I found a link between Intergraph and the Georgia Courts.  My cases were doomed from the beginning, weren’t they?

I’m researching. That’s what I do. I’m trying to figure out why a Superior Court judge would deny me evidence and award summary judgment to the defendants, Intergraph, their teaming companies and the other defendants, just because she doesn’t have the authority to order the government to turn over evidence. Really? Why not just dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction? Why award summary judgments? Why be so adamant about denying me evidence and blocking my motion to compel evidence?

I’m also trying to figure out why a judge in the U.S. District Court would hand over my trade secrets to Intergraph, a key defendant in my cases, before the case was completed.

And now, the new judge in the District Court dismisses my case after I filed a notice to the court and other parties that Judge Owen’s son met with me at the Joshua Cup and told me he’s not surprised his dad turned over my trade secrets to the defendants.

Obviously, I am not going to let this go. I want understanding.

I started looking up key words in Google.  You know…trying to find common links?  I started researching the link between Governor Perdue and the key defendants.  He wasn’t willing to help me, but I have already blogged about the campaign funding he received from Intergraph’s lawyers.  That’s old news.  I did find how he appointed a key defendant to a very important committee linked to other defendants though.  That’s no surprise to me either. That’s also old news.

I kept researching.  Why would the courts assist Intergraph?  

In my key word searches, I learned about an organization called “Georgia Judicial Council“.  Obviously, I was curious what it was.  I found out they are doing business as “The Administrative Office of The Courts of Georgia”.   They even have a business ID, and are listed in the Georgia Ethics Commission as a lobbyist.  You can see that here and here.

I didn’t know courts needed a lobbyist group, but apparently they do. 

Well…I wondered what would happen if I added Intergraph to the mix.  No kidding?  Intergraph Solutions Group also shows up on the same page, as a lobbyist, along with The Administrative Office of The Courts of Georgia in the long list of lobbyists.   That got me to thinking.  Would the two have something in common?

Now, I try to find a common link between them, and what comes up?  I typed into Google the following phrase, with the quotes: “Administrative Office of The Courts of Georgia”

A product called “BusinessObjects XI” appears.  It’s a case management tool.  Click on the link to see what it does, and notice how the Georgia courts are a customer of this.

This product is put out by a company called “Business Objects, a SAP Company“.  

If you Google the following phrase, you will see how Intergraph is linked. “business objects” intergraph 

But wait!  Let me just tell you!  Intergraph is partnered with Business Objects!  Intergraph even has their own site announcing the company as a sponsor on Intergraph 2008.    Oh, you don’t say!!!?????  Want more proof?  Try these press releases:

• TMCNET (this is my favorite)   Why is it my favorite?  Because, this article explains how Intergraph and Business Objects also uses BusinessObjects XI for police records.  One of the judges handling my case is married to a Georgia State Trooper.  I wonder if the Georgia Public Safety has a contract with Intergraph?  I already know the answer.
• Reuters
• GeoConnexion 
• BNET
• GIScafe
• And the list goes on and on how the two companies are teamed

Next, let’s take a closer look at BusinessObjects XI and their link to The Administrative Office of The Courts of Georgia as reported by BNET - 

Administrative Office of the Courts of Georgia Standardizes on Business Objects; BusinessObjects XI Improves Performance of Case Management, Human Resources Reporting, and Collaboration Across Judiciary

AllBusiness reports this:

Business Objects (Nasdaq:BOBJ)(Euronext Paris ISIN code: FR0004026250 - BOB), the world’s leading provider of business intelligence (BI) solutions, today announced that the Administrative Office of the Courts of Georgia (AOC) has standardized on BusinessObjects(TM) XI, the industry’s most advanced and complete BI platform.

Business Objects says this, which makes me wonder if the Georgia State Police use the system too.  Oh yes, let’s not forgot how they mention that over 1000 courts in Georgia rely on BusinessObjects XI!

As a state agency, the AOC provides support services for the efficient operation of over one thousand courts across Georgia. The AOC relies on BusinessObjects XI to help track and report on everything from judicial personnel to traffic ticket fine collection and allocation to case management-related data

And they also had this to say:

The AOC IT department is working on a multi-year initiative to consolidate data from the courts and create a portal that will improve collaboration amongst judges and between Georgia’s judiciary, legislative, and law enforcement organizations.

Want to see something else that is shocking to me, and makes sense why the Federal judge may have assisted Intergraph in handing over my trade secrets?  The court knew I had met with Homeland Security people to go after grants to help fund my system.  That information was turned over in discovery.   Apparently, AOC also has an interest in Intergraph and Homeland Security.

Federal or local law enforcement could also access this portal and use the data to support Department of Homeland Security initiatives and inquiries.

I didn’t stand a chance in court against Intergraph.  Now I understand.  I asked God for wisdom, but I certainly didn’t expect to find this! 

Now what?  I can’t turn to the courts for justice if they are teamed with Intergraph.  I’m at a loss for words.  I am seriously at a loss for words.  There is no way to get justice if everyone who could have helped me are linked to the defendants.  From the Senators, to the Governor, to the House, and now, to the courts.

Would this mean all the judges in Georgia would have to recuse themselves from hearing my case because the courts are linked to Intergraph? If they’re making a judicial portal, then no court in Georgia could hear my case, right?

God help me, because you’re the only one that cares.

UPDATE: 21 AUG 08

Today, I find more information.

In 2005, the Department of Defense awarded a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) to Business Objects. TMCNet says this:

Business Objects (Nasdaq:BOBJ)(Euronext Paris ISIN code:FR0004026250-BOB), the world’s leading provider of business intelligence (BI) solutions, has been awarded a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) by the United States Department of Defense (DoD). This agreement was signed by the Defense Logistics Agency on behalf of the Department of Defense Enterprise Software Initiative (ESI), a joint DoD project designed to streamline software procurement across all DoD Components. Business Objects is the first BI vendor to be included on the DoD ESI list of software vendors.

In 2002, I introduced the DoD to a process improvement portal by demonstrating the prototype to the process engineering directorate, then known as Reengineering (WR-ALC/RE). RE hired Intergraph to evaluate the feasibility of my system and upon approval, assigned Intergraph to negotiate a contract with me for further development of the system. After notifying RE that I wanted to market the system to law enforcement agencies, Jackie Cleghorn, Deputy Director of RE, told me not to market the system because he wanted the military to have exclusive rights.

Negotiations began, but on October 22, 2002, Intergraph breached my nondisclosure. Government employees and Intergraph employees then disclosed my procurement plans to my competitors. (Affidavits, depositions and answers to my complaints confirm this.)

The United States District Court ordered that I give a demonstration of the prototype to Judge Owens. Judge Owens also turned over my trade secrets to Intergraph on a CD ROM that was turned over to John McGoldrick, a lawyer from the Martin Snow, LLP firm who is representing Intergraph. Mr. McGoldrick said he would make his own determination of what Intergraph could use from the information on the CD ROM and said “if I’m wrong, I’m wrong.” (See Judge Owens’ transcript dated November 4, 2004)

What do you do when the courts and the military have a commercial interest in the defendant and both are blocking evidence from being obtained?