John Giduck Dubious Claims and Frivolous Lawsuit Threats

[Silverbullet]

We talked to the Russians even though Joseph Bail claims it's impossible.

How sweet. Shari and John.
Untitled - Copy.jpg

[Joe723]

So if he is a contractor to the government and his credentials are false is that not some kind of fraud?

Originally Posted by GirlwithaGlock

For Archangel Group I found only one contract with the U.S. Government.

From USAspending.gov:

Transaction Number # 1
PIID: HSHQE110P00004 (Purchase Order)
Recipient:ARCHANGEL GROUP
244 WAGON TONGUE RD , BAILEY, COLORADO
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:70-0542:Federal Protective Service
Agency:Department of Homeland Security : Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
Product/Service Code:R419 : EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
Description:
Case Study of Beslan School Siege for FPS Region 1 ...   (View More)
Date Signed:
January 27 , 2010

Obligation Amount:
$5,400

Since Giduck has more than one company registered under his name, I will have to do more research.

[Bearcat06]

Originally Posted by Joe723

So if he is a contractor to the government and his credentials are false is that not some kind of fraud?

If I was a local/state/federal LE agency and dipshit showed up spouting his mouth about how cool he is.....and he's found not to be....I'd sue the fuck out of him....


And yes, I have tossed emails out to a couple of LE Agencies that I know that have used these stupid fuckers.....


I hope they sue the fuck out of him for fraud.......

[sarc88]

Originally Posted by Joe723

So if he is a contractor to the government and his credentials are false is that not some kind of fraud?

He's not a govt contractor. He got paid to give a class. There's a huge difference. I buy items as a govt guy all the time, whether its from RadioShack, West Marine, or HAZMAT training services from local Fire Depts. They're vendors selling a thing....they are not contracted to the govt. The govt cuts a single check, or purchase order, for that class, gadget, or gizmo. To put it in perspective, think of companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. They, and hundreds others, are real govt contractors, with decades of service to this country.

This Purchase Order is for a one time case study, and its based on his book. DHS does this all the time. Call the author, get a lecture... it's their version of continuing education. That PO just shows that another agency paid him for a week of the same recycled research (NOT EXPERIENCE) he's been peddling. I'd rather send my guys to a Don Del Dotto "Buy Foreclosures With No Money Down" class. At least Don really did it.

[GirlwithaGlock]

Here are the contracts for FORTAC, Inc. Bold fonts are my edits. Still no H2H training though.

Amounts (Award)
Dollars Obligated $6,888
Current Contract Value $6,888
Ultimate Contract Value $6,888

Back to Top
Purchaser Information (Award)
Major Agency 97: Department of Defense
Major Funding Agency 97: Department of Defense
Contracting Agency 2100: ARMY, Department of the (except Corps of Engineers Civil Program Financing)
Contracting Office W911RZ
Program / Funding Agency 2100: ARMY, Department of the (except Corps of Engineers Civil Program Financing)
Program / Funding Office W91K32
Funded by Foreign Government or International Org. X: Not Applicable

Back to Top
Contract Information (Award)
Date Signed 07/13/2006
Effective Date 07/11/2006
Current Completion Date 07/21/2006
Ultimate Completion Date 07/21/2006
Award Type B: Purchase Order
Reason For Modification
Type of Contract Pricing J: Firm Fixed Price
Undefinitized Action X: NO
Multi-Year Contract No
Performance-Based Service Contract N: No - Service where PBA is not used.
Major Program
Contingency, Humanitarian, or Peacekeeping Operation
Contract Financing Z: Not Applicable
Cost or Pricing Data DoD
Cost Accounting Standards Clause X: Not Applicable exempt from CAS.
Contract Description Integrated Close Quarters Combat Handgun
Purchase Card As Payment Method No
Number of Actions 1
National Interest Action NONE: None

Purchaser Information (Award)
Major Agency 97: Department of Defense
Major Funding Agency 97: Department of Defense
Contracting Agency 2100: ARMY, Department of the (except Corps of Engineers Civil Program Financing)
Contracting Office W911RZ
Program / Funding Agency 2100: ARMY, Department of the (except Corps of Engineers Civil Program Financing)
Program / Funding Office W81KA9
Funded by Foreign Government or International Org. X: Not Applicable

Back to Top
Contract Information (Award)
Date Signed 08/21/2006
Effective Date 08/21/2006
Current Completion Date 09/01/2006
Ultimate Completion Date 09/01/2006
Award Type B: Purchase Order
Reason For Modification
Type of Contract Pricing J: Firm Fixed Price
Undefinitized Action X: NO
Multi-Year Contract No
Performance-Based Service Contract N: No - Service where PBA is not used.
Major Program
Contingency, Humanitarian, or Peacekeeping Operation
Contract Financing Z: Not Applicable
Cost or Pricing Data DoD
Cost Accounting Standards Clause X: Not Applicable exempt from CAS.
Contract Description Pistol Shooting Techniques CCR and market search for a Colorado-based company capable of meeting the units unique training requirements resulted in Ach Angel being the only qualified company. Arch Angel is a non-profit organization with the ability to provide the instructors, training facilities and curriculum required by 10th Special Forces Group to meet operational requirements within the immediate Fort Carson vicinity. Due to these factors the acquisition strategy is to acquire the necessary training from this organization. This business is the only source in the immediate area to provide this specific training.
Purchase Card As Payment Method No
Number of Actions 1
National Interest Action NONE: None
Program Source Agency
Program Source Account
Program Source Sub Account
Program Source Description
Business Fund Indicator

[RB]

Contract Description Pistol Shooting Techniques CCR and market search for a Colorado-based company capable of meeting the units unique training requirements resulted in Ach Angel being the only qualified company. Arch Angel is a non-profit organization with the ability to provide the instructors, training facilities and curriculum required by 10th Special Forces Group to meet operational requirements within the immediate Fort Carson vicinity. Due to these factors the acquisition strategy is to acquire the necessary training from this organization. This business is the only source in the immediate area to provide this specific training.

I know some folks in the immediate Ft Carson area that might just question this "sole source" requirement. This contract smells of under the table buddy buddy gubmint dealings IMHO.

If you could only find ONE qualled company in/around Ft Carson for a pistol course, you damn sure didn't look very hard.

A biddable FFP has to go out to 3 qualled vendors, it takes a lot to approve a sole source.

Mebbe a COR has more info.

[Purple36]

Good research GWAG.

[GirlwithaGlock]

Thank you, Purple - but you were the one to give me the idea to look :)

I dug up the footage of Donna Yaklich, the killer of Pueblo narcotics detective, turning herself in after returning from her Jamaica vacation with her lawyer Giduck. The gentleman in the back looks a lot like him, especially if you compare this photo to the one with his KGB friend. I would hate to assume that Donna used insurance money she had collected from her husband's death to take Giduck to this trip.

[jdogonroad]

Originally Posted by RB

I know some folks in the immediate Ft Carson area that might just question this "sole source" requirement. This contract smells of under the table buddy buddy gubmint dealings IMHO.

If you could only find ONE qualled company in/around Ft Carson for a pistol course, you damn sure didn't look very hard.

A biddable FFP has to go out to 3 qualled vendors, it takes a lot to approve a sole source.

Mebbe a COR has more info.

All you have to do to get a sole source, is to write into the requirements something only this company has. e.g."in addition to the above requirements, the source must have a founder who wrote the definitive story of the Beslan tragedy" Safety Officers did it all the time at retirement to turn their former mil job into a DAC job. Just didn't wear a green uniform next day.

@GWAG. Great research. I am struck at the resemblance between Shari and Donna.

[sarc88]

Originally Posted by RB

I know some folks in the immediate Ft Carson area that might just question this "sole source" requirement. This contract smells of under the table buddy buddy gubmint dealings IMHO.

If you could only find ONE qualled company in/around Ft Carson for a pistol course, you damn sure didn't look very hard.

A biddable FFP has to go out to 3 qualled vendors, it takes a lot to approve a sole source.

Mebbe a COR has more info.

I'm a COR right now, and Jdogonroad is correct. In the case of these "onesie/twosie" Purchase Orders, "sole source" is easy to justify. Per my previous post, a single time PO, even if repeated a few times, is not the same as a true "contract award". Its a purchase.

If we were talking about a durable/sustained contract - hell no. You'd have to be an Alaskan or Hawaiian type "Native Owned" company to avoid the Sole Source Justification. And even those are more restricted as of 2011.

[Justaclerk]

The more Mr. Giduck has his body cavity probed the more it looks like his activity goes beyond "Posing for Dollars" and into the realm of criminal.

Hopefully, there's a DA who agrees.

[Remington Raider]

Originally Posted by Justaclerk

The more Mr. Giduck has his body cavity probed the more it looks like his activity goes beyond "Posing for Dollars" and into the realm of criminal.

Hopefully, there's a DA who agrees.

An AUSA.

[KLR_Redux]

I think the last few posts on this page are on the right track. One could possibly look at charging 18 USC 1341 (Mail Fraud) or 18 USC 1343 (Wire Fraud) based upon contracts/spending predicated on his inflated creds. Not so sure the tactical pistol stuff would qualify, but if he charged (example only) FBI $5K to speak on the topic of terrorism, one would have to ask if his credentials were key to selection to teach that course. I don't think the online representations would be helpful in proving the case (they do show there is smoke, though), but there could be CV material included with whatever was submitted to get the spending authorized. Sarc88 (as a COR) can probably comment on how long such records are retained. Good old fashioned interviews with contracting officers, police chiefs, agency heads could also go to show "we hired him because he said he was _______."

Any prosecution would depend greatly upon the total amount of money involved since many U.S. Attorney's Offices (at least in major metro areas) have a minimum fraud loss amount. Sometimes in multiples of $100K. An investigator would have to try to aggregate any spending based upon false claims i.e. $2K from federal agency X, $4K from state agency Y using federal grant money, etc.

I could see an agent from agency X's OIG working up a case and bringing in other agencies, or I could see a Bureau Agent or Postal Inspector starting from ground zero and working his/her way out. Since OIGs are typically concerned with their own program dollars, I think the Bu or USPIS would be a better starting route. The IRS stuff is nice, but I am not sure the tax violations would have the dollar loss necessary.

[universible]

Seems like good analysis, but maybe set FCI loose at looking into the Russian contacts, where he has had access and all that? Our threshold for fraud cases was always 6 figures.

[Silverbullet]

Word to the wise. John Giduck and cronies.

We are dead serious about this issue. We are not going to back down.

Anyone who uses unethical methods to try and influence public servants to attempt to intimidate us will be outed right here.

I'll repeat myself just in case you, Chief Joe and others don't get the message-

We are dead serious about this issue. We are not going to back down.

[VelociMorte]

From his CV: "John Giduck is also a scuba, tactical diving...instructor."

Perhaps one of his cronies can save some time and let us in on which certifying organization John holds a SCUBA instructor certification with. It's not a military cert. It's not NAUI. Doesn't look like PADI either. Is this another false claim posted in too many places to count, or is he certified through some other organization?

[FMedic]

Originally Posted by VelociMorte

From his CV: "John Giduck is also a scuba, tactical diving...instructor."

Perhaps one of his cronies can save some time and let us in on which certifying organization John holds a SCUBA instructor certification with. It's not a military cert. It's not NAUI. Doesn't look like PADI either. Is this another false claim posted in too many places to count, or is he certified through some other organization?

So far no one seems to be able to flesh that out as of yet, but yeah it does seem pervasive among his various bios and CVs. I'm not a diver but I wonder how difficult it is to make a company and claim to teach "tactical diving". Could this be another one of his or his buddies companies that has granted him this "cert"?

[Polypro]

As of 1989 with PADI, teaching locations could submit local POI's for approval. If approved, you could get a rating in that POI. I have just such of a 'one off' Rating/Cert/Card. The POI dealt with underwater evidence search, body recovery, chain of custody, etc...it's a legit PADI rating. So it's possible, I guess. I have no idea if other organizations did it, or if it continued past '89. The certifying agency would definitely know.

P

[FMedic]

So, and correct me if I'm misreading, he could have a one off cert but it would still be PADI, ect. And he would have no reason to not give said rating agency because even one off it's still valid?

[Silverbullet]

The diver thing is not really something we want to focus on. We know many of his other falsehoods and they are damning enough.

Anyone reading this thread can see the connections btwn him and his cronies and how they all appear to be mutually supporting in their efforts to claim something for him that is not at all accurate.

Why would his girlfriend call someone out of the blue and ask if they were a socnet member? Why would she talk about a lawsuit to this person? We know she didn't pull the number out of her ass and decide to call. Someone gave her the data. She appears to be a party to a harassment claim for her actions. The person who pointed her in that direction should look himself in the mirror and take some responsibility for this. We didn't ask Shari to get involved. It's not our fault she backed a losing horse.

Same goes for the rest of you who are fervently trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat. We know what we know. As I noted in the very first thread, we didn't ask for this, nor start it, but we are going to see it through.