On this rainy Wednesday, I find that there are more than a few choices for blog topics today. As such, I’m not limiting myself to just one. Here are my top three news items for the week of November 15, 2015:
Are You Missing Out on the NVSBE?
The National Veterans Small Business Engagement is in full swing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (November 17-19). This is the annual conference put on by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) for veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs). Alas, it is too late for you to attend this year, but put this on your radar for next year. With thousands of attendees and the presence of hundreds of procurement officials, it’s a great place to network for prospective teaming partners and federal opportunities. Also, it offers dozens of learning sessions on a variety of topics, so you can take your pick based on what interests/affects you. (Last year, I presented on teaming opportunities for VOSBs). As a reader, if you’re attending the conference and have something to say about it (whether about your experience this year, or in years past), please leave a comment!
The CVE’s Attempt at Process Improvement
The VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) has effected major changes in how it processes VetBiz applications. (This is the verification process for a VOSB to be included in the VA’s VetBiz registry and be eligible for VA set-asides). Basically, when the CVE assesses eligibility for the program, they ask for a lot of documents relating to the business (corporate documents, tax documents, resumes, etc). Now, the CVE is asking for certain documents initially, and once the business gets through that hoop, it asks for the rest. The idea, I understand, is to stop some businesses from wasting everyone’s time. Also, it gives businesses the chance to fix their corporate documents at the beginning of the process in the event an issue that needs fixing. I’m not a huge fan of these changes, which the CVE is labeling a “pre-qualification,” as it makes the process more piece mail (and piece-mail unnecessarily complicates a process). Also, if a business has a problem with its operating agreement or bylaws, this would be flagged at the end of the process, anyway. We’ll see if this change sticks.
Chris Kyle Estate v Jesse Ventura: Will We See a Second Round?
The estate of Chris Kyle, veteran and author of the acclaimed American Sniper, has appealed to a federal court, asking it to overturn the $1.8 million jury verdict for defamation and unjust enrichment found in favor of the colorful Jesse Ventura. This case stemmed from a chapter in American Sniper which described unsavory actions/comments by Ventura which he alleged (and proved) never took place. Part of the grounds for appeal is that Ventura’s lawyer had informed the jury that Kyle’s book publisher’s insurance company, not his widow, would be forced to pay a verdict. (Presumably, this made them less shy about granting such huge damages). The appeal was filed on October 20, and there is yet to be a ruling. This case is an interesting one (from a legal standpoint in particular, as Ventura recovered on legal grounds that are very hard to win on – unjust enrichment), so I’ll be covering this if the appeal is granted.
*Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for Legal Meets Practical’s weekly blog on veteran issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click the link sent to your email to activate your subscription!
Thanks Sarah for your usual informative insight.
Jake
Sarah,
Thank you for the information – very helpful.
Tom
Sarah,
Your comments on the CVE had me apoplectic until I went to the CVE site. Asking for the company origination documents makes sense since it reflects the % of ownership of the SDV; but I didn’t see any requirement for tax documents (which would be intrusive and unnecessary). Strangely, I didn’t see any requirement for the SDV’s DD214 nor for the DVA medical disability cert.
It starts with the corporate documents, but as I understand it, ALL of these documents (including tax) are still necessary. The CVE merely does a pre-screening on the bylaws/operating agreement/resumes, etc, in order to decide whether to get you past the gate. You get past the gate, they ask for the rest.
It’s confusing because if you click on the link in that part of my article, there’s the chart of the documents where it says “yes” or “no” regarding whether they’re required. At the top, however, it says they’re all required, so the “yes” or “no” appears to align with the pre-qualification documents (what you upload first). Otherwise there wouldn’t be many documents to the application.
https://www.vip.vetbiz.gov/Public/Register/DocumentList.aspx
“This Connection is Untrusted
You have asked Firefox to connect securely to http://www.vip.vetbiz.gov, but we can’t confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site’s identity can’t be verified.”
==============
Well THAT just figures. Tried for the umpteenth time on healthcare.gov (because the VA is incapable of rendering service as promised, for over 30 years) again just a week or two ago – they said my Zip Code does not exist.
That is correct – Federal Government Website failed to acknowledge legit Zip Code = sheer incompetence
Why are these folks not being tried for Treason? Dereliction of Duty? Misappropriation of Government Funds? etc etc etc
Sarah, I loved this article! It was very informative and succinct. However, it is my understanding that Ventura never proved that the alleged event didn’t happen, rather, the Kyle Estate failed to prove that it did?
Hi Mike,
I believe that’s right – with defamation, a defense is truth.
In this case, Kyle’s book said X, Y and Z about Ventura, which the court found constituted defamation. If, however, the witnesses had corroborated what Kyle said happened, that would have established what the book said as truth, which is a defense to defamation. Because you can’t defame someone with the truth.
I actually contemplated this case today during an episode of 30 Rock: “He says I defamed him. How do you defame someone who has been arrested in not one, not two, but three Chuck E. Cheese’s?” Well, technically, you can always defame someone, but the degree of damages will depend on who that person is. Ventura introduced a lot of evidence to show how these comments hurt his professional image.
Sarah
Sarah
Thanks! And I am eager to see what happens with the Supreme Courts, since I have a hard time seeing how this did any damage to Ventura?