Federal Court Orders U.S. Defense Contractor KBR To Stand Trial in Nepali Human Trafficking Case
Published: August 23, 2013
WASHINGTON — After a review of the evidence, a federal court today ordered the Nepali human trafficking case against Houston, Texas-based U.S. defense contractor KBR and its Jordanian subcontractor Daoud & Partners to proceed to trial. A trial date has been set for April 14, 2014. Lead plaintiffs counsel is Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
The case involves 12 Nepali men, ages 18 to 27, who in 2004 were promised safe jobs in Jordan, but were instead involuntarily transported to Iraq. Eleven of the men were captured and killed by insurgents on the way to the U.S. Air Force base where they were to work. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that KBR knowingly violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The Court denied KBR’s motion that argued the plaintiffs did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
In his order, Judge Keith Ellison, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, wrote, “the proffered evidence shows that each man was deceived about his promised job; each man was promised a hotel-related job in Jordan; each man’s family took on significant debt in order to pay recruitment fees; when the men arrived in Jordan, they were subject to threats and harm; their passports were confiscated; and the men were locked into a compound and threatened.” Read the remainder of this entry »
By Ms Sparky | Filed in CHEMICAL AND OTHER EXPOSURES, Civilian Contractors, GOV. CONTRACTORS, Indictments, Convictions & Arrests, KBR, KBR Contract, KBR Investigations, LAWSUITS, Lawsuits Against KBR, LOGCAP III - KBR, Politics, Qarmat Ali Lawsuits, Qui Tam, Reports & Investigations, RIO-KBR, Sodium Dichromate @ Qarmat Ali
NEIL GORDON – (POGO) – November 26, 2012 – November has been a very bad month for defense contractor KBR.
KBR is the federal government’s primary logistics support contractor in Iraq, receiving tens of billions of dollars in business from the Department of Defense over the last decade, much of that under the U.S. Army’s monopolistic Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract.
In early November, an Oregon federal jury returned an $85.2 million verdict against KBR for exposing military personnel to toxic chemicals at an Iraqi water treatment facility in 2003. The jury found that KBR had “acted with reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm and conscious indifference to the health, safety, and welfare” of the plaintiffs. A case raising similar claims is pending in KBR’s hometown of Houston, Texas, and will soon go to trial.
I wonder who comes up with this stuff?
United States Sues Houston-based KBR and Kuwaiti Subcontractor for False Claims on Contracts to House American Troops in Iraq
(DoJ) – November 19, 2012 – The government’s complaint arises from the Bed Down Mission, a push to replace the tents used to house soldiers during the early days of the war with trailers, also called living containers. KBR performed many of the services required under LOGCAP III, including the Bed Down Mission, through foreign and domestic subcontractors. According to the complaint, KBR awarded a subcontract to First Kuwaiti on Oct. 16, 2003, to supply, transport and install 2,252 living containers at Camp Anaconda in Iraq for about $80 million. The government alleges that First Kuwaiti was required to complete delivery and installation of the trailers at Camp Anaconda by Dec. 15, 2003. The government further alleges that in July 2004, First Kuwaiti presented two claims to KBR contending that government-caused delays in providing military escorts for convoys into Iraq entitled the company to an increase in the contract price to cover its increased costs. According to the complaint, KBR agreed to pay First Kuwaiti an additional $48.8 million and passed that cost on to the United States.
The government’s complaint alleges that First Kuwaiti knowingly inflated its crane and truck costs, among other items, and misrepresented the cause of its delays. The complaint further alleges that KBR charged these costs to the United States knowing they were improper.
Read the remainder of this entry »
Not to be mentioned in the KBR trial: Dick Cheney, Erin Brockovich, Agent Orange and ‘Ladies of the Evening’
Mike Francis – (The Oregonian) – September 25, 2012 – One of the duties of a judge overseeing a complicated case is to set rules about what will be discussed in court. Accordingly, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak has told lawyers for 12 Oregon National Guard soldiers and for defense contractor KBR Inc. that there are some things they are not to bring up when the trial begins Oct. 9.
Among them: Dick Cheney, Erin Brockovich, Agent Orange and “Ladies of the Evening.”
Read the remainder of this entry »
Originally posted by Thomas E. Ricks – (Foreign Policy) July 25, 2012
By Col. Larry Wexler (U.S. Army, ret.)
Best Defense department of first person experience
I served i n Iraq from 2008-2009 and served as the deputy program director for LOGCAP Iraq. I was relieved of my duties in March 2009 after having apparently performed them just fine from October 2008 to March 2009. In January my supervisor recommended me for a Bronze Star for the work I was doing. He was stationed at Rock Island and came for a theater visit in February 2009. At no time did he mention any performance issues or his intentions to relieve me of my duties. What had transpired up to that time was I reported fraud, waste, and abuse on the part of the SERCO Management Contract and certain of the contractors and a failure to perform on the part of KBR on their contract. Prior to all this I had served 30 years in the Army in both active and reserve and extended my retirement a year to serve on the LOGCAP contract, had been promoted to Colonel, had command assignments up to 06 level and had attended the U.S. Army War College. I was also mobilized for two years on a joint assignment as the chief of staff of a deployable joint task force headquarters core element. In my civilian career I served as a vice president of corporate infrastructure — essentially purchasing and contracting.