View Full Version : a disadvantaged small-business owner ?

09-02-2011, 11:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WASHINGTON — Six years after Hurricane Katrina, a relative of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour was found by a federal court to have masterminded a massive fraud against the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the inspection of the legendary trailers that housed storm refugees along the Gulf Coast.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims found last week that Rosemary Barbour's company, Jackson, Miss.,-based <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Alcatec LLC, had engaged in a fraudulent billing scheme as part of a $100 million, five-year maintenance contract with FEMA.</span>

She was ordered to pay more than $350,000 in penalties and damages. In often colorful language, the judge described the testimony of Rosemary Barbour during an eight-day trial in May in Jackson as "exasperating" and "bumble-headed."

Rosemary Barbour, the company's sole owner, is the wife of the governor's nephew, Charles Barbour, a former Hinds County supervisor who last week lost a Mississippi Senate GOP primary.

But of course, politically-connected wrongdoers never serve jail time, as we've all learned. This 2005 New York Times story's pretty interesting:

"PASS CHRISTIAN, Miss., Dec. 6 - Rosemary Barbour happens to be married to a nephew of Mississippi's governor, Haley Barbour. Since the Reagan administration, when Mrs. Barbour worked as a White House volunteer as a college student, she has been active in the Republican Party.

She also happens to be one of the biggest Mississippi-based winners of federal contracts for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts.

To some contract watchdogs, this could be an example of how the federal government responsibly reached out to give a piece of the billions of dollars in federal hurricane-recovery work to a small Mississippi-based company owned by a Latina. Mrs. Barbour, 39, who was born in Guatemala but now lives in Jackson, Miss., <span style='font-size: 14pt'>is certified by the United States Small Business Administration as <u>a disadvantaged small-business owner</u></span>." </div></div>

read on (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/gov-barbours-disadvantaged-relative-f)

What, no jail time!


09-03-2011, 02:18 AM

PUNK'D again. (http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MILLERC.ALCATEC082411.pdf)

There was no jail time because it was a civil suit where ALCATEC sued the US.

The judge in essence ruled that ALCATEC couldn't prove that the US owed it money ... and the penalties and damages was "for its portion of the analysis that aided the
presentation of evidence."

Furthermore the judge stated "could not provide the court an
accurate total figure for overpayments, the Government has not proved its entitlement to recover monies erroneously paid, as the court cannot find the amount owed, see Def.’s Br. filed July 7, 2011"

That what happens when you get your "TRUTH" from crooks & liars.

09-03-2011, 11:08 AM
That bears a little resemblance to the truth, but not entirely.

The judge in essence ruled that ALCATEC couldn't prove that the US owed it money

Not at all! The judge ruled on the government's COUNTER CLAIM AND COUNTER SUIT affirmative defense under the Fraud Claims Act (FCA), that any fraudulent claim proven to be such in part is forfeit in its entirety. The judge agreed that fraud had taken place, threw out ALCATEC's claim of owed money, and then ruled on what should happen from that point forward.

and the penalties and damages was "for its portion of the analysis that aided the presentation of evidence."

Er, not exactly, because there was something else, related to the fraud that was proven.

From about page 36 or so:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Government seeks an $11,000.00 penalty under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) for each of the seven invoices found to violate the FCA. Def.’s Br. filed July 7, 2011, at 35. Given
the reckless nature of plaintiff’s billing, the court agrees, and awards the Government $77,000.00 in penalties. </div></div>

This amount is the statutory limit under the FCA, after having been raised from the original $10,000 maximum per violation.

Your attempt to whitewash any fraud having taken place is fairly convincing, but only when the ruling isn't read.

Listed under CONCLUSIONS:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Government proved by clear and convincing evidence plaintiff’s fraudulent scheme to manipulate the dates on PMI checklists that ultimately formed the basis of claims against the Government and that called for the forfeiture of plaintiff’s claim for phase-in costs.</div></div>

In other words, your claim that anyone was punked by the Crooks and Liars is an attempt by you to punk the truth.

The plaintiff WAS found to have committed a fraud, had to forfeit its entire claim because of this fraud, was fined the maximum amount of civil penalty under the fraud act, and THEN, the government received additional monies for its pro-rata part of its investigative costs (as again, set forth under the Fraud Claims Act). That these investigative costs were awarded to the government and charged to ALCATEC was BECAUSE of the finding of fraud, and pursuant to the FCA penalties.

09-03-2011, 12:59 PM
Back to reality:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"the Government has not proved its entitlement to recover monies erroneously paid, as the court cannot find the amount owed"</span>

09-03-2011, 03:20 PM
Look, it should be obvious I read the ruling, and I know exactly what was said about this. Your bluff is bold, but still doesn't work here.

For the judge mentioned TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS that the federal government said was owed. If there were two different numbers, evidently the federal government didn't nail the figure down in a definitive way.

In two different places in their filing, they showed numbers of about the same amount of money, differing by about <s>$400</s> $488 dollars in a sum of <s>$176,000</s> $203,000 and some change.

So it wasn't that the judge found no over-billings had been done, or no fraud committed. The judge found 7 instances of fraud were proven, and awarded the maximum penalty under law for each one ($11,000 x 7 = $77,000). It's just that the government did not provide a single number, and prove it, as to the over-billed and over-paid amount.

From the ruling:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Defendant also seeks $412,575.12 in investigative costs representing Navigant’s expert costs, and $203,008.00 in damages representing the amount of the improper billings. Id. However, Navigant did not tie each of the categories listed in its summary of findings, DX 1 at 1.31, to specific invoices and failed to provide evidence and records as to the total net amount overpaid after FEMA extended credits. In fact, defendant continually changed the amount that it claimed that FEMA overpaid Alcatec. Compare Def.’s Br. filed July 7, 2011, at 35 (claiming $203,008.00 in overpayments to Alcatec), with
DX 1 at 1.31 (asserting $203,496.00 in overpayments to Alcatec). While Navigant provided the basis for determining each invoice false, it did not provide a coherent damages analysis. See Tr. at 1513 (Reighard) (requiring redirect examination to correct misstatements made during cross-examination regarding Navigant’s ultimate summary of damages recorded in DX 1 at 1.31). The evidence does not give the court confidence in the total amount of overpayments alleged, and, as such, the court declines to award other damages. Accordingly, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(3), the court awards part of defendant’s
investigative costs for the analysis that Navigant performed in aid of establishing FCA liability and that was used in assessing Alcatec’s penalties. Navigant’s analysis revealed that Alcatec billed FEMA $143,960.00 in duplicate PMIs and PMIs less than fourteen days apart, DX 1 at 1.31, the two categories that formed the basis of Alcatec’s FCA liability. This amount also constitutes over two-thirds of the overall amount of the $203,008.00 that 36 defendant claims as overpayments. Therefore, the court awards defendant two-thirds of its claimed investigative costs, or $275,050.00, for its portion of the analysis that aided the presentation of evidence. 15/</div></div>

Gayle in MD
09-03-2011, 06:35 PM
Now you've proven him wrong, you will probably get one of his idiotic cartoons.

Love your summation in my quote above, of all of his posts...fits every single one I'm sure.....all 20,158 of his flushable fantasies of self praise and delusion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">an attempt by you to punk the truth.


Isn't that always the case?

09-03-2011, 06:46 PM
Your deflection skills are improving grasshopper.

That does not hide the fact that snoopy's implication was that there should have been jail time in a civil case.

What I pointed out was that it was a civil case ... and not a particularly successful one.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled delusion.

09-04-2011, 12:04 PM
True, it was a civil fraud matter, carrying no criminal penalties, just fines.

However, it was a most successful one, as an affirmative defense and counter-suit. It seems unsuccessful only because the maximum penalty for each proven count of fraud is so relatively small ($11,000 for each one x 7 counts proven).

However, in the original lawsuit, the plaintiff sought reimbursement for close to $4 million dollars. They got nothing, and instead had to pay well into six figures.

09-05-2011, 06:12 PM
Go lapdog go!!!


09-06-2011, 02:31 AM
At least I know you still care enough to have read each and every one of them dearheart.

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 09:37 AM
We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late!