Home » GOV. CONTRACTORS » Archive for category 'RIO-KBR' (Page 2)

Archive for the RIO-KBR Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

We want our $60 billion back!

By Ms Sparky | Filed in A Soldiers Story, Burn Pits, CHEMICAL AND OTHER EXPOSURES, Commission on Wartime Contracting (CWC), Depleted Uranium, Electrocutions/Shocks, Fluor, GOV. CONTRACTORS, LOGCAP III - KBR, LOGCAP IV - KBR, LOGCAP-Dyncorp, LOGCAP-Fluor, Politics, Rape, Hazing, Discrimination & Harassment, Reports & Investigations, RIO-KBR, Security Contractors, Sodium Dichromate @ Qarmat Ali, Trafficking In Persons (TIP) Violations
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

After four years of fighting the good fight and spending countless hours at my computer documenting the rampant Fraud, Waste and Abuse of U.S. tax dollars in the hands of , I have submitted a petition on We the People.

was set up by to take action on important issues facing our country.  I think lying and stealing from the taxpayer is an important issue.  Harming our troops in the name of profit is an important issue. I believe violating the / is an important issue.  I think the powers that be, need to get off their collective asses and hold someone accountable.

If you agree with the contents of the petition, I ask that you please sign it. I believe MsSparky.com readers are as fed up and disgusted with this as I am.  If the petition meets the signature threshold of 25,000 signatures in 30 days,  it will be reviewed by the Administration and an official response will be issued.  Here is the link (Click HERE).

If you are not already registered with We The People, there is a VERY short registration required before you can sign or generate petitions. While you are there, please peruse the list of other petitions and sign those that are important to you and if you have an issue, by all means generate a petition. My petition is below:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Enforce the law by prosecuting the corporations & criminals who have stolen $60 billion from the U.S. taxpayer

The Commission on Wartime Contracting estimates waste and fraud have amounted to as much as $60B during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defense contractors have subjected US military personnel to substandard services, shoddy work and chemical exposure resulting in permanent injury and death.

While the Pentagon may deem egregious behavior as satisfactory and indemnify this negligence as a cost of doing business, we the people do not. We call upon our government to hold accountable the corporate entities and individuals responsible for the heinous acts committed against the citizens of the United States and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

War profiteering has never been so profitable for the wrongdoer and so dangerous for our troops and the taxpayer. (SIGN HERE)

We want out $60 Billion back! And if someone ended up going to jail for it, that would be nice too!

~Ms. Sparky

Tags: , , , , , ,

Judge moves to streamline (Oregon National Guard) soldiers’ case against KBR

By Ms Sparky | Filed in CHEMICAL AND OTHER EXPOSURES, GOV. CONTRACTORS, LAWSUITS, Lawsuits Against KBR, Qarmat Ali Lawsuits, RIO-KBR, Sodium Dichromate @ Qarmat Ali
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

Published: Thursday, February 09, 2012, 2:20 PM     Updated: Thursday, February 09, 2012, 2:33 PM

By Mike Francis, The Oregonian

An unspecified number of the 34 Oregon National Guard soldiers suing contractor KBR Inc. over their exposure to sodium dichromate in Iraq will have their cases set aside when the case goes to trial. The trial in U.S. District Court has been rescheduled for Oct. 9, four months later than the previously scheduled date.

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Paul Papak told lawyers Wednesday in a conference call that 34 plaintiffs would make the case “too unwieldy” for trial, said Jeffrey Eden, a Portland lawyer helping to represent .

As a result, the parties agreed generally on a formula that would let the soldiers’ attorneys choose four plaintiffs, and the defense lawyers and the court another four each. Then those 12 plaintiffs would proceed to a trial, with the remaining plaintiffs’ cases shelved until the first case is resolved.

However, some of those 12 may be dismissed, as their cases for damages are likely to be challenged by KBR before the case reaches trial.

Still to be settled are whether the outcome of the first trial will be binding for the other soldiers currently listed as plaintiffs.

At the same time, Judge Papak continues to consider KBR’s request to dismiss the entire case. He has asked the lawyers for additional information about the expert opinions used in the litigation, so his decision may not come for months, said David Sugerman, a Portland lawyer helping to represent the soldiers.(see original article HERE)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

KBR asks federal judge to dismiss case brought by Oregon soldiers

By Ms Sparky | Filed in A Soldiers Story, CHEMICAL AND OTHER EXPOSURES, GOV. CONTRACTORS, KBR Contract, KBR Investigations, Lawsuits Against KBR, RIO-KBR, Sodium Dichromate @ Qarmat Ali
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

Mike Francis – (The Oregonian) – January 27, 2012 – Lawyers for defense contractor Inc. asked a federal judge in Portland Friday to dismiss the suit brought by a group of soldiers who said the KBR knowingly exposed them to a carcinogenic compound while they served in Iraq in 2003.

U.S. District heard the arguments for two hours Friday morning, then said he would rule on KBR’s request in the coming weeks.

Friday’s arguments, while delivered in calm and measured tones, included some stinging accusations. KBR’s lawyer said the soldiers’ primary medical expert is “a junk scientist who cannot be trusted.” And the soldiers’ lawyer said KBR committed “fraud” in its conduct at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant and in its actions afterward.

While KBR is technically asking the judge to dismiss the entire case brought by 34 Oregon National Guard soldiers, KBR lawyer Geoffrey Harrison of the Houston law firm of Susman Godfrey acknowledged that he expects some subset of the group will survive the legal challenge and proceed toward trial.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Judge allows late documents but penalizes victims in Qarmat Ali suit againt KBR

By Ms Sparky | Filed in A Soldiers Story, CHEMICAL AND OTHER EXPOSURES, GOV. CONTRACTORS, LAWSUITS, Lawsuits Against KBR, Qarmat Ali Lawsuits, Reports & Investigations, RIO-KBR, Sodium Dichromate @ Qarmat Ali
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

Let me get this straight, Judge Papak is allowing to bill the soldiers and surviving family members for legal fees that the taxpayer is obligated to pay because the Pentagon, in their infinite wisdom, gave an indemnity clause in their contract that covers their corporate ass even if the company is proven to be at fault or liable!  If KBR isn’t footing the bill for this litigation in the first place what legal expenses have they incurred?

I have to believe that Judge Papak made this decision based on the letter of the law and to avoid grounds for appeal as this case moves forward.  However, this is the second time a judge has allowed these corporate vultures to collect money from plaintiffs aka victims for legal fees.  You have to know that the merry band of misfits KBR calls managers have added this tidbit to their arsenal of threats right along side “chicken or pasta.”

What’s next,  a “fact sheet” touting how the company is saving the taxpayer money by recouping legal fees from injured soldiers and the survivors of those that have died; at the hands of companies who were hired to serve and protect our warriors serving the United States in a combat zone? ~Ms Sparky

National Guardsmen to Pay for Late Maneuver
Nick McCann – (Courthouse News) – PORTLAND, Ore. – January 4, 2011 – A group of members who say KBR exposed them to toxic at an Iraqi water-treatment plant are on the hook for part of the defense contractor’s legal fees, a federal judge ruled. Read the remainder of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

U.S. Army protects KBR from willfull misconduct in Iraq

By Ms Sparky | Filed in CHEMICAL AND OTHER EXPOSURES, GOV. CONTRACTORS, KBR, KBR Contract, LAWSUITS, Lawsuits Against KBR, Politics, Qarmat Ali Lawsuits, RIO-KBR, Sodium Dichromate @ Qarmat Ali
FacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLinkedInShare

Indemnification clauses are nothing new in defense contracting. Many defense contractors  now have or have had in the past, contracts with the Pentagon containing indemnity provisions. These provisions potentially immunize the contractors from legal accountability for harm caused during the implementation of their contracts. Indemnification clauses are most commonly found in high risk contracts dealing with the manufacture and disposal of hazardous materials for the Pentagon. Most importantly these indemnification clauses are not necessarily “classified” by the Pentagon unlike the indemnification clause that was added to ’s no bid contract to Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) at in Southern Iraq in 2003.

In a deposition filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon in the case of the deadly exposure of  Oregon National Guardsman and others,  it was revealed that on March 18, 2003, the eve of the Iraq invasion, a KBR attorney secured a secret indemnification clause ensuring U.S. taxpayers, and not KBR, would pay for damages in the event of any death or injury which occurred during KBR’s implementation of the Restore Iraqi Oil no-bid contract in Southern Iraq, a contract worth over $2.5B.

The typical defense contractor indemnification provisions (pdf) for defense contracts, entered as Plaintiff’s exhibit #34 in the case against KBR states:

Section (e) – The Contractor shall not be reimbursed for liabilities (and expenses incidental to such liabilities)–

Section (e)(3) – That result from willful misconduct or lack of good faith on the part of any of the Contractor’s directors, officers, managers, superintendents, or other representatives who have supervision or direction of–

(i) All or substantially all of the Contractor’s business;

(ii) All or substantially all of the Contractor’s operations at any one plant or separate locations in which this contract is being performed; or

(iii) a separate and complete major industrial operation in connection with the performance of this contract.

KBR’s recently declassified indemnification provisions (pdf) for the $2.5B no-bid Restore Iraqi Oil contract in Southern Iraq are a stark contrast to the typical indemnification afforded to other defense contractors and states: Read the remainder of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , ,

© 2008-2012 Ms Sparky - MsSparky.com All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright