Iraq contractor Custer Battles sued for fraud. Defense: CPA never existed!

Here’s a strange case indeed: Custer Battles, one of many private companies working as a contractor on Iraq’s reconstruction, has been accused recently of targeting and brutalizing Iraqi civilians. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/:

That’s enough to give one pause, but now there’s a new development: Two former employees are suing Custer Battles on behalf of the U.S. government. They charge that CB defrauded the U.S. government of millions, filing inflated claims for non-existent services. Surprisingly, the government is showing no interest in recovering its money. Stranger still is Custer Battles’ defense: The False Claims Act does not apply, and the U.S. government has no jurisdiction here, because it was Iraqi money, and the Coalition Provisional Authority, which disbursed it, never had any legal existence!

From an interview with the litigants on the Democracy Now radio show, 3/1/05, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/01/1521200:

Sometimes "WTF?! :eek: " doesn’t begin to cover it.

Issues for debate:

  1. Is there any merit to CB’s legal defenses, to wit, that the CPA never existed, and the money they’re accused of stealing was not property of the U.S. government?

  2. Why is the government itself not aggressively pursuing this claim? It’s their (our) money, isn’t it?

Whether or not the CPA was established is an academic question, but Congress established, by law, an Inspector General for the CPA. In addition, the CPA issued binding declarations that created laws for Iraq. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

Utter hijack, but “Custer Battles” is an awful name for a company supplying armed contractors? Isn’t that a bit like “Titanic Shipping” or “Hindenburg Aeronautics”?

If you didn’t like to a real news source, I’d almost think this was satire based on that alone.

There’s a couple reasons the government hasn’t opined yet on whether it wants to join the suit. For one, it’s almost always late to the game in False Claims Act and other qui tam suits – frankly, they’re just not very good at it and never has been.

The bigger one is that the CPA is indeed somewhat difficult to categorize in terms of whether the US has jurisdiction in a suit like this. If Custer Battles were contracting directly with the military, it’s a no-brainer (at least to that narrow question) – the US would have jurisdiction. If they had contracted with the recently-elected Iraqi transitional government, it’s also a no-brainer – the US would not. That would be the case even if the fraud were committed to get “our” money, because once we give it to Iraq it’s not “ours” anymore. Same if, say, Israel wanted to recover money from Lockheed Martin for overcharging for fighter jets or whatever. We give money to Israel and they buy American fighters, but if Israel thinks LMT overcharged them that’s between them and the company. The CPA was kind of neither fish nor fowl. The US clearly created it, but once created was it a US government agency or was it Iraqi?

Assuming for the sake of argument that the allegations against Custer Battle are correct, I think the ideal situation would be if the Iraqi transitional government, as successor to the CPA, could take action to recover any improperly obtained funds. But as with so much in wartime, ideal in this case may also turn out to be idealistic. Given the circumstances, added to the fact that there are about a million other, more important consequences to the US making a determination of its view of CPA’s status, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that the government asked for some more time to think about it.

Well, it’s named for two people. Michael Battles and Scott Custer. But they pronounce it “Throat Warbler Mangrove.”

Did the extraterratoriality bill, initiative, exec order or whatever not make it onto paper?
There doesn’t seem to be much recent mention of it:

Or “Coalition of the Willing”? That’s not a name for a military alliance, that’s a name for a curiously highbrow porn film! :smiley:

Ah yes, the CPA and its dubious origins. Back when the CPA was running Iraq, a number of lefty bloggers were asking the same question - exactly what legal authorization does the CPA have? Nobody was able to come up with a definitive answer; the trail did seem to point to that secret Presidential authorization that nobody got to see.

Yet there it was, clearly acting on behalf of the US government. The UN certified the US’ authority as occupiers; the CPA was clearly operating under that grant as the agent of the US Executive Branch, with funding from Congress. Whether anyone can find a piece of paper saying it had the legal authority to do what it did is beside the point; it was acting in every way as the agent of the Bush Administration in running the ‘reconstruction’ of Iraq.

But the Bush Administration’s reluctance to try to recover money from US contractors in Iraq doesn’t surprise me one bit. These are their buddies, and they can get away with not cracking down on them. Politics is the art of the possible, and the Bushies have created a brave new world in which a great deal is possible that didn’t used to be.

Yes - note the howls of outrage from the fiscal conservatives here. :wink:

So, did Paul Bremmer really exist? Because he did always appear just too ludicrous to be an actual person…

Look at the puppy!

Well, Bush & Co. are no amateurs when it comes to screwing the pooch . . . :wink:

Update, from Mother Jones Magazine, 2/25/05 http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/02/custer_battles.html:

:mad:

So sad; the Democrats so weakened themselves, they can’t go all Giuliani-like when it comes to fraud on part of Republican bigwigs.

:confused: Eh? Do you mean the Dems have “weakened themselves” by losing control of both houses of Congress, or that they have somehow forfeited their own credibility WRT fraud?

I, for one, would like to welcome the USA to the long standing Sub-American tradition of Republican (banana variety) goverment. :rolleyes:

Oh you sweet little innocent. :wink: You really thought that this might somehow not turn out to be the Democrat’s fault? Bless. :smiley:

I suggest a “confused” smiley would be more appropriate.

What, in that article, relates to “CB’s legal defenses, to wit, that the CPA never existed, and the money they’re accused of stealing was not property of the U.S. government?”

As you framed the OP, that was the key question: if the CPA had no legal existence as a US government agency, then all the rest of the allegations, whether they involve forged invoices, the torture of puppies, or little girls’ dollies being stolen and burned, are not US crimes.

Your OP’s second question for debate is dependent on your first. If the CPA was not a US government agency, then it really wasn’t our money - it was money lawfully given to the CPA, who then, apparently, wasted it.

So apart from manhattan’s cogent analysis of the situation, there has been precious little intelligent commentary in this thread on that question.

The Mother Jones article does claim that, “back in November 2003,” the President signed an executive order declaring the CPA an entity of the United States government. Unfortunately for them, the only executive order signed in November 2003 establishes the Presidential Management Fellows Program, which is intended to attract stars from academic world to public service. Perhaps Mother Jones believes that the President planned to send a bunch of PhDs over to govern Iraq.

Also fascinating that the two sources running hard with this story are “Mother Jones” and “Democratic Underground.” No bias there.

But hey - the truth is the truth, bias or no. What evidence is there to support a charge, under the law, that the CPA was a government agency?

Well who’s baby is it? Are you seriously contending the CPA was not a US Govt agency set up by the Bush regime? Maybe a particularly large tooth fairy deposited it in Iraq? Are you seriously arguing that if an agency is set up without legal authority it can steal or misuse what it likes with no right of opposition?

Is there nothing apologists can’t explain away? No outrage, no regret, just legalistic pinhead dancing. I think this is the moment when I truly realised how morally bankrupt conservatism really is. But that depends I suppose, on the meaning of the word ‘is’. :rolleyes:

Seventh paragraph in the article, fourth in the excerpt.

:rolleyes: You are missing, or deliberately obfuscating, the point. Regardless of whether the courts decide this case falls under U.S. jurisdiction, it is definitely U.S. business, being a case of somebody defrauding our government of public monies – still money out of your pocket and mine, even if it passed through the hands of the CPA – an organization essentially created by the Administration and staffed by presidential appointees. I mean, who gave Paul Bremer his job?

If you’re unclear about what the CPA was and what was its relationship to the U.S. government, you’re not alone. Congress is unclear. From a report of the Congressional Research Service, 4/29/04 – Foreign Press Centers - United States Department of State (PDF file):

But legalities aside, the CPA undoubtedly was, in effect, both a creation and an instrument of the Bush Administration. If its status is nebulous – and that nebulosity is now costing the U.S. taxpayers money obtained by fraud and making it impossible to recover it – that’s nobody’s fault but the Admin’s, is it? They’re the ones who built this Chinese wall. And you seem to be saying, Bricker, that so long as the wall holds, we have no business bitching about where our money went. Horseshit.

“A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.” – Will Rogers