David Isenberg: Gun? Check. Radio? Check. Lawyer? Check!

Posted on:
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

David Isenberg – (Huffington Post) – January 20, 2012 – Some things just seem to go together: day and night, bread and butter, Romeo and Juliet, Abbott and Costello, Crosby and Hope, Batman and Robin, Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, Cheech and Chong, Sonny and Cher, Beavis and Butthead and sharks and suckerfish (remora) for example. In light of that last pair, another symbiotic pair is private military and security contractors and lawyers.

When historians try to calculate the various benefits that the past decade of privatized contingency operations has brought, one hopes they won’t forget to include the huge number of billable hours that various law firms representing various plaintiffs and defendants have amassed. Firms like , and DynCorp alone have doubtlessly enabled scores of lawyers to pay for their children’s education all the way up through doctorates.

For example, earlier this month the security company once known as Blackwater, now , agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by six victims or their families in the Sept. 16, 2007 shootings in Baghdad’s Nisoor Square, an incident that remains a lightning rod over the use of private contractors in war.

According to Charlotte, North Carolina law firm Lewis & Roberts, who represented the victims in this case, the lawsuit was the “last active civil suit stemming from the incident,” in which five Blackwater guards were accused in 14 deaths of civilians.

Also this month the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (), announced that DynCorp International, a Falls Church, Va.-based private military contractor and aircraft maintenance company, will pay $155,000 and furnish other significant relief to settle a sex-based harassment and retaliation lawsuit.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

KBR, Halliburton Won’t Face Trial in Iraq Convoy Driver Deaths, Court Says

Posted on:
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Margaret Cronin Fisk - Jan 12, 2012 3:55 PM CT

(Bloomberg News) – Co. (HAL), won’t face a jury on claims they sent unarmed civilian convoy drivers into an Iraqi battle zone in 2004, knowing the workers would be injured or killed, an appeals court ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans today ruled the drivers’ claims were blocked by the , a U.S. law that shields military contractors from lawsuits. The drivers were attacked and injured because of their role in support operations for the U.S. Army, which is covered under that statute, the judges said.

“Coverage of an injury under the DBA precludes an employee from recovering from his employer,” even if the worker claims the company was “substantially certain” the injuries would occur, U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla R. Owen said in a 30-page ruling by the panel.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

KBR Driver Prevails in Suit Over Convoy Danger in Iraq

Posted on:
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

Settles Suit Over Driver’s Claim Company Knew of Danger to Iraq Convoy

By Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Brubaker Calkins – Jan 10, 2012 10:17 AM PT

KBR Inc. (KBR) settled a lawsuit brought by an injured convoy driver who claimed the company sent civilians into a battle zone in Iraq in 2004 knowing they would be attacked and possibly killed, according to a court filing.

, the driver, reached a “confidential settlement” with KBR and its former parent, Co. (HAL), his lawyer, , said yesterday in court papers. Lane and the defendants asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the filing.

“Lane was severely injured in the attack, and his wife died during the pendency of the case,” Fibich said today in a phone interview. He declined to comment further on the settlement, citing the confidentiality agreement.

KBR, a Houston-based government contractor, was also sued by the families of seven drivers who were killed in Iraq. The company is appealing a ruling by U.S. District in Houston allowing the suits to go forward. The other claims haven’t been settled, Scott Allen, a lawyer for the families, said today in a phone interview.

, a KBR spokeswoman, didn’t immediately comment on the settlement with Lane, which was reached in late December, according to appeals court records. Beverly Stafford, a Halliburton spokeswoman, didn’t immediately respond to a call or e-mail seeking comment on the settlement.

Recruited Workers
The drivers and their families claim KBR officials fraudulently recruited workers for safe jobs in Iraq and intentionally sent unarmed civilians into a recognized combat zone in April 2004. The military-supply contract gave company officials the right to refuse assignments deemed too dangerous for civilians, according to the complaints. (Read the rest of the story here…)

KBR wants Good Friday Massacre suit tossed

Posted on:
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

Appeals court asked to toss suits in convoy deaths

(The Associated Press) – NEW ORLEANS – July 7, 2011 – A long-running suit over insurgent ambushes that killed civilian truck drivers in Iraq is back in a federal appeals court.

and former subsidiary Inc. are accused of knowingly sending supply convoys into a dangerous area where six drivers were killed and several others wounded in April 2004.

A federal judge ruled in March 2005 that most the suits can go to trial, though he said it’s unclear whether the defense contractors sent convoys knowingly into harm’s way.

Halliburton and KBR asked a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to toss out the ruling Thursday. The companies contend the claims are not subject to litigation and are covered instead by a federal workers’ compensation law.

The panel didn’t indicate when it would rule. (Click HERE for original article)

David Isenberg: KBR Gives Uncle Sam the One Finger Salute

Posted on:
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

David Isenberg – July 3, 2010 – Let’s take a brief look at the world of rent a generals. Specifically, Lt. Gen. Sanchez. (USA-Ret.). Gen. Sanchez had a distinguished Army career and honorably served his country. He was the highest-ranking Hispanic in the United States Army when he retired on November 1, 2006.

Those who can remember past yesterday will recall that he served as the V Corps commander of coalition forces in Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004. While his time as commander was not without controversies ( hostile relations with Paul Bremer, torture scandal at Abu Ghraib, development of the Iraq insurgency) I assume he did the best he could.

For most retired officers that would have been enough. But evidently not for Gen. Sanchez. Evidently he felt the need to continue the fight; only now against U.S. civilians and injured veterans.

In February it was reported that the U.S. Army was trying to stop him from continuing to be an expert for in a lawsuit against it over civilian truck driver deaths and injuries.

Sanchez is being paid $650 an hour and has reviewed documents and written a report that support’s KBR’s contention it should not be held legally responsible for the deaths of six civilian truck drivers and the injuries of others in a 2004 ambush in Iraq. (Read the rest of the story here…)

In desperation KBR attorneys attempted to “encourage” Army to reconsider

Posted on:
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

So...just what kind a person does it take to be a attorney?

On February 23, 2010 the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge sent a letter to the Army on behalf of their client KBR. The letter was entitled:

Re:  Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Use of LGEN (Ret.) Ricardo S. Sanchez as Expert Witness

Apparently the Army’s recent decision to not allow LGEN (Ret.) Ricardo S. Sanchez to supply expert testimony on KBR’s behalf didn’t sit well.

I first blogged about LGEN Sanchez testimony in March but didn’t have the letter at that time. I have it now and am disturbed at the sheer level of arrogance of KBR’s attorneys.

I am not going reprint the entire three page letter in this post. If you want to read it in it’s entirety click HERE. I am going to highlight what I consider to be the most disturbing and desperate statements in the letter followed by my Ms Sparky (snarky) interpretation. (Read the rest of the story here…)

Wheels of justice turning slowly in deadly KBR convoy case

Posted on:
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

Oops he lost his cap and lanyard

Judge permits convoy ambush trial, but delays it

By TOM FOWLER HOUSTON CHRONICLE – March 25, 2010
A federal judge ruled today that most of the lawsuits claiming Houston-based should have stopped a deadly 2004 truck convoy in Iraq can move toward trial, but a May 24 trial date is off to allow time to file an appeal.

The case centers on April 2004 attacks on a convoy of supply trucks KBR ran in Iraq, during which six civilian truck drivers were killed and 14 wounded.

The drivers caught in the ambush were delivering fuel under KBR’s multibillion-dollar contract to transport supplies, build bases, serve meals and provide other support services for American troops in the Middle East.

Plaintiffs in the Houston lawsuits — two injured workers and the family of one who was killed in the attack — allege that the company knew of the likelihood of the attacks in advance and had the authority to cancel the convoys.

U.S. District previously dismissed the collection of lawsuits, saying the U.S. Army had control over KBR and thus KBR wasn’t responsible.

(Read the rest of the story here…)