NSA Managers Supressed Studies on ThinThread/Trailblazer (WHY)

By: Emptywheel - Posting #203 - The Ominous Parallels Report

As bmaz reported while I was looking at flowers in Northern MI, POGO liberated via FOIA the Inspector General report central to the Thomas Drake case.

While much of the report is redacted (except for, perhaps unsurprisingly, a number of comments about limitations to ThinThread that have been decontextualized by redactions), a few interesting details remain. First, the management control program (see PDF 48) was not included in the scope of the review; it appears that privacy protections were not a significant part of the review (even while this article claims they were included in the investigation). That’s interesting because both do show up in Siobhan Gorman’s reporting. Further, the government was trying to withhold Drake’s own materials that might not have related to the substance of the initial IG complaint (and it destroyed a notebook Drake had submitted). While all that is very vague and now mooted by the plea deal in the case, it suggests the government tried hard to prevent Drake from providing evidence of further problems with Trailblazer beyond those laid out–and endorsed–in the IG complaint.

I’m much more interested, however, in a claim not made in Gorman’s reporting that is left unredacted in the IG Report: that NSA management modified or suppressed studies on the program. As a threshold matter, Michael Hayden and his buddies seem to have been cognitively unaware at times of where DOD’s IG cited the initial Hotline complaint that launched this investigation (the report cites the complaint on PDF 5 and PDF 11; on PDF 122, the IG Report notes NSA management’s conflation of the complaint with the report results specifically with regard to claims about cost) and where it confirmed that complaint. Yet the extensive discussion of test results starting on PDF 21 make it clear the investigation examined test results in detail. Furthermore, this IG response to Management complaints on PDF 123 make it clear that the IG confirmed the complaint that management fiddled with studies.

(C) Management Comments. NSA management comments also questions [sic] the Executive Summary’s statement that “NSA modified or suppressed studies and [redacted] and stated that the audit report did not identify where the information was obtained.

(C) Audit Response. We have documented information to support this statement; however, because of fear of reprisal, we agreed to keep the sources anonymous.

In other words, not only did the IG confirm the tests showed ThinThread performed better than Trailblazer, but it appears to confirm that NSA management tried to hide that fact. [WHY]

While Gorman’s reporting doesn’t say the studies were suppressed, she did report on the existence and results of those studies.

In what intelligence experts describe as rigorous testing of ThinThread in 1998, the project succeeded at each task with high marks. For example, its ability to sort through massive amounts of data to find threat-related communications far surpassed the existing system, sources said. It also was able to rapidly separate and encrypt U.S.-related communications to ensure privacy.

[snip]

A number of independent studies, including a classified 2004 report from the Pentagon’s inspector-general, in addition to the successful pilot tests, found that the program provided “superior processing, filtering and protection of U.S. citizens, and discovery of important and previously unknown targets,” said an intelligence official familiar with the program who described the reports to The Sun. The Pentagon report concluded that ThinThread’s ability to sort through data in 2001 was far superior to that of another NSA system in place in 2004, and that the program should be launched and enhanced.

NSA management’s apparent suppression of studies showing ThinThread’s better performance is all the more interesting given the reference–on PDF 48–of an earlier NSA Inspector General report concluding that Trailblazer had had “improperly based contract cost increases, non-conformance in the management of the Statement of Work, and excessive labor rates for contractor personnel.” In other words, SAIC–which implemented Trailblazer and had close ties to Michael Hayden’s aides–was bilking the federal government at the same time as Hayden and others were apparently suppressing studies showing that SAIC’s solution was not the most effective solution.

Our Intelligence Industrial Complex in action!

The evidence that NSA management was suppressing studies that showed ThinThread performed better than Trailblazer adds one more wrinkle to the government’s attempt to prosecute Thomas Drake. The IG clearly worried that revealing who made this complaint would lead to retaliation from NSA management. Yet, as it turns out, one of the documents for which Drake was charged was titled, “Trial and Testing,” suggesting it pertained to such testing issues.

I guess the IG had reason to worry after all.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: NSA/SAIC: The Trailblazer Cover-Up, 9/11, And Iraq War PLAN(S)

Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence

Connect The Dots

LIGNET [Players]

SAIC DARPA

SAIC TrailBlazer

STELLAR WIND [B]

SAIC ThinThread [B]

Washington's $8 Billion Shadow

The Ominous Parallels Report

Truax Arrest Warrent James H. Bush

Thomas Drake Proved To Be Bloody Well Right

More High-level Fraud at NSA Uncovered

“Collections Sites” and the Thomas Drake Case

NSA Killed System That Sifted Phone Data Legally

US Government Releases DoD Report Critical of NSA

Nsa Thinthread/Trailblazer Systems - Report 05-INTEL-03

NSA Whistleblowers on 60 Minutes: 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented

Did Thomas Drake Include Privacy Concerns in His Complaints to DOD’s IG?

DoD Inspector General Report: Requirements of ThinThread and Trailblazer Systems

Thomas Drake Complained about Michael Hayden Spending $1B to Do What $3M Could Do

Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes? Duhhh

By Matt Taibbi - Posting #204 - A little dated, but, good info ;)

A whistle blower says the agency has illegally destroyed thousands of documents, letting financial crooks off the hook.

Imagine a world in which a man who is repeatedly investigated for a string of serious crimes, but never prosecuted, has his slate wiped clean every time the cops fail to make a case. No more Lifetime channel specials where the murderer is unveiled after police stumble upon past intrigues in some old file – "Hey, chief, didja know this guy had two wives die falling down the stairs?" No more burglary sprees cracked when some sharp cop sees the same name pop up in one too many witness statements. This is a different world, one far friendlier to lawbreakers, where even the suspicion of wrongdoing gets wiped from the record.

That, it now appears, is exactly how the Securities and Exchange Commission has been treating the Wall Street criminals who cratered the global economy a few years back. For the past two decades, according to a whistle-blower at the SEC who recently came forward to Congress, the agency has been systematically destroying records of its preliminary investigations once they are closed. By whitewashing the files of some of the nation's worst financial criminals, the SEC has kept an entire generation of federal investigators in the dark about past inquiries into insider trading, fraud and market manipulation against companies like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and AIG. With a few strokes of the keyboard, the evidence gathered during thousands of investigations – "18,000 ... including Madoff," as one high-ranking SEC official put it during a panicked meeting about the destruction – has apparently disappeared forever into the wormhole of history.

Under a deal the SEC worked out with the National Archives and Records Administration, all of the agency's records – "including case files relating to preliminary investigations" – are supposed to be maintained for at least 25 years. But the SEC, using history-altering practices that for once actually deserve the overused and usually hysterical term "Orwellian," devised an elaborate and possibly illegal system under which staffers were directed to dispose of the documents from any preliminary inquiry that did not receive approval from senior staff to become a full-blown, formal investigation. Amazingly, the wholesale destruction of the cases – known as MUIs, or "Matters Under Inquiry" – was not something done on the sly, in secret. The enforcement division of the SEC even spelled out the procedure in writing, on the commission's internal website. "After you have closed a MUI that has not become an investigation," the site advised staffers, "you should dispose of any documents obtained in connection with the MUI."

Many of the destroyed files involved companies and individuals who would later play prominent roles in the economic meltdown of 2008. Two MUIs involving con artist Bernie Madoff vanished. So did a 2002 inquiry into financial fraud at Lehman Brothers, as well as a 2005 case of insider trading at the same soon-to-be-bankrupt bank. A 2009 preliminary investigation of insider trading by Goldman Sachs was deleted, along with records for at least three cases involving the infamous hedge fund SAC Capital.

The widespread destruction of records was brought to the attention of Congress in July, when an SEC attorney named Darcy Flynn decided to blow the whistle. According to Flynn, who was responsible for helping to manage the commission's records, the SEC has been destroying records of preliminary investigations since at least 1993. After he alerted NARA to the problem, Flynn reports, senior staff at the SEC scrambled to hide the commission's improprieties.

As a federally protected whistle-blower, Flynn is not permitted to speak to the press. But in evidence he presented to the SEC's inspector general and three congressional committees earlier this summer, the 13-year veteran of the agency paints a startling picture of a federal police force that has effectively been conquered by the financial criminals it is charged with investigating. In at least one case, according to Flynn, investigators at the SEC found their desire to bring a case against an influential bank thwarted by senior officials in the enforcement division – whose director turned around and accepted a lucrative job from the very same bank they had been prevented from investigating. In another case, the agency farmed out its inquiry to a private law firm – one hired by the company under investigation.

The outside firm, unsurprisingly, concluded that no further investigation of its client was necessary. To complete the bureaucratic laundering process, Flynn says, the SEC dropped the case and destroyed the files.

Much has been made in recent months of the government's glaring failure to police Wall Street; to date, federal and state prosecutors have yet to put a single senior Wall Street executive behind bars for any of the many well-documented crimes related to the financial crisis. Indeed, Flynn's accusations dovetail with a recent series of damaging critiques of the SEC made by reporters, watchdog groups and members of Congress, all of which seem to indicate that top federal regulators spend more time lunching, schmoozing and job-interviewing with Wall Street crooks than they do catching them. As one former SEC staffer describes it, the agency is now filled with so many Wall Street hotshots from oft-investigated banks that it has been "infected with the Goldman mindset from within."

The destruction of records by the SEC, as outlined by Flynn, is something far more than an administrative accident or bureaucratic fuck-up. It's a symptom of the agency's terminal brain damage. Somewhere along the line, those at the SEC responsible for policing America's banks fell and hit their head on a big pile of Wall Street's money – a blow from which the agency has never recovered. "From what I've seen, it looks as if the SEC might have sanctioned some level of case-related document destruction," says Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose staff has interviewed Flynn. "It doesn't make sense that an agency responsible for investigations would want to get rid of potential evidence. If these charges are true, the agency needs to explain why it destroyed documents, how many documents it destroyed over what time frame and to what extent its actions were consistent with the law."

How did officials at the SEC wind up with a faithful veteran employee – a conservative, mid-level attorney described as a highly reluctant whistle-blower – spilling the agency's most sordid secrets to Congress? In a way, they asked for it.

On May 18th of this year, SEC enforcement director Robert Khuzami sent out a mass e-mail to the agency's staff with the subject line "Lawyers Behaving Badly." In it, Khuzami asked his subordinates to report any experiences they might have had where "the behavior of counsel representing clients in... investigations has been questionable."

Khuzami was asking staffers to recount any stories of outside counsel behaving unethically. But Flynn apparently thought his boss was looking for examples of lawyers "behaving badly" anywhere, including within the SEC. And he had a story to share he'd kept a lid on for years. "Mr. Khuzami may have gotten something more than he expected," Flynn's lawyer, a former SEC whistle-blower named Gary Aguirre, later explained to Congress.

Flynn responded to Khuzami with a letter laying out one such example of misbehaving lawyers within the SEC. It involved a case from very early in Flynn's career, back in 2000, when he was working with a group of investigators who thought they had a "slam-dunk" case against Deutsche Bank, the German financial giant. A few years earlier, Rolf Breuer, the bank's CEO, had given an interview to Der Spiegel in which he denied that Deutsche was involved in übernahmegespräche – takeover talks – to acquire a rival American firm, Bankers Trust. But the statement was apparently untrue – and it sent the stock of Bankers Trust tumbling, potentially lowering the price for the merger. Flynn and his fellow SEC investigators, suspecting that investors of Bankers Trust had been defrauded, opened a MUI on the case.

A Matter Under Inquiry is just a preliminary sort of look-see – a way for the SEC to check out the multitude of tips it gets about suspicious trades, shady stock scams and false disclosures, and to determine which of the accusations merit a formal investigation. At the MUI stage, an SEC investigator can conduct interviews or ask a bank to send in information voluntarily. Bumping a MUI up to a formal investigation is critical, because it enables investigators to pull out the full law-enforcement ass-kicking measures – subpoenas, depositions, everything short of hot pokers and waterboarding. In the Deutsche case, Flynn and other SEC investigators got past the MUI stage and used their powers to collect sworn testimony and documents indicating that plenty of übernahmegespräche indeed had been going on when Breuer spoke to Der Spiegel. Based on the evidence, they sent an "Action Memorandum" to senior SEC staff, formally recommending that the agency press forward and file suit against Deutsche.

Breuer responded to the threat as big banks like Deutsche often do: He hired a former SEC enforcement director to lobby the agency to back off. The ex-insider, Gary Lynch, launched a creative and inspired defense, producing a linguistic expert who argued that übernahmegespräche only means "advanced stage of discussions." Nevertheless, the request to proceed with the case was approved by several levels of the SEC's staff. All that was needed to move forward was a thumbs-up from the director of enforcement at the time, Richard Walker.

But then a curious thing happened. On July 10th, 2001, Flynn and the other investigators were informed that Walker was mysteriously recusing himself from the Deutsche case. Two weeks later, on July 23rd, the enforcement division sent a letter to Deutsche that read, "Inquiry in the above-captioned matter has been terminated." The bank was in the clear; the SEC was dropping its fraud investigation. In contradiction to the agency's usual practice, it provided no explanation for its decision to close the case.

On October 1st of that year, the mystery was solved: Richard H. Walker was named general counsel of Deutsche. Less than 10 weeks after the SEC shut down its investigation of the bank, the agency's director of enforcement was handed a cushy, high-priced job at Deutsche. Duhhhhhhh

Deutsche's influence in the case didn't stop there. A few years later, in 2004, Walker hired none other than Robert Khuzami, a young federal prosecutor, to join him at Deutsche. The two would remain at the bank until February 2009, when Khuzami joined the SEC as Flynn's new boss in the enforcement division. When Flynn sent his letter to Khuzami complaining about misbehavior by Walker, he was calling out Khuzami's own mentor.

The circular nature of the case illustrates the revolving-door dynamic that has become pervasive at the SEC. A recent study by the Project on Government Oversight found that over the past five years, former SEC personnel filed 789 notices disclosing their intent to represent outside companies before the agency – sometimes within days of their having left the SEC. More than half of the disclosures came from the agency's enforcement division, who went to bat for the financial industry four times more often than ex-staffers from other wings of the SEC.....continued p.4, p.5, p.6, p.7, p.8, p.9

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　

References: SAIC Files New 8k No Mentions of Law Suits! Shocker! Just New CEO $ Package!

Episode 198 – Further Down the 9/11 Money Trail MO Anyone?

SEC Office Destroyed:IPO Probe in Jeopardy MO Anyone?

The Mysterious Leveling of Building 7 MO Anyone?

SEC & EEOC: 9/11 Attack Delays Investigations

SEC Claims No Clue On Case Files Lost On 911 When WTC7 Collapsed Due To Paper Fires!!

SEC: No Records Whatsoever Regarding Destroyed WTC 7 Investigation Files

The State of the Nation's Financial Markets in the Wake of Recent Terrorist Attacks

SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options

Special Note: Docket No. 97-6195 Richard H. Walker/Judge John M. Walker

Bush Davis Walker Family Political Line

Gary J. Aquirre: After earning his second law degree, he applied for a job with the SEC, where he became the lead investigator on an insider trading case involving Pequot Capital Management. Suspecting the leaked information came from John J. Mack, a Wall Street titan and major contributor to the 2004 campaign contribution of George W. Bush, Aguirre wanted to subpoena Mack, but supervisors told him Mack had too much "political clout" and would not be pursued. Aguirre complained to a superior about the preferential treatment being given Mack and was fired without warning. A Senate investigation later found his termination to have been an illegal reprisal.[1] In May 2010, Pequot Capital settled its insider trading charges with the SEC for $28 million[2] and a month later, the SEC settled the wrongful termination suit filed by Aguirre for $755,000.[3] Aguirre returned to private practice in San Diego in 2008, specializing in securities law. He has emerged as a major critic of the SEC, calling it an agency that was set up to protect the public from Wall Street, but now protects Wall Street from the public.[4][5] He represents Darcy Flynn, also an SEC whistleblower, who in summer 2011, was interviewed by staff from three congressional committees. He said that the SEC had destroyed thousands of records of preliminary investigations and that SEC investigators trying to pursue a case against Deutsche Bank were thwarted by Richard H. Walker, then SEC director of enforcement, who shortly thereafter, took a job at Deutsche Bank as general counsel.[6]

SAIC City Time Class Action Law Suit Filed in NYC Shareholders :o

By Suzannah B. Troy :) - Posting #202 - Valcichs Letter

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP File Law Class Action SAIC Law Suit!!!

Folks three law suits against SAIC CityTime ...Hello NYC!

Excerpt: "The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

(a) that SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime Project, a project associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system, over a multi-year period;

(b) that, as a result of SAIC's known, but undisclosed, overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated;

(c) that SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and reputational risks, particularly because government agencies are SAIC's primary customers and any harm to its reputation and/or relationships with such agencies would adversely affect its future revenues and growth prospects;

(d) that, as a result of the foregoing circumstances, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies;

(e) that the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading;

(f) that certifications issued by defendants Kenneth C. Dahlberg and Mark W. Sopp associated with the Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and

(g) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business and prospects.

"The revelation that SAIC would incur a probable loss on CityTime was significant because, pursuant to applicable accounting rules, it served as an acknowledgement that, once the Company could reasonably estimate the amount, SAIC would incur a charge against its earnings for the wrongful conduct alleged herein on CityTime. "

CityTime SAIC Update Stampede of Law Firms File NY Class Action Law Suits

Watch this for bigger picture, the cover-ups from the fact this went on way back and CityTime massive fraud as exposed in NYC gov office of payroll letter -- feb 2003 where Richard Valcich sites even more correspondence and communications with SAIC that indicate less than ethical behavior and my guess back in time Rudy Time because system was always flawed. Mije should have thrown out CityTime the way Mike threw out Rudy's Maximus. Mike instead pushed over 700 million over ride of tax payer money on the books. Rudy and Mike forget white house jobs; Note media protecting Team Bloomberg and Christine Quinn all implicated CityTime besides illegal slushy 3rd term. SAIC also protected.

1. SAIC, Inc. : The Law Firm of Levi & Korsinsky Notifies Investors with Losses on Their Investment in SAIC, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and the Deadline of April 23, 2012 to Seek a Lead Plaintiff Position

Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased SAIC, Inc. ("SAIC" or the "Company") (NYSE: SAI) stock between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011 (the "Class Period").

More information here: http://www.zlk.com/saic-sai. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and business prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that SAIC overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime Project, a project associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system, over a multi-year period; (b) that, as a result of SAIC's overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (c) that SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary and reputational risks; (d) that, as a result of the foregoing circumstances, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; (e) that the Company's financial statements were not presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and were materially false and misleading; (f) and that certifications issued by defendants Kenneth C. Dahlberg and Mark W. Sopp associated with the Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially false and misleading.

On August 31, 2011, SAIC announced a decline of approximately 6% in revenue and 23% in operating margin for the second quarter of 2012, ending July 31, 2011. Following this announcement, defendants also disclosed that the Company would likely have to make restitution to New York City for wrongful conduct on the CityTime Project. In response to this disclosure, shares of SAIC common stock dropped from $15.00 per share on August 31, 2011 to $12.97 on September 1, 2011 on heavy volume.

If you suffered a loss in SAIC, you have until April 23, 2012 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit http://www.zlk.com.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph Levi, Esq. or Eduard Korsinsky, Esq., (212) 363-7500
Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com

2. SAIC, Inc. : Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against SAIC.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of SAIC, Inc. ("SAIC" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAI) between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011 (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Complaint").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Scott J. Farrell, Esquire of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/saic-inc-sai.

SAIC describes itself as a scientific, engineering, and technology applications company that uses its deep domain knowledge to solve problems of importance to the nation and the world, in national security, energy & environment, health, and cybersecurity. The Complaint names SAIC and certain of the Company's officers and/or directors as defendants, and alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over a multi-year period, SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project - an initiative associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system; (2) as a result of these overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (3) SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and risks to the Company's reputation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; (5) the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading; (6) certifications associated with the Company's internal and disclosure controls, issued by defendants Dahlberg and Sopp, were materially false and misleading; and (7) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business and prospects.

Following the Company's 2012 fiscal second quarter earnings announcement on August 31, 2011, defendants held a conference call with analysts and investors, and disclosed, for the first time, that the Company's revenues were, in part, impacted by the "wind[ing] down" of the CityTime contract, and while the Company could not quantify the amount, it believed that it was "probable" that it would have to make restitution to New York City for wrongful conduct on CityTime.

As a result of the foregoing disclosures, the price of SAIC common stock fell approximately 14%, from $15.00 per share on August 31, 2011 to $12.97 per share on September 1, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire
Scott J. Farrell, Esquire
888-969-4242
516-683-3516
Fax: 302-654-9430
info@rigrodskylong.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com

3. SAIC, Inc. : Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against SAIC.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of SAIC, Inc. ("SAIC" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAI) between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

SAIC provides scientific, engineering, systems integration and technical services and solutions to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, other U.S. Government civil agencies, the intelligence community and customers in selected commercial markets. Since 2000, the Company has developed and implemented an automated timekeeping and workforce management system ("CityTime") for certain agencies of the City of New York. The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial performance and prospects, including that: (i) SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project over a multi-year period; (ii) as a result of SAIC's overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (iii) SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and reputational risks, particularly because government agencies are SAIC's primary customers and any harm to its reputation and/or relationships with such agencies would adversely affect its future revenues and growth prospects; (iv) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; (v) the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading; (vi) certifications issued by certain of the defendants associated with the Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and (vii), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business and prospects.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased SAIC common stock between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011, you have certain rights, and have 60 days from the date of this Notice to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, Toll Free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Announces Investigation into Potential Claims for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty by Certain Officers and Directors of SAIC, Inc.

ATLANTA, Mar 02, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duty by certain officers and directors of SAIC, Inc. ("SAIC" or the "Company") SAI.

On February 23, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that SAIC violated the federal securities laws between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that SAIC overbilled New York City by hundreds of millions of dollars in connection with the CityTime Project.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC's investigation seeks to determine if the allegations contained in the class action complaint also give rise to the separate claims against the Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty, which could be enforced on behalf of the Company through shareholder derivative litigation.

If you are a long term holder of SAI shares and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at mfistel@holzerlaw.com, or mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against SAIC, Inc.

SAN FRANCISCO--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of SAIC, Inc. (“SAIC” or the “Company”) (NYSE: SAI) between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

If you purchased SAIC common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than April 23, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

SAIC shareholders who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.

Hagens Berman Investigates Knowledge of SAIC Top Management of Overbilling Scheme, Encourages Whistleblowers to Contact the Firm

BERKELEY, Calif., Feb. 27, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Hagens Berman today announced it is investigating SAIC SAI +0.48% regarding alleged violations of the securities laws and asked that insiders with information relevant to the investigation, or investors desiring to be a lead plaintiff, contact the firm for a consultation.

"We hope to speak to individuals who have non-public information that might be relevant to the investigation," said Hagens Berman Partner Reed R. Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation. "We need to dig deeper and uncover who in SAIC's top management knew about the failure to disclose possible overbilling in the CityTime project, which we believe may have artificially inflated the company's stock price."

Whistleblowers and investors can reach Mr. Kathrein by calling (510) 725-3000.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

Giuliani Partners

LeviKorsinsksy

Get More Information

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith

Mayor Bloomberg SAiC mega suit filed NY?

SAIC CEO Golden Parachute Like Cathie Black

SAIC Stockholder Frequently Asked Questions

Federman & Sherwood [SAIC, Inc. [NYSE: SAI]

SAIC Hit With $4.9B Lawsuit Over TRICARE Data Theft :o

United States Attorney Southern District of NYC Original Complaint

Testimony of Caswell F. Holloway, Deputy Mayor for Operations NYC

United States Attorney Southern District of NYC Charges SAIC Executive

New Details in CityTime Corruption Case: Contractor Arrogance and Incompetence

CityTime Scandal: Bloomberg Wants SAIC, Tech Giant, To Pay City $600M For Failures