By interested observers on Saturday, June 1, 2002 – 21:20: An Alaska case is interesting. He has an example of “operation of the law” and no. In this case, this issue was not addressed. It is mentioned and a footnote contains specific examples as well as other case references, some of which have already been mentioned. The case is AGBCA No. 97-160-1 (Jill Reese) (.pdf file). The footnote 10 refers to the “operation of the law.” For those who do not want to read the case that reads the footnote (emphasizing): The anti-attribution S.C 31 U.S.C. 3297 and 41 U.S.C. 15, prohibit the transfer of rights against the government, except in limited circumstances irrelevant here.
The Supreme Court has recognized certain exceptions to the prohibition where the transfer is an interest that goes to heirs/developers, bankrupt legal mediators and bankruptcy trustees. The Court extended the prohibition to mergers and consolidations for which the assignee no longer existed. Seaboard Air Line Railway v. United States, 256 U.S. 655 (1921). The cases in which this decision is interpreted indicate that the anti-transfer regulation prohibits recovery unless the transfer of rights is made by legislation or other means. E. Harold Patterson, recipient, 173 Ct. Cl. 819 (1965); Bolivar Cotton Oil Co. v. United States, 95 Ct.
Cl. 182 (1941); Doblin v. United States, 64 Ct. Cl. 352 (1928); Broadlake Partners, GSBCA 10713, 92-1 BCA 24.699; Albert Ginsberg, N- GSBCA 9911, 91-2 B.C. 23.784; CBI Services, Inc., ASBCA No 34893, 88-1 BCA 20.430; Mancon Liquidating Corp., ASBCA 18304, 74-1 BCA 10.470. This case was interesting in light of this discussion, insofar as the marital regulations (a legal action) that placed ownership of the estate on Jill Reese`s property was clearly recognized without problem by the agency. Their subsequent transfer of the J.
Reese Investments – Brokerage, Ltd. property might have become a problem if other more relevant problems had not been the first. On page 14, we are debating the theme “For the reasons described below, we do not need to address this issue further.” Personally, I am discouraged by this discussion. I would like contract officers to have the necessary general knowledge and be able to quickly explore some of the areas on which they need to know more. If not individually, I hope to accept and demand (if in my power) that contract offices have this capacity. I have less and less sympathy for the community, which seems to constantly complain about the overload and lack of training. Everyone`s overloaded these days. The old 40-hour week seems to be part of the New Deal that was defeated years ago — at least for so-called professionals. I will discover that real professionals are not waiting to be trained so that they can better manage the workload.
I sometimes wonder if some of the difficulty for some is not a lack of expertise – a problem they can solve. Don`t confuse me. I, too, was in an organization that was cut and cut off, because it improved until it started to collapse. Me and others went into a better managed world. In one of these trials, I also saw a number of people called and paid as professionals, who could not perform simple tasks on time because they lacked the skills (and were not going to acquire). Honestly, it was a dark world like the one where we were cut and cut while we had to improve. Back there, we were deeply proud of the face of adversity, something missing in the other organization, where crying and apologies seemed quite common. Proud and with two better work once by five were not saved. He didn`t feel so sad nearby. Even the other organization fell. That`s how it works. It`s better to go the first way.
By Eric Ottinger on Thursday, June 20, 2002 – 18:16: Everyone we see how confused I was during this thread. On May 10, I quoted Tuftco. I think the Court of Claims sums it up, an innovation agreement between the three parties is the strongest method to establish recognition by the government, let`s see what Ms. Manos has to say,