Thomas M. Ubl, Plaintiff/Relator/Whistleblower and Private Attorney General in the case of Ubl v IIF
Data Solutions, Inc. with multiple counts of perjury and misrepresentations made to the U.S. Eastern District
Court located in Alexandria, Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit located in Richmond,
Virginia. Misrepresentations and perjury to include assertions made regarding debarment requests, automatic
debarment policies and damage calculation amounts that resulted in the breach of an $8.9 million dollar
settlement ($11 million inclusive of interest), which in part represented recovered tax dollars destine for the
In the case of Ubl v IIF Data Solutions:
- An $11 million dollar settlement, inclusive of interest, was offered by the defendants Charles R. Patten, Sr. and IIF Data Solutions, Inc., and accepted by the Whistleblower, Thomas M. Ubl.
- The settlement was constructed and executed in chambers as facilitated by Judge Liam O’Grady’s Magistrate Judge, T. Rawles Jones of the U.S. Eastern District Court located in Alexandria,VA.
- The settlement was witnessed by Richard Sponseller an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
- Defendants Charles R. Patten, Sr. and IIF Data Solutions, Inc., started to make settlement payments in the cumulative sum of $1.5 million.
Evidence: Settlement Agreement
- On March 24, 2009, defense attorney Jason N. Workmaster notified the court that Charles R. Patten, Sr. and IIF Data Solutions would be withdrawing the $1.5 million Charles R. Patten, Sr. and IIF Data Solutions had deposited as a partial payment made towards satisfaction of settlement and was not going to pay anymore.
- Workmaster asserted there were new regulations that resulted in automatic referral for debarment. Reference page 2, paragraph 4.
Evidence: Breach of Settlement Notification
- Ubl and counsel filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
- IIF defense attorney Chris I. Kachuroff attested, subject to perjury, that he was informed by Mr. Brian Persico, an Army Procurement Fraud Attorney, that former Congressman, and at the time lead attorney for Ubl, Alan Grayson had submitted a debarment request.
- Kachouroff further detailed in his version of the phone calls a “back peddling” by Persico that was contrary to their initial phone call.
- Kachouroff by his own admission recognized, as contained in item 8 of Exhibit 12, that an official Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response from Persico stated that neither Ubl nor his counsel ever filed a debarment request.
Evidence: Exhibit 12
- Another defense attorney, Robert Cynkar, during the settlement enforcement hearing, repeatedly accused Ubl of being a liar on the basis that a debarment request was filed against IIF Data Solutions.
- Cynkar's oral argument came three months after, and with full knowledge of, Kachuroff’s Exhibit 12.
- Cynkar had a full state of awareness of Exhibit 12 and knew that a debarment request by Ubl or any of his counsel never occurred.
Evidence: Hearing Transcript
- Most recently all of IIF's defense counsel continue to propagate their false statements, misrepresentations, notions of debarment and automatic debarment, also commonly referred to as bold face lies, in their response brief to Ubl’s appeal that was recently heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit Court located in Richmond, VA, on January 25, 2011, Reference Case 09-2280.
- During the appeal hearing defense attorney Duane vehemently asserted accusation after accusation that debarment was automatic and that Ubl had made damage claims in the amount of $300 million all of which was regurgitate before the court, guised as the truth and proffered as fact, when in reality it was just that, regurgitation.
- Unfortunately, IIF defense counsel was unaware that Ubl submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the National Guard Bureau who in their formal response concluded that there was no debarment request ever received by Tom Ubl or Alan Grayson.
- What the defense counsel also did not know was that Ubl had a phone call with Army Procurement Fraud Attorney, Persico. Persico told Ubl “Kachouroff grossly mischaracterized, fabricated and invented what Persico had conveyed to Kachouroff.”
- Ubl compiled a Record of Discussion and forwarded it to Persico for review with instructions to edit anything contained in the record that was not accurately reflected. Persico made no changes.
- Ubl was also informed by the Chief of the Army Procurement Fraud Branch, Ms. Christine McCommas, that the governing regulations Army Procurement Fraud Branch were required to follow regarding debarment had been in effect since September 19, 1994 and that there were no new regulations or any means for the Army Procurement Fraud Branch to automatically debar a contractor.
IIF Data Solutions defense counsel lied. There was never a
debarment request submitted by Ubl or his counsel. There are no new
auotmatic debarment policies. Ubl never claimed $300 million in
damages and further contests that his statement of $140 million during
the lower court trial was referring to total sales made by IIF Data
Solutions for the period of fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2009.
DEFENSE COUNSEL CONTACT INFORMATION
James J. Duane
Regent University School of Law
1000 Regent University Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23464
Robert J. Cynkar
CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
106-A South Columbus St.
Alexandria, VA 22314