Total Pageviews

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Sabotaged!

Just another example of the garbage I have had to deal with over the years. This is an exchange from CANVS V SOCOM about a CANVS Color Night Vision Goggle that was tampered with without my knowledge prior to going to be tested by operators!

Mr. Francis Vangel was in charge of all the visual augmentation systems from the head-mounted, handheld and weapon-mounted devices for USASOC. The Defendant called Mr. Vangel as a witness, he testified about a set of CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles sent to him by Kurt Badertscher of SOCOM in April 2007. He spoke of his experience with the goggles in his testimony:

"I just got a snowy GEN 1-2 type of picture which means not good, not clear, not sharp, not high-def resolution. Nothing that I would be interested in. So I started playing with the objective with the diopter settings, with the gain controls and I adjusted everything that I could but I couldn't see any color."

Prior to Mr. Vangel taking the stand, while I was on the stand he inspected the CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles produced into evidence by the Defendant. I testified that one of the goggles had filters not supplied by CANVS, and that a goggle configured with the two identical LIF filters that were on the goggle as entered into evidence by the Defendant would not function properly. I then removed the incorrect filters that were on the objective lenses, and replaced them with the proper optical elements provided by CANVS that were originally shipped with the goggle.

Under cross examination, looking through the same CANVS Color Night Vision Goggle that he originally examined in 2007 with the wrong filters, this is what Mr. Vangel testified to after looking through the same goggle but with the proper filters as delivered with the goggle by CANVS:

Q Do you see any colors in the flag behind the Judge?
A Yes, sir.
Q Excuse me, what?
A I see red, I see white and then I see black for the -- you know, I know it's blue because it's a flag but I see black. But I do see red and white. And then the -- you know, the background of the stars is black to me. Based on what I saw here I would say that the performance of the tubes that I saw (in 2007 with the wrong filters on the objective lenses) was lesser than these tubes" (note the goggle and tubes were identical, just the correct front end filters were on the goggle after I fixed it earlier while was on the stand)

I do not know if the incorrect optics were placed on the CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles sent to Mr. Vangel intentionally or by accident, what is known is that by placing two identical LIF filters not supplied by CANVS on the goggle; the device was effectively sabotaged resulting in no possibility of demonstrating a color night vision capability.

I couldn't resist, enjoy: Sabotage (Beastie Boys)

National Security

There was an exchange during my testimony in the CANVS V SOCOM case in front of the ASBCA that really pissed me off. It highlights a total lack of understanding or a willful attempt to get me in trouble by the lead defense attorney representing SOCOM. Here is the excerpt from the court transcript:

"I asked Mr. Walkenstein has he ever held a national security clearance since he left the Army. The answer is no. And so to that degree he has had conversations with Special Forces, intelligence community, et cetera. But in all those dealings it was not under national security. There may be sensitivities to the organization or to the agency, and Mr. Walkenstein refused to chat about these various people based upon his own belief he needs to protect the national security. He's under no obligation to protect the national security and this is very difficult to understand why we would not discuss Mr. ********** (Redacted) in open conversation."

First let me point out that the very same attorney that said this entered into evidence materials that clearly showed that his "the answer is no" comment is not true. I have been around lawyers too long, because I was wondering what law says that you have to obey the law? Here is the answer:

Article 14 Section 1 of The Constitution establishes that every citizen of The United States is under the jurisdiction of the law.

In edition to having to obey the law because I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America, I also took an oath of office when I entered the enlisted ranks of the US Army, and again when I earned the rank of Warrant Officer. Here is the oath:

United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office:
I, Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Please notice that there is no expiration date on this oath. I am also bound by numerous laws related to the re-transmission of sensitive and or classified materials to protect National Security. Specific examples of some of the related laws include:

  • Executive Order 12356 (April 2, 1982; Ronald Reagan)
  • Executive Order 12958 (April 17, 1995; Bill Clinton)
  • Executive Order 13292 (March 21, 2003; George W. Bush)
  • The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97–200, 50 U.S.C. §§ 421–426) [This is the basis in law for Mr. Walkenstein hesitance to discuss Mr. ********** (Redacted)

The Defendant is wrong; Mr. Walkenstein is bound by Oath and Law to protect the national security of The United States.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

FOIA Pong, US Department of State Edition


Time once again for what I call, "FOIA Pong", US Department of State Edition. So on 24SEP15 I sent a FAX to the Department of State Freedom of Information Act Office (Ping). Today I get a letter dated 16OCT15 and post marked 19OCT15, this is a very fast response in my experience. They said, "You may wish to review The Department of State's Touhy regulations at 22 C.F.R. 172 concerning production of documents in court cases." "we can not begin processing your request at this time". They did assign a case control number. F-2015-14960 (Pong).

So after actually reading 22 C.F.R 172 I sent them this:

Thank you for your initial response.

You may wish to review Department of States "Touhy" Regulations, 22 CFR 172 172.1 (e) states:

"Nothing in this part affects disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)"

I am requesting this information to confirm that no criminal ITAR violations have occured. I have contacted the FBI Miami Office and reported what I believe may be criminal violations of the economic espionage act, and ITAR. I need your help in determining if in fact any ITAR violations did occur. I can not properly execute my duty as ITAR Compliance Officer for my company without your response to Case Control Number F-2015-14960.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If I do not get a satisfactory response from your office by FR 30OCT15, I will be happy to discuss the matter with the Office of the Inspector General.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein 
President CANVS Corporation

Let us see how long they take to Pong!

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

The Invisible Accountant...


The difference between Transparency in Government and Unicorns? There may be some fossil record of Unicorns!

Forensic accounting hacking these last few weeks, my brain hurts!

Let us compare the numbers from two Government Sources (Part of the mandate BY LAW according to the Transparency In Government Act):

1) https://www.fpds.gov

2) https://www.usaspending.gov

We will be looking at three contracts:

1) W91CRB-10-C-0177

2) W91CRB-10-C-0178

3) W91CRB-10-C-0179

First let's look at the numbers according to https://www.fpds.gov:

Contract Award Number: W91CRB-10-C-0177 = $115,551,120.74

Contract Award Number: W91CRB-10-C-0178 = $16,678,399.50

Contract Award Number: W91CRB-10-C-0179 = $180,065,553.11

Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation Web Page Total = $312,295,073.35

Now let's look at the numbers for these same contracts according to https://www.fbo.gov/:

Contract Award Number:W91CRB-10-C-0177 = $260,740,775.44

Contract Award Number: W91CRB-10-C-0178 = $255,338,695.61

Contract Award Number: W91CRB-10-C-0179 = $257,412,786.74

Federal Business Opportunities Web Page Total = $773,492,257.79

And for symmetry, let us see what the Department of Justice reported for these three contracts to the Chief Justice of The Court of Federal Claim in my case, CANVS V USA:

Contract Award Number: W91CRB-10-C-0177 = $102,992,596.00

Contract Award Number: W91CRB-10-C-0178 = $16,104,000.00

Contract Award Number: W91CRB-10-C-0179 = $161,422,561.20

DOJ reported total = $280,519,157.20

Only in the US Government can $280,519,157.20 be the same as $312,295,073.35 and the same as $773,492,257.79.

Just for the record, the difference between the DOJ numbers and the fbo.gov numbers is $492,973,100.59! So far I seem to be the only person expressing any concern, I will let you know if anyone shares my interest in this disparity going forward.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Common Core Math, stupidity, or good old fashioned deceit?

Lindsay K. Eastman was ordered by the Chief Justice of The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (in the case of CANVS V USA) to produce procurement details on the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle Program(s). Below is a table of numbers provided by the Department of Justice, and numbers found by CANVS online:

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4&s=FPDS&q=W91CRB05D0012&x=0&y=0

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?s=FPDS&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4&q=W91CRB10C0177

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?s=FPDS&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4&q=W91CRB10C0178

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?s=FPDS&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4&q=W91CRB10C0179

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?s=FPDS&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4&q=W91CRB10C0322

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4&s=FPDS&q=W91CRB14D0010&x=0&y=0

https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?s=FPDS&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4&q=W91CRB14D0011

Contract Number                DOJ $                      CANVS $

W91CRB05D0012     $116,821,720.00        $142,422,546.75

W91CRB10C0177     $102,992,506.00        $115,552,009.06

W91CRB10C0178       $16,104,000.00           $16,727296.11

W91CRB10C0179     $161,422,561.20        $180,065,554.41

W91CRB10C0322         $3,826,900.00          $16,198,245.00

W91CRB14D0010       $22,786,527.00          $39,025,077.06

W91CRB14D0011       $20,141,627.90          $34,378,934.06

___________________________________________________________

Totals                         $444,095,842.10        $544,369,662.45

 

                                            DOJ is short by $100,273,820.35


LINDSAY K. EASTMAN 
Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone:  (202) 305-3075
Facsimile:  (202) 307-0345
Email: Lindsay.K.Eastman@usdoj.gov

Footnote: 23OCT15 I was informed that Lindsay K. Eastman was removed by The Department of Justice as lead attorney on the case.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

CANVS V SOCOM Week 1

The first week of CANVS V SOCOM is complete. Will advise as the proceedings unfold.

Friday, March 20, 2015

SOCOM Lawyers for CANVS V SOCOM

As taxpayers, I thought you might be interested in seeing who the Government is paying to represent SOCOM against my Veteran Owned Small Business in CANVS V SOCOM.


Chun-I Chaing
Patent Attorney, Intellectual Property Litigation
Commercial Law & Litigation Directorate
Air Force Legal Operations Agency
1500 West Perimeter Road Suite 1780
Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762
Phone: (240) 612-6641 (DSN 612)
FAX: (240) 612-4347 (DSN 612)

Joel B. Lofgren
Trial Attorney
Air Force Legal Operations Agency
Commercial Litigation Field Support Center