Our new Supreme Ct Nominee: His wife is big in satellite systems; her company is targeting Iraq

Yet another first for our boundary-breaching White House: for the first time in American history, we’re going to have a justice on the high court whose spouse facilitates financing and putting together global satellite systems.

 

Also, the company in which she is a partner, Shaw Pittman, emphasizes among other things its expertise in facilitating business in Iraq:

 

We offer one-stop service to clients pursuing projects in Iraq, from solicitation and RFP counseling to working with key government and multilateral agencies, and from initially penetrating the Iraqi marketplace to final project implementation. Our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their fields, and at the cutting-edge in a variety of disciplines relevant to Iraq reconstruction. A number have served in senior government positions in key agencies – including the Departments of Transportation, Navy, Justice and Commerce, as well as the Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank.”

http://www.pillsburylaw.com/go/areamaster.nsf/practices-all/International:%20Iraq%20Reconstruction

 

Iraq has not yet been able to achieve an integrated communications service (many Iraqis don’t even have their electricity back, yet.) By numerous accounts, satellite communications/networks loom as a large unfilled need in Iraq. Jane Sullivan Roberts’ credentials are solid, and business-wise, her walk in life is largely helping clients put together and get financing for satellite systems, according to her company bio:

 

Ms. Roberts practices with the firm’s communications and global sourcing groups, concentrating in representing clients in sophisticated transactions involving technology. She has extensive experience in representing clients in the buying and selling of space-related goods and services, including companies involved in the development of multi-billion dollar global and regional satellite systems. Ms. Roberts’ experience also includes representing clients in information technology outsourcing transactions; software licensing, development, and maintenance contracts; and professional services arrangements. Prior to 1992, Ms. Roberts practiced litigation in a wide variety of matters before various courts and decision-making bodies, including large international commercial arbitrations involving nuclear power plants before the International Chamber of Commerce.” http://www.pillsburylaw.com/Go/bios.nsf/professionals/Jane%20Sullivan%20Roberts

(I like that afterthought re nuclear power plants. Shades of Homer Simpson.)

 

The following statements by and about Ms. Roberts come from an article titled “High flyers, high margins, high society and space VC,” in the publication Space Business International (4th quarter 2000):

“Shaw Pittman is a composite organization, in which teams of associates, corporate finance partners, technology procurement and transfer partners, intellectual property strategists, corporate deal-makers work together with the clear aim of dominating Washington’s high-tech legal world. They’ve made a good start – hands on involvement already in 25 percent of all metropolitan VC closures in Q1-2000.

‘Despite the March 2000 downturn in US stock markets, there is still lots of VC money available’, says Roberts. ‘But the way the money is channelled has changed – it’s harder to fund business-to-business dot.coms, especially where you have to build a brand; and likewise for business-to-consumer deals. But there is still plenty of money left to fund wireless technologies, Internet infrastructure, next generation networking devices and b2b software plays.”

 

‘And Washington DC is cementing its position as an international hub of the commercial space and satellite industry. In terms of corporate headquarters, we have many major players, including Loral Cyberstar, Astrolink, Skybridge, Hughes Spaceway, Final Analysis, Ellipso, INTELSAT, COMSAT, WorldSpace, and XM Satellite Radio. Not to mention the major aerospace players …’”

 

Ms Roberts’ specific targets are the procurement of satellite systems and related services and technologies such as launch services, launch insurance, terrestrial networks, terminals, call centers and billing systems. ‘As a technology transaction lawyer, my role is to use contractual techniques to minimize my client’s completion risk, that is the risk the satellite system will not be completed – designed, built and deployed – within established performance, cost and schedule objectives. For a company seeking venture capital, it is critical to demonstrate to potential investors that the company is successfully managing its completion risk.’”

 

“So – how to close a transaction to buy a satellite system: ‘In a typical transaction where a client lacks substantial financial backing, we call up our experts in intellectual property, export control, bankruptcy, securities, debt financing, and dispute resolution. We have roughly 300 lawyers in the DC metro area and if, need be, we can call upon another one hundred lawyers in our New York, Los Angeles and London offices. Each of those offices is also focused on the high-tech industry.’”

[This link is down, but you can get to the article by clicking “cached” in a google search.]

 

A quite good, concise article by Ms. Roberts, on the risks of putting together a new satellite system and attempting to break into the market, is found at

http://www.pillsburylaw.com/go/News.nsf/news-publications-all/52D9281973A9BE6B85256FD40066ADE8?OpenDocument

The risks of building and financing a new satellite system fall into three broad areas: market, regulatory and completion. Market risk is the risk the target market does not want or cannot pay for the satellite services offered. Regulatory risk is the risk of not obtaining all regulatory approvals required to build and operate the satellite system, such as for orbital locations allocated by the International Telecommunications Union, spectrum licensed by the satellite operator’s “host” or “home” government, and “landing rights” granted in each country that will receive the new satellite service. Completion risk is the risk the satellite system will not be completed—designed, built and deployed—within the established performance, schedule and cost objectives.”

(from Satellite Finance, Issue 16)

 

Perhaps it will surprise few people that Shaw, Pittman, where Ms. Roberts is a partner, is offering its services for a newly privatized Iraq:

“Pillsbury’s Iraq Reconstruction Practice is mobilized to offer clients strategic legal advice in their postwar reconstruction efforts. Comprised of lawyers from several offices and backgrounds with relevant legal, industry and regional experience, the team is well poised to support virtually every endeavor in post-war Iraq, including:

·                                 Infrastructure development, construction and procurement

·                                 Intellectual property, technology and outsourcing services          [etc.]

www.pillsburylaw.com/go/areamaster.nsf/practices-all/International:%20Iraq%20Reconstruction

 

The company’s web site does not indicate that Ms. Roberts is on its Pillsbury Iraq Reconstruction Team. A call to the company to inquire whether she has yet had clients/projects in Iraq has not yet been returned. Stay tuned.

 

Meanwhile, the nominee husband’s numerous investments also include Shaw Pittman. One wonders whether a Justice Roberts would have to recuse himself on any cases involving Iraq, including cases about profiteering; procedure re “detainees” rounded up in Iraq; Iraq contract fraud; and/or regulatory or other violations by satellite systems companies that hired his wife’s firm or his wife herself.

 

Two articles on the London bombings

[The following two articles on the London bombings, from the London Mirror and Agence France-Press, were sent among others. Interesting idea, although nothing conclusive yet. ]

 

 

(1) Subject: Mirror.co.uk – EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE?16 July 2005
EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE?

Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton? Why did they buy pay & display tickets for cars? Why were there no usual shouts of ‘Allah Akhbar’? Why were bombs in bags and not on their bodies?
By Jeff Edwards

THE London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves so their secrets stayed hidden.
Police and MI5 are probing if the four men were told by their al-Qaeda controller they had time to escape after setting off timers. Instead, the devices exploded immediately. A security source said: “If the bombers lived and were caught they’d probably have cracked. Would their masters have allowed that to happen? We think not.”
The evidence is compelling: The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding _ a train at
Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry “Allah Akhbar!” – “God is great” – usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb.

Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licences, bank cards and other personal items.
Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material.
Similar terror attacks against public transport in Madrid last year were carried out by recruits who had time to escape and planned to strike again.
Bomber Hasib Hussain detonated his device at the rear of the top deck of a No 30 bus, not in the middle of the bottom deck where most damage would be caused.
Additionally, two of the bombers had strong personal reasons for staying alive.
Jermaine Lindsay’s partner Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, mother of his one-year-old son, is expecting her second baby within days. Mohammed Sidique Khan’s wife Hasina, mum of a 14-month-old daughter, is also pregnant.
Our source disclosed: “The theory that they were not a suicide squad is gathering pace. They were the weakest link.
“We think it’s possible they were told that when they pressed buttons to set off timers they’d have a short time to abandon the bombs and get away before the blast. Instead, the bombs exploded immediately.”
Another intelligence source added: “Whoever is behind this didn’t want to waste their best operatives on a suicide mission. Instead they used easily recruited low-grade men who may have believed they’d walk away.”
At least 54 people were killed in the 7/7 blasts. Khan, 30, of Dewsbury, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, of
Leeds, and Jamaican-born Lindsay, 19, of Aylesbury, Bucks, detonated devices on the Tube at Edgware Road, Aldgate and King’s Cross.
Hussain, 18, of
Leeds, blasted the bus at Tavistock Square. The Tube explosions went off almost simultaneously. But the bus went up an hour later.
Yesterday, Hussain’s family told of their horror at the teenager’s involvement in the massacre. They said in a statement: “We are devastated over the events of the past few days. Hasib was a loving and normal young man who gave us no concern and we are having difficulty taking this in.
“Our thoughts are with all the bereaved families. We have to live with the loss of our son in these difficult circumstances.
“We had no knowledge of his activities and, had we done, we would have done everything in our power to stop him. We urge anyone with information to cooperate fully with the authorities.”
Police are urgently investigating the missing 81 minutes between Hussain arriving from
Luton in London and the time his bomb went off. His device may have malfunctioned. He may have lost his nerve. Or he may have panicked when he discovered the Northern Line, on which he is
thought to have been due to travel, was suspended.
Officers want to discover if Hussain met anyone else who either strengthened his faltering resolve or reset his flawed bomb.”

 

 

(2) Sunday, July 17, 2005|09:05 IST
London bombers may have been tricked: Report
Agence France-Presse
London, July 17, 2005
 
British police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week’s London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper reported.
“We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers,” a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph. “It is possible that they did not intend to die.”
According to the paper, one police hypothesis is that the bombers were tricked by a “master” who told them they would have time to escape — when in fact the devices were set to go off immediately.
“The bombers’ masters might have thought that they couldn’t risk the four men being caught and spilling everything to British interrogators,” an unnamed security official told the Telegraph.
Lending weight to the theory is the fact that all four men had paid up their parking tickets before boarding a train at
Luton for King’s Cross, and that they all bought return tickets to the capital.
Moreover, the paper said, the men were carrying their explosives inside rucksacks, as opposed to strapped to their bodies as is common practice among suicide bombers.
None were reported to have cried “Allah Akbar” (God is Greatest) before setting off their charge — something that most Middle Eastern suicide bombers do.
“It is possible they were duped into believing there would be a delay, but what we know is that they carried bombs onto Tubes and a bus and set them off, killing themselves and innocent people,” one senior officer said.
“But we are keeping an open mind until we have firm evidence one way or another,” said the officer.”

Those bomb-in-the-subway drills, London, July 7th

[On July 7th in London, a private security company called Visor Consultants was actually conducting a drill, pertaining at least partly to bombs being placed in the London subways. I emailed the company for comment. Here is their response, in full:]

“Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows:  It is confirmed that a short number of ‘walk through’ scenarios
planed well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results.   One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.”

 

“However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences.  It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario – but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little
disconcerting.”

 

“In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.”

 

“Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).
Peter Power
Visor Consultants Limited”

—– Original Message —–
From: “Margie Burns” <margie.burns@verizon.net>
To: <info@visorconsultants.com>
Cc: <margie.burns@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:47 PM
Subject: questions re drill on July 7th

> Hello. I am a journalist in the Washington, DC, area. I have received more > than one email saying that your company was conducting drills that > coincided exactly in timing with the bombings in London on July 7. Three > questions:
>
> 1) Is the above true and correct?
> 2) Did the drills concern or include representations of the London subways > being bombed?
> 3) Did you give an interview on this topic to the BBC on the evening of > the 7th?
>
> Any information appreciated. No one is accusing you of any wrongdoing, but > it is always best to get even trifling facts straight.  Thank you very > much.
>> Sincerely, Margie Burns>
>

 

[A couple of thoughts, here: obviously the individuals who planted those bombs took advantage of the drill, along with the advantage of extra crowds in London that day amid the hubbub of the Olympics announcement. Just as obviously, the individuals who planned the strikes of 9/11 took similar advantage of the drills on that date. Any genuine investigation would look into the question of who knew about those drills. I’m not expecting that the knowledge was particularly restricted – undoubtedly it was easily accessible, especially with the “911” date — but it numbers among several obvious starting points for inquiry. The inquiry cannot be confined to individuals “in government,” either. It must extend to private firms, both in the U.S. and in Britain.]