-6154	Senator Richard Blumenthal 706 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC, 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2823 Fax: (202) 224-9673
Senator Thom Tillis 185 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-6342 Fax: (202) 228-2563	Senator Mazie Hirono 713 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-6361 Fax: (202) 224-2126
Senator Joni Ernst 111 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-3254 Fax: (202) 224-9369	Senator Cory Booker 359 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-3224 Fax: (202) 224-8378
Senator Mike Crapo 239 Dirksen Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-6142 Fax: (202) 228-1375	Senator Kamala Harris 12 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Phone (202) 224 - 3553 Fax (202) 224 - 2200
Senator John Kennedy SR 383, Russell Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-4623	Senator Marsha Blackburn B40B Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-3344 Fax: 202-228-0566

Did you get that thing I sent you?!

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PEACOCK:

Quote:

"185. Mr. Walkenstein testified that he is aware of only one entity that has manufactured color night vision goggles using different color phosphors in different optical channels since 2005. According to Mr. Walkenstein, that entity is the Russian government or a manufacturer having a relationship with the Russian government. (Tr. 3/82-83; GPF ¶ 982) CANVS has produced no technical details or other substantiating evidence regarding this alleged Russian manufacturer of a night vision goggle having different color phosphors in different optical channels. There is no documentary proof in the record relating to this alleged Russian night vision goggle. CANVS has produced no evidence to indicate that this alleged Russian manufacturer had gleaned the information concerning color night vision goggles from the APBI Poster. (Tr. 3/83-84; GPF ¶¶ 983-84)"

When someone lies about you it is never OK. It is even more egregious when that someone is acting of behalf of The US Government.

Quote:

"we have relied to a considerable extent on the government’s proposed findings in our Findings of Fact herein."

What that means is they just adopted the SOCOM lawyers position rather than looking at the evidence. This behavior is criminal it is called "material misrepresentation of material facts in evidence in a case". Furthermore, when material misrepresentation of facts occurs with the intent to deprive someone of what is rightfully theirs, I believe it is a felony.

The following materials were in evidence in this case at the ASBCA as early as January 25th, 2013:

Not only is this a heinous miscarriage of justice, it is just not OK to do this to ANY AMERICAN, especially this American who not only understands his Constitutional Rights, but also swore an oath to protect The Constitution against all threats both foreign and domestic...

 

And now this from The US DOJ IG!

So if you remember back a few posts (dear-dod-ig) I sent a letter asking The Inspector General of The Department of Justice for a meeting to deliver evidence of  felonious activities carried out by US Department of Justice and US Air Force Judge Advocate General employees. This is his response:

So I ask for help with illegal activities carried out by The Commercial Litigation Branch of The Department of Justice from the Department of Justice Inspector General and he tells me to take it up with The Commercial Litigation Branch. This is like getting mugged by a police officer and then getting up and reporting the mugging to the very same officer. My response to this is in process...

And now a word from our sponsor...

I just wanted to point out that the above is not my doing.

Dear SOCOM...

TV interview just outside DC today...

Dear SOCOM:

Are you sure you don't want to negotiate a settlement?

Mr. Walkenstein

Dear DOJ IG....

From: Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein President and CEO CANVS Corporation 1172 South Dixie Highway Suite 364 Coral Gables, FL 33146-2918

To: Michael E. Horowitz U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 4706 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 TH 03MAY18

Dear Michael:

CANVS has recent history with the Department of Justice (CANVS Corporation V. The United States of America, The United States Court of Federal Claims Case 1:10-cv-00540-ECH).

CANVS Corporation (A Veteran Owned Small Business celebrating its 20^th Anniversary) is currently in court against The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The breach of contract case is being heard by The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA Case Numbers 57784 and 57987).The case is bifurcated into Liability and Damages Phases. As of today (03MAY18) the Liability portion of these proceedings has been ongoing for over seven years. All arguments, testimony, and discovery for the Liability phase of this case are complete and CANVS is waiting for the boards decision on Liability.

During the Governments Liability defense, CANVS has gathered evidence that documents numerous violations of my (and CANVS') basic Constitutional Rights. SOCOM Lawyers from The Air Force Judge Advocate General's office (and individuals at The Department of Justice) engaged in:

• Witness Intimidation
• Witness Tampering
• Evidence Tampering
• Evidence Fabrication
• Material misrepresentation of facts in evidence in the case
• International Trafficking In Arms Regulation (ITAR) Violations
• Improper handling of sensitive/classified materials
• 10 U.S.C. § 1034 Violations
• Liable, Slander, and Tortious Interference of Business
• Violations of The SBIR Law

I am requesting a meeting in person to deliver this evidence and discuss this matter face to face.

Ilook forward to your response in this matter,

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein

President CANVS Corporation

CC:

HQUSSOCOM

U.S.Department of State

Inspector General Security Division

Congressman Bob Goodlatte

Senator Chuck Grassley

AlexandraVilloch 

President Miami Herald Media Company 

Right in the eye with a sharp stick!

http://lightningreleases.com/u-s-government-competition-is-not-an-isolated-problem-the-time-for-action-has-come/

"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.

“I think you should take a penny on the dollar, go make cookies and I'll take you off of the black list”

“I think you should take a penny on the dollar, go make cookies and I'll take you off of the black list”

• Judge Robert T. Peacock

So I was sitting on the witness stand at The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) in the case of CANVS V SOCOM, and the Judge actually said this to me:

“I think you should take a penny on the dollar, go make cookies and I'll take you off of the black list.”

Let us just examine just the first part of Judge Peacock's statement (for now):

“I think you should take a penny on the dollar”.

As this case was bifurcated into two trials, first the Liability phase (which has been ongoing for ~7.5 years), and the Damages phase (which has yet to begin), I think it was highly inappropriate for the Judge to say anything about the monetary value of the case prior to seeing any evidence. Based on this my legal team asked the Judge to recuse himself from the case as his behavior was textbook prejudice, he “pre” “judged” the monetary value of the case.

In the Judge's response to our request he not only said he thought he did not do anything wrong, he admitted that:

“The Board has not yet received any quantum evidence and preforce has formed no opinions on the details of the appellant's quantum methodology. The so-called “quantum” discussions with appellant were generalized and focused on the need for the appellant to greatly reduce its $100 million claim demand for settlement purposes.”

And in what I can only perceive as a further abuse of my rights, the Judge, being one of the three judge panel hearing this case, actually got to vote if he did anything inappropriate?! Any guess what he decided?

Now lets consider the rest of his statement:

“go make cookies”

This is a reference to SOCOM getting to try the case twice because they screwed up so badly the first time. The Lawyer for SOCOM, Chun-I, says to me while I am on the stand:

“There are no non disclosure agreements in evidence in this case.”

I waited a long time before I spoke and everyone was staring at me, I said to the Judge, that was a statement not a question, and I believe he is correct in that neither SOCOM or CANVS has asked for any NDA's to be entered into evidence, but I will not sit here and allow the insinuation that I did not provide and NDA's to SOCOM during discovery, in fact I know there are hundreds of NDA's on the hard drive that I provided SOCOM.

So SOCOM got to have a second trial to go over all of the CANVS NDA's. One of the NDA's was between Drunken Chefs (another company of mine) and a Casino. The Judge asked what Drunken Chefs was and Chun-I said it was a company that Mr. Walkenstein started to provide Drunken desserts for Food Network events. The Judge then asked if this NDA had and bearing on the case, at which point I chimed in and said, I sat here on the witness stand and had SOCOM accuse me of not protecting my Color Night Vision related intellectual property, no only do we know this not to be true based on tens of thousands of pages of evidence, we also see that I was even protecting my cookie recipes, so imagine how careful Walkenstein and CANVS were with the various trade secrets necessary to produce Color Night Vision Goggles.

Let me tell you about “testing fees”. I was approached and basically was told, if you pay this testing fee, SOCOM will purchase your goggles. I said, that sounds like a bribe to me, if it is not a bribe, I will ask Congress for plus up money on my contract to pay the testing fee. They responded with, Walkenstein is out of control, he went directly to Congress for funding, he is a threat to the entire SOCOM procurement process. What they really meant was, I told Congress that SOCOM was extorting money out of small business with the “testing fee” scheme. People went to jail over this, but sadly they are still doing it and the new offenders are untouched.

The jab at me, “go make cookies”, at least the way I took it was, if you are not willing to pay the bribes necessary to the night vision mafia to do night vision business with the US Military, then you should go make cookies. Are you kidding me?! In the schools and neighborhoods I grew up in, this kind of talk routinely resulted in a good old fashioned bare knuckle beat down by the flag pole after school.

And lastly, “and I will take you off of the black list.”

Are your fracking kidding me?! So the Judge is saying do what I say (namely take a penny on the dollar and go make cookies) and he will something for me (take me off the black list). Let us just wait one cotton picking minute. Are you fracking kidding me?! So the judge is saying he knows there is a “black list”, he knows “I am on the black list”, and he has the power to take me off of the black list?!

Although I reserve my final opinion on Judge Peacock until this case is over, the way I feel right now is at what point did the inmates take charge of the asylum?

CANVS V SOCOM ~13 years later...

It is hard to believe that my Veteran Owned Small Business and I have survived 20 years in the night vision and military contracting universe!

This is a brief outline and update on CANVS V SOCOM, what can only be described as the collision of a John Grisham Novel and a Monty Python Movie!

As early as 1996 I had built numerous Color Night Vision Systems. Each system was designed to demonstrate various pros and cons of the different configurations. CANVS submitted a Color Night Vision Patent to the US Patent Office prior to taking any money from the US Government. During the time that the CANVS Color Patent was pending, Color Night Vision Patents were issues to CANVS' competitors while CANVS' Color Patent never issued (more on this in a future post)!

In 1998, CANVS was awarded an Army ACT-II Contract with the Dismounted Battlespace Battle Laboratory at Fort Benning Georgia, beating out Lockheed Martin (I will get back to this in another post...). The goal of the work was to prove that there was usable color at night, a point that was still being hotly debated at the time. 

Based on the lessons learned in the ACT-II contract, after about five years of amazing experimental work, I was able to manufacture the first article CANVS Binocular Color Night Vision Goggle, the CNVS-4949.  

Representatives of the US Special Forces Command (SOCOM) came to me asking for a contract to deliver three Color Night Vision Goggles and Two Color Night Vision Video Systems. CANVS signed the contract but insisted that the Limited Data Rights Clause was included in the contract.

CANVS worked with numerous US Special Forces and Intelligence Community members to carry out extensive laboratory and field testing of this transformational technology. After delivery of the three sets of CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles to SOCOM, CANVS was approached by another US Government customer who also ordered goggles even before the contract was over.

US Congressional Staffers and SOCOM selected CANVS to receive the prestigious SBIR Success Story Award for its Color Night Vision Technology. CANVS was presented this award by the Director of The Small Business Administration in a ceremony near Navy SEAL Headquarters in San Diego California.

These same folks from SOCOM and Fort Belvoir's Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate then showed up at the 2005 International Special Forces conference in Tampa Florida displaying a CANVS CNVS-4949 Goggle, and a poster extracted from the CANVS monthly reports to SOCOM claiming they had invented the Color Night Vision Technology (all CANVS marking had been removed). Not only was this a direct violation of the Limited Data Rights Clause in the CANVS-SOCOM Contract (a clear breach of contract), it was also confirmed by US Department of State to be an International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Violation to release, discuss, or display Color Night Vision Technology to Foreign Nationals without written permission from the State Department (no authorization had been requested or received into evidence in the case).. 

I got business cards from everyone in the SOCOM Booth and asked permission and then took a picture of the poster. The picture clearly documents both the ITAR Violation and the breach of data rights/breach of the CANVS-SOCOM contract.

September 19, 2011, CANVS files CANVS V SOCOM after over 7 years of trying to settle the matter through the severely broken Administrative Processes.  

These same folks then show up in court and their defense is that the CANVS Color Goggles never worked. These are the same guys (literally the same individuals) who gave CANVS a national award for the work, purchased over a $1,000,000 worth of Color Night Vision Systems from CANVS, and said it was an amazing new capability that they invented. 

A failed attempt by me to talk face-to-face to the Chief Judge at The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) a few weeks ago to discuss the fact that "Justice Delayed, is Justice Denied" resulted in the following exchange of documents.

This request for a Writ from CANVS is asking the Federal Appeals Court to order the ASBCA to render a decision in the liability phase of the case in 30 days (this battle has been ongoing now since 2005):

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

This is the Federal Appeals Court asking the Government for their opinion on the matter:

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

This is the response to the Federal Circuit Court from the Legal Team representing SOCOM:

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

It is a good thing that my superpower is staying calm in the face of criminal insanity.

12 years later, same criminal dirtbags...

As I help my legal team prepare materials for submission in my ongoing (2005 to now) case against US SOCOM (CANVS V SOCOM is a contract dispute in front of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals), even with the finest cigars and scotch on the planet it is hard to stay calm when US Government employees get away with witness and evidence tampering, perjury, liable, slander, and tortious interference of business. Traitorous dirtbags. Sometimes I wish dueling was still legal in my country, but that wouldn't work either because there is not one honorable bone in any of their spineless bodies.

16 years in the making...

Now that's not something you see every day!

It depends on what your definition of the word "an" is...

The Chief Justice of The Court of Federal Claims has rendered a decision reference the meaning of the word "an" in my patent case against Uncle Sam (CANVS V USA). Not only has the law been upheld, it just so happens that it is the proper interpretation, and a decision in my favor.

Here is a link to read the decision for yourself:

ORDER158.pdf

I guess I don't know the meaning of the word "prompt"...

69 Days ago I was at The US Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC in front of the Chief Justice of the Court for oral arguments in the claims construction portion of my patent infringement case against Uncle Sam (CANVS V USA). This case was filed on August 11, 2010. It stems from and ongoing battle that began in 2005 (that is 11 years if you are counting). The only issue remaining (for the claim construction portion of the proceedings) was literally the defination of the word "an". A Federal Court in Florida took two and one half years but finally sided with me (and actually upheld the law) on this issue (when used in a patent, if the word "comprising" is followed by the word "an" it means "one or more"). We are still waiting on the Court of Federal Claims decision on the matter. Once the decision is rendered we will finally get a trial date (most likely August 2016 at the earlyest). Let all that sink in as you ponder the inscription on the wall of the Court behind me and my team in the picture...