DESIGNED STUPIDITY OR REAL?

“The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so that they believe they are as clever as he” -Karl Kraus

Why Do People Vote Against Their Interests? The Trap Set by the Billionaire Class

In every election cycle, the familiar paradox emerges: voters seem to champion policies at odds with their interests. From health care to taxes, education to worker protections, many voters cast ballots that benefit the wealthy at the expense of their security and opportunity. How do they repeatedly walk right into the trap set by the billionaire class?

The Illusion of Shared Values and Manufactured Problems

One of the key tactics of this billionaire class is creating the illusion of shared values and common enemies. Billionaire-funded media and think tanks relentlessly hammer away at issues they label as crises, like "socialism" or "welfare abuse," drawing attention to problems that are, in fact, exaggerated or even fabricated. These narratives distract from the real issues—wealth inequality, corporate influence, and a lack of essential social services—and instead channel voter frustration toward convenient scapegoats.

By offering simple, divisive messages, they give the illusion that these "problems" are clear and pressing. In truth, many of these manufactured issues are distractions meant to rally voters behind agendas that ultimately work against their interests.

The Emotional Trap: Fear, Anger, and Identity

One of the billionaire class's most powerful tools is tapping into the emotions that drive human behavior—especially fear and anger. When people feel that their identities, communities, or values are under attack, they respond with urgency. The billionaire-driven narratives are designed to make people feel threatened by change, whether it's changes in demographics, global economics, or social norms.

Focusing on these shifts as threats compels voters to rally around candidates who promise to “protect” them. In reality, these candidates typically enact policies that exacerbate wealth disparities and reduce access to resources that the average person needs.

Anti-Intellectualism and the Devaluation of Expertise

A strategic devaluation of knowledge and expertise also serves the billionaire agenda. When people are told that experts—scientists, economists, educators—are out of touch, they’re more inclined to distrust facts and figures that reveal the inequality they’re enduring. Anti-intellectualism dismisses the voices that might challenge billionaire-backed policies, reinforcing that everyday “common sense” is superior to evidence and expertise.

This carefully crafted narrative implies that solutions from experts are elitist or impractical while promoting policies that align with big business interests as more "authentic" and "American."

Erosion of Hope and Dependence on a "Strongman" Figure

Voting against one’s best interests also stems from a diminished sense of agency. When people feel powerless, they may invest their faith in "strongman" leaders who project authority and promise to "fix" everything. These leaders often claim to stand against the establishment, even as they protect the establishment’s most influential players. This cycle of dependency on a single figure diverts power away from democratic processes that could serve the public good, allowing billionaires to consolidate their hold on the government and the economy.

Breaking the Cycle: Awareness, Solidarity, and Action

To avoid falling into these traps, it's essential to recognize the mechanics of manipulation. By questioning the narrative, turning to credible sources, and discussing the impact of policies with others who are similarly affected, people can dismantle the rhetoric that pits them against their best interests. Solidarity, shared knowledge, and an insistence on honest representation are powerful tools in resisting the billionaire class's influence.

Voting for one’s true interests demands careful discernment of which voices serve the public good versus those that merely pretend to. The future relies on empowering voters to make informed choices that serve themselves and their communities, challenging the systems that thrive on keeping them in the dark.

William James Spriggs

 

MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE FAITH

The Paradox of a Loving, All-Knowing Deity and the Punishment of Non-Believers

In philosophical and moral discourse, the idea of a loving, omniscient deity who punishes individuals—especially children or adults who either lack faith or deny that deity’s existence—raises profound ethical and intellectual concerns. Belief in a benevolent and omnipotent deity often assumes that such a being would act with justice and compassion far beyond human understanding. However, the concept of punishment for non-belief presents a paradox that undermines the moral framework on which such a deity's qualities of perfection, love, and omniscience are purportedly based. The traditional apologist’s response, that “God works in mysterious ways,” often appears insufficient and evasive, sidestepping pressing ethical questions rather than addressing them.

The Moral Contradiction in Punishing Non-Believers

Central to the concept of many monotheistic religions is the belief in a deity who embodies love, justice, and omnibenevolence. Yet, the idea that such a deity would create a system in which belief is both mandatory and grounds for eternal consequence fundamentally conflicts with those qualities. If God is genuinely loving and just, would it not be within His nature to ensure that all beings are free to believe or disbelieve without the threat of punishment? Furthermore, for a child or even an adult who may genuinely struggle with belief, to suffer as a result of their doubt or disbelief seems not only harsh but also incompatible with the idea of a loving deity.

For many, faith is not a choice but a journey influenced by culture, upbringing, personal experiences, and intellectual inquiries. Therefore, the insistence on a singular path to salvation, especially under the threat of punishment, reduces the complexity of individual spirituality and undermines the autonomy that any compassionate being might wish for its creations. This structure forces belief not out of love or understanding but out of fear, which many argue is an unworthy basis for a meaningful relationship with a deity.

The Inadequacy of "God Works in Mysterious Ways"

Apologists often invoke the idea that God’s actions are beyond human comprehension, encapsulated in the response that “God works in mysterious ways.” While it may acknowledge that there are aspects of divine action outside human understanding, this answer offers little substantive moral reasoning. If God’s ways are mysterious, does that mystery absolve Him from all moral accountability, even from the perspective of the beings He created? Simply declaring God’s actions inscrutable closes off meaningful inquiry, inviting acceptance rather than understanding and discouraging the intellectual rigor a truly just deity might encourage.

Moreover, attributing suffering or punishment to divine mystery denies the reality of pain and moral outrage that such beliefs can provoke. For someone grappling with the idea of faith, the suffering of innocents, or the punishment of unbelievers, “mystery” is not a comfort—it is a barrier to authentic engagement with the questions that arise from honest doubt. This response shifts responsibility away from moral clarity and onto the individual’s willingness to accept ambiguity, which can come across as intellectually dismissive and morally unsatisfying.

Intellectual Dishonesty and the Demand for Faith

Faith, by nature, is often personal and deeply individual. However, the demand for faith under threat removes the sincerity from this act and transforms belief into a performative requirement rather than an authentic expression of trust or love. In many theological frameworks, God is said to have endowed humans with reason and free will. Forcing belief through the threat of punishment, however, disregards these gifts and essentially punishes the very exercise of critical thinking and moral inquiry—traits that a loving deity might be expected to value in their creations.

When individuals are asked to believe in a deity who would seemingly contradict their tenets of love and justice by condemning non-believers, they are forced into an intellectual compromise that feels morally dubious. Accepting this paradox without question can feel dishonest and, for many, an act of intellectual and moral betrayal. The intellectual honesty required to grapple with such questions often leads one to doubt or agnosticism, where questions of morality and justice must be reconciled without easy answers or evasions.

The Morally Bankrupt Nature of Conditional Love

One of the most unsettling aspects of this framework is the implication that God’s love is conditional, contingent upon belief rather than the inherent worth of each individual. If divine love and forgiveness are accessible only to those who believe, then love is not unconditional but transactional. A deity who offers salvation exclusively to believers enforces a kind of spiritual elitism that fails to recognize the diversity of human experience and understanding.

If a human parent were to demonstrate conditional love, withholding care or protection from a child based on whether the child believed certain things, we would rightly view this as emotionally manipulative and ethically wrong. Why should we accept a divine parent acting similarly and, worse, consigning disbelief to punishment? Unconditional love's moral worth lies in its lack of conditions—extending grace and compassion without coercion or threat, which would embody a truly omnibenevolent deity.

A Call for Intellectual and Moral Honesty

For many individuals wrestling with faith, the ethical implications of such beliefs can be a stumbling block that demands honesty rather than compliance. Believing in a deity who punishes non-believers undercuts the qualities of love, justice, and forgiveness that form the moral foundation of such a deity’s existence. Accepting this paradox without question requires an abdication of moral and intellectual integrity—a demand that is not only intellectually dishonest but morally reprehensible.

Ultimately, suppose there is to be a belief in a loving and perfect deity. In that case, that belief must be reconciled with principles of moral consistency and compassion that honor the complexity of human experience and the virtues of justice and love. For many, refusing to accept the punishment of innocent unbelief is not a denial of faith but an affirmation of these principles. This stance demands a more nuanced and honest understanding of spirituality that encourages questioning, values moral integrity, and upholds compassion over coercion. In this way, true faith might be found not in fear or blind acceptance but in a courageous pursuit of truth and justice that honors the human mind and spirit.

William James Spriggs 

THE DAY DEMOCRACY DIED

The Day Democracy Died: November 2016 and the Long March Toward Fascism in America

In November 2016, a seismic event rattled the foundations of American democracy: the election of Donald Trump. For many, it marked the moment American democracy suffered a fatal blow. Trump’s victory was a triumph not of the popular will but of an electoral system—designed two centuries ago—that ultimately disregarded the majority vote. The very institution meant to safeguard democracy, the Electoral College, had betrayed it, handing the presidency to a candidate who would openly challenge democratic norms and institutions.

The Electoral College: Democracy’s Death Warrant

Since its inception, the Electoral College has been a peculiar and controversial institution, a relic created to balance power between states rather than to honor the popular vote. The idea was to prevent an unqualified populist from capturing the presidency—yet, ironically, in 2016, it delivered just that outcome. Trump won despite losing the popular vote by millions, as the system allowed sparsely populated states to wield disproportionate power. It was a democratic failure written into the nation’s DNA—a flaw so embedded and normalized that most Americans accepted it without question.

This acceptance of an archaic system is a symptom of a larger disease: a widespread complacency that set the stage for eroding democratic values. For decades, Americans were "fat, dumb, and happy," enjoying the comfort and convenience of life without recognizing the creeping threat to their freedoms. Content to believe democracy would persist without their vigilance, many ignored the warning signs flashing red as Trump pushed the boundaries of executive power and weakened the rule of law.

Complacency and Denial: The Real Threat to Democracy

By 2016, American complacency had become deeply ingrained. Lulled by material comfort and cultural distractions, a large swath of the population failed to see the cracks forming in the country’s democratic structures. Trump’s rise was not an isolated anomaly; it was the product of years of eroded public trust in institutions, simmering political divides, and a populace gradually conditioned to overlook assaults on the foundations of democracy.

News outlets warned that democracy was under threat, and scholars outlined the risks of rising authoritarianism, but the collective response was essentially one of disbelief and inaction. Even when Trump expressed open disdain for democratic norms, openly undermined the free press, and systematically weakened checks and balances, many shrugged. The veneer of normalcy persisted because the decay of democracy is often subtle, quiet, and slow—until it’s not.

Fast Forward to 2024: The Triumph of Oligarchy and Fascism

As the 2024 election looms, the consequences of that fateful November in 2016 have become impossible to ignore. Now, democracy is gasping for breath as Trump or his ideological successors seize the reins with a reinforced mandate. The institutions meant to protect the people have been reshaped to preserve power, exposing a vulnerable public to the whims of an emboldened executive.

In this dystopian vision of 2024, the oligarchs celebrate. They’ve played the long game well, amassing wealth and influence as the government increasingly caters to their interests. Corporations flourish while labor rights are decimated, environmental protections are shredded, and social safety nets disappear. An empowered ruling elite, shielded by their wealth and fortified by their connections, can operate without accountability. Their ascendancy is not an aberration but the inevitable result of decades of lobbying, deregulation, and legal maneuvers that have turned government into their private enterprise.

For ordinary Americans, the future is bleak. Freedoms are curtailed in the name of "order" and "security." The public sphere—the press, education, voting rights—has been neutered, with policies crafted to suppress dissent and limit political opposition. Most disturbingly, many citizens, having become apathetic and accustomed to the state’s encroaching control, hardly notice the shift. Their disinterest in civic engagement and growing dependence on authoritarian “stability” are not just consequences but accelerants of fascism’s rise.

How Did We Get Here? The Slow Burn of American Democracy’s Erosion

The erosion of American democracy didn’t begin with Trump; it was a slow process catalyzed by complacency and worsened by systemic issues. The following forces worked in tandem to bring democracy to its knees:

1. The Normalization of Authoritarian Behavior: Trump’s presidency exposed how fragile democratic norms are. Each time he disregarded these norms, his opponents hoped the system would hold him in check—but time and again, the system failed. Partisan divides often paralyzed Congress, and the judiciary, stacked with loyalists, became increasingly partisan.
2. Economic Disparity and the Rise of Oligarchy: While Americans grew distracted by a media obsessed with sensationalism, the wealth gap widened to historic proportions. The country’s richest gained unprecedented control over the economy and the political process, shaping policies that served their interests. As the cost of running a campaign skyrocketed, politicians became beholden to their wealthy backers, sidelining the needs of the average voter.
3. Erosion of Public Trust: Decades of disinformation, amplified by social media, destroyed public trust in institutions and created a fertile ground for authoritarian narratives. Americans distrusted news sources, the judiciary, and even the electoral process. With a fractured media landscape, it became easy for political leaders to exploit these divides and rally their base against “enemies,” real or perceived.
4. Political Apathy: Despite unprecedented challenges to democracy, many Americans turned inward, focusing on personal comforts and tuning out the political chaos. Civic education and engagement dwindled. As a result, the electorate became less informed, less engaged, and less prepared to identify and challenge abuses of power.

The Consequences of Complacency: A Warning to Future Generations

The rise of authoritarianism is not sudden; it results from citizens neglecting their civic duties over time. In 2016, Americans believed their system was invincible, that it could withstand any leader or crisis. They assumed democracy was a given, not a responsibility. However, democracy requires constant vigilance, and the tragic lesson of 2016 is that when people stop caring, stop fighting for their rights, and stop holding leaders accountable, democracy dies.

In 2024, as oligarchs revel in their power, Americans who cherished democracy can only look back regretfully. The time for action has passed, and the checks and balances that once safeguarded liberty have been dismantled. The failure was not solely in the institutions but in the hearts of the people who believed they could be passive participants in their governance.

As fascism tightens its grip, the voices of dissent are fewer and softer, drowned out by the din of unchecked power and the public too disillusioned—or too afraid—to rise. This is a somber reminder that democracy cannot survive without active, engaged citizens. The events of 2016 were a turning point. Still, the story could have been different if people had realized sooner that democracy’s greatest enemy is not just any one leader or institution but complacency itself.

William James Spriggs

RESISTANCE AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

In the context of a potential second Trump term and the significant changes outlined in Project 2025, the role of civil disobedience and public demonstrations becomes an essential question for those who oppose such an agenda. The tradition of civil disobedience—peacefully refusing to comply with specific laws or demands of a government—has been a vital part of democratic societies, serving as a tool to draw attention to injustices and advocate for change. For those who believe that a Trump administration could threaten democratic norms or individual rights, continuing to speak out may feel like a moral obligation. Here’s how anti-Trump individuals and groups can consider engaging in peaceful resistance:

The Role of Civil Disobedience and Demonstrations in Challenging a Trump Agenda

1. Continue Peaceful Demonstrations: Peaceful demonstrations are a cornerstone of democratic expression. They allow people to visibly display their dissent, build community solidarity, and bring attention to issues that may not be adequately covered in mainstream media. Marches, sit-ins, and rallies can help galvanize support, highlight the values people want to protect, and keep the public engaged with critical issues. These actions must remain peaceful to avoid escalating tensions and to retain public support.
2. Organize with Purpose: Effective civil disobedience requires organization and clarity of message. Working with experienced activist groups can help ensure that protests are well-coordinated, legally protected, and impactful. Organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, or newer activist movements have experience in organizing. They can offer guidance on safely and effectively conducting protests, including understanding protest permits, engaging with law enforcement, and ensuring that participants' rights are protected.
3. Leverage Digital Activism: Besides in-person demonstrations, digital activism is a powerful tool for amplifying voices and reaching a broader audience. Social media platforms, online petitions, and virtual town halls allow people to express their views, organize support, and spread information quickly. These platforms can help build solidarity networks and raise awareness beyond local communities, connecting people across the country who share similar concerns about the direction of the government.
4. Direct Action in Support of Core Values: Beyond protests, civil disobedience can take the form of direct actions, such as refusing to comply with policies that people believe to be unjust. For instance, communities might engage in actions like protecting immigrant neighbors if deportations intensify, providing sanctuary to those targeted by new policies, or boycotting businesses that support measures perceived as harmful. These actions should be planned with legal counsel to ensure that those involved understand the potential risks and consequences.
5. Engage in Peaceful Civil Disobedience with Legal Preparedness: If you engage in actions that could involve legal risk, such as sit-ins or blocking access to federal buildings, it is important to do so with a plan. This means knowing your legal rights, accessing legal aid, and preparing to document interactions with law enforcement. This approach protects participants and ensures that any overreach or abuse by authorities can be brought to light and challenged in court.
6. Foster Open Dialogue While Standing Firm: Speaking out against policies and actions that individuals find unjust does not mean abandoning dialogue. Conversations with those who may support different viewpoints can help build understanding and even identify common ground on issues like protecting the democratic process. However, standing firm on core values and being clear about what is at stake is equally important. This balance helps maintain a broad coalition and ensures that the movement for justice and democracy remains inclusive and grounded in shared principles.

Balancing Advocacy with Safety

While civil disobedience and demonstrations are potent tools for change, it is crucial to balance these activities with a focus on personal and community safety, especially in situations where local law enforcement may be politically aligned. Ensuring that protests remain peaceful can help reduce the risk of violence and maintain the moral high ground, even when facing opposition from authorities.

Documentation is key during demonstrations. Recording events, interactions with police, and the behavior of all participants helps maintain transparency and accountability and helps law enforcement and protesters. This documentation can also be critical in legal proceedings if there are disputes about the conduct of law enforcement or other officials during demonstrations.

The Power of Persistent Advocacy

History has shown that sustained advocacy and civil disobedience can effectively shift public opinion and create pressure for political change. Movements for civil rights, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all marked by people's willingness to stand up, often at great personal risk, to demand a better future. The current moment may call for a similar commitment to civic action.

For those who oppose the policies outlined in Project 2025 or fear the implications of a Trump administration, continuing to speak out is a way to ensure that the values of democracy, equality, and justice are kept in the public conversation. It is a way of saying that all Americans deserve to have their voices heard and that dissent is vital to a healthy democracy.

By combining strategic, peaceful civil disobedience with strong community networks and legal preparedness, anti-Trump individuals can continue to assert their right to dissent and advocate for their vision of a just and equitable America. At its core, this approach underscores the belief that democracy is not just about voting every four years—it is about active participation in shaping the country's future, every day.

Building Resilience in Uncertain Times

Ultimately, Americans can navigate the uncertainty of a politically charged future by engaging in peaceful civil disobedience, organizing effective demonstrations, and preparing for the potential challenges ahead. It is a time to remain vigilant, stand together, and continue advocating for a vision of America that reflects the values of equality, justice, and democracy for all. While the road may be difficult, the power of collective action and community solidarity offers a path forward, even in the face of significant political challenges.

William James Spriggs

 

  

PREPARE FOR TRUMP'S ARRIVAL

As the 2024 election approaches, Americans face the possibility of Donald Trump returning to office, which could have significant implications for the country. Trump has made clear his intent to implement sweeping changes, as outlined in the Project 2025 handbook, a policy guide developed by conservative think tanks. This document provides a blueprint for restructuring the federal government, focusing on areas such as immigration, environmental regulation, and the role of federal agencies. The scope of these proposed changes could dramatically shift the balance of power and the function of U.S. governance.

With the potential for a politically charged atmosphere, Americans need to prepare for what may come, especially considering the possibility of unrest or civil uncertainty. Below, we outline steps for personal safety and community preparedness in the event of a Trump victory, particularly in situations where local law enforcement may be aligned with the new administration’s agenda.

Understanding Project 2025: What It Entails

Project 2025 is a detailed plan for implementing a conservative agenda to reshape government agencies, streamline federal oversight, and enforce stricter policies in areas like immigration and regulation. For supporters, it represents a path toward reducing what they see as federal overreach. For others, it is a source of concern, potentially undermining democratic norms and weakening checks and balances in the federal government. The implications of this project are far-reaching, and individuals must understand the potential impacts on their rights, freedoms, and local communities.

Preparing for a Politically Uncertain Environment

Given the stakes of the 2024 election, individuals and communities need to prepare for various scenarios, including the possibility that local police and sheriffs could align with Trump’s administration, potentially compromising their role as neutral protectors of public safety. Here are steps for personal safety and community readiness:

Steps for Personal Safety and Community Action

1. Build Community Networks: A strong network with neighbors and community members is essential for mutual support. These networks can provide a way to share information, coordinate safety efforts, and support one another in times of unrest. This is especially important if there is a concern that local law enforcement may not offer impartial protection. Community watch groups or local safety committees can offer a sense of security and resilience.

2. Know Your Legal Rights: Familiarizing yourself with your constitutional rights, particularly when dealing with law enforcement, is crucial. This knowledge can empower individuals during protests or interactions with police, ensuring that they understand their rights to free speech, assembly, and protection from unlawful searches. Carry contact information for legal aid organizations like the ACLU, which often offer hotlines for immediate legal assistance.

3. Diversify Emergency Contacts: If there are concerns about local law enforcement’s impartiality, it may be wise to identify alternative sources of emergency support. This might include private security, local community safety initiatives, or trusted friends who can be reached quickly in need. Preparing an emergency plan with designated safe spaces and evacuation routes can be a critical part of this preparation.

4. Coordinate with Faith-Based and Community Organizations: Local churches, mosques, synagogues, and other community centers can become safe havens during political instability. These institutions often have the resources to provide shelter, legal guidance, and support, and they can help facilitate community organizing. They can also be trusted gathering places if public protests or demonstrations occur.

5. Document Interactions with Law Enforcement: If local police or sheriffs appear to be politically biased, documenting interactions can be a critical safeguard. Use your phone to record encounters, take notes, and gather witness statements when safe. This documentation can be valuable in case of legal disputes or to bring attention to potential abuses of power. Apps designed for secure documentation can help ensure that records are kept safely.

6. Develop Alternative Safety Plans: Create a plan that includes safe routes, secure meeting points, and communication methods like encrypted messaging apps. This can be particularly valuable if conventional emergency services are compromised. Establish a “buddy system” where you regularly check in with trusted contacts, especially those who may live outside your area and can offer support remotely.

7. Engage with State-Level and Federal Representatives: If local law enforcement appears to be acting politically, reaching out to state and federal representatives can provide an avenue for redress. These officials may offer oversight or intervention, especially in cases where local actions threaten individual rights or community safety.

8. Support Local Advocacy Organizations: Grassroots organizations are often on the front lines of providing support and guidance during periods of political uncertainty. By working with these groups, individuals can stay informed, attend workshops on civil rights, and participate in community-building efforts that bolster resilience. These groups can also provide resources for legal action or public advocacy if rights are threatened.

Navigating Political Uncertainty

The potential for a second Trump term brings a heightened sense of uncertainty, especially given the proposals laid out in Project 2025. These changes could significantly alter the functioning of government agencies and the role of federal oversight. As a result, many Americans are concerned about the implications for democracy, the rule of law, and public safety.

Regardless of political affiliation, individuals need to be government agencies' functioning and federal oversight's role proactive about their safety and well-being during this time. This means building resilient communities, understanding legal protections, and being prepared to adapt to changes. Americans can face the future with a greater sense of preparedness by staying engaged with local and national political processes, advocating for accountability, and ensuring personal safety plans are in place.

Ultimately, while the political landscape may be unpredictable, communities can remain strong through mutual support, vigilance, and an unwavering commitment to protecting democratic values and individual freedoms. 

William James Spriggs

TEACH AMERICAN HISTORY

The rich and complex history of the United States is a narrative of struggle, progress, and setbacks, reflecting the broader efforts to build a functional democracy. Understanding this history is essential for all citizens, and there is a notable divide today between those familiar with it and those who are not. This division has contributed to contemporary polarization, as those lacking historical context may miss the deeper roots of current issues.

Why Teaching History Matters

Teaching American history comprehensively from grade school through high school is not just about preserving facts; it shapes citizens' ability to critically assess today's social and political challenges. This understanding helps bridge divides and fosters a sense of shared identity, making it harder for polarized narratives to take hold.

Examples of Historical Lessons That Could Reduce Polarization

1. The Civil Rights Movement and Social Justice:
• A thorough understanding of the Civil Rights Movement would give students a more nuanced view of current racial inequalities. Recognizing the persistence of systemic racism and the struggle for equality could frame discussions around social justice in a way that acknowledges both progress and the remaining challenges. This could mitigate conflicts over issues like affirmative action or police reform, where misunderstandings about historical context often fuel polarization.
2. The Constitution and Federalism:
• Teaching the evolution of the U.S. Constitution, including the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists and the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention, helps students appreciate the complexities of governance and the balance of power. This knowledge is critical when addressing current debates over states' rights versus federal authority, such as healthcare, education, and immigration policies. A better grasp of federalism's role in American history might reduce the stark divides over these issues.
3. Labor Movements and Economic Inequality:
• The history of labor movements, including the fight for fair wages and better working conditions, can provide important context for today’s discussions on economic inequality. Learning about workers' struggles during the Industrial Revolution, the rise of unions, and the New Deal reforms would help students understand the roots of debates about income disparity and workers' rights. With this context, discussions about policies like raising the minimum wage or addressing wealth inequality could become more grounded in historical precedent rather than divisive rhetoric.

The Educational Gap and Its Consequences

The absence of a robust historical education contributes to a lack of empathy for the struggles of different groups within the country. When history is treated as an optional subject or presented with gaps, it leaves room for misinformation and incomplete narratives to shape people’s understanding of present-day issues. For example, ignorance of America's involvement in global conflicts like the World Wars or the Cold War can result in oversimplified views on foreign policy and national security today.

By making American history a mandatory part of education through high school, we can cultivate a more informed citizenry better equipped to engage in debates with a shared understanding of the nation's foundations. This knowledge could also encourage critical thinking, helping students see beyond simplistic solutions to complex problems and fostering a dialogue that builds on shared facts rather than divisive myths.

Conclusion

America's history is both a story of aspiration and struggle. It is one of overcoming adversity and fighting for a better version of democracy, even when the path has been fraught with division and bloodshed. To honor this legacy and strengthen our democracy, American history must be taught comprehensively and thoughtfully from the earliest grades through high school. Such an education would enrich students’ understanding of their heritage and help heal the divisions that threaten to pull the country apart today.

William James Spriggs

  

LAW PRACTICE HISTORICAL RECORD

William J. Spriggs                     bill@spriggslawgroup.com                (434) 993-2802

http://spriggslawgroup.com         http://spriggslawgroup.blogspot.com 

From 2011 to the present, 23 ASBCA and CBCA appeals.  Over the past several years, Mr. Spriggs has successfully handled 23 appeals on behalf of clients before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA).  Most of those cases were settled by agreement of the parties, and four were litigated to a final decision.  Mr. Spriggs also has advised clients on many contract management and dispute resolution matters and served as an expert witness.  He frequently assists clients in preparing requests for equitable adjustment and claims and has experience with ADR at the ASBCA and the CBCA.

During his career, Mr. Spriggs has served as founder and CEO of his own professional services firm, which, under his guidance, he took from $2M in revenues and 15 people to $80M in revenues and 245 people.  He has over 40 years of experience managing his business while serving as a federal procurement lawyer in cases for major corporations and small to medium-sized companies.  As a government contracts attorney, he has handled cases involving claims, protests, disputes, and appeals related to constructive changes, default terminations, convenience terminations, cost allowability and allocability, contract interpretation, data rights protection, and defective pricing.  His services have enabled his clients to recover nearly $1,000,000,000 in profits on government contracts.  The firm he founded and led saved its clients billions in losses.

 

While growing his firm’s business, Mr. Spriggs maintained a profit rate of over 30 percent.  He applied horizontal management techniques with project teams and administrative functions.  The firm had zero claims against it.  Mr. Spriggs resisted mergers and diversified the firm with critical acquisitions.  He maintained a merit-based compensation system and an entrepreneurial approach to marketing and complete client satisfaction.  He found a niche for small to medium-sized firms offering superior performance at a reasonable cost.  His approach was to grow only as the needs of his clients dictated.  He stuck to his core values of quality excellence and successful results.  His motto was growth, one step at a time.

Although he is known for his litigation skills, his emphasis has always been on government contract dispute avoidance and resolution by settlement.  He is a counselor, lecturer, and author.  He is a recognized expert on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its various federal, state, and local agency counterparts.

His representative clients include:  Lockheed Martin, The Boeing Company, General Dynamics, Beech Aircraft, Cessna Aircraft, Koch Industries, General Time Corporation, AshBritt, Inc., Bourns, Inc., Recon Optical, Inc., Target Corporation, Homes by Bell-Hi, Inc., Pettibone Corporation, Pikesville Electric Corporation, Arvol D. Hays Construction Co., Inc., Goodfellow Brothers Construction Co., Inc., Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., Cubic Corporation, Magnavox Electronic Systems Co., Inc., UNR Industries, Inc., Research, Analysis & Development, Inc., 3M, Inc., Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., and Spacesaver Systems, Inc.

His cases have involved

·        weapons systems for the Army,

·        disaster recovery services for FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers,

·        GOCO facility services for DOE,

·        aircraft stress sensing systems for the Air Force,

·        bomb fuses for the Navy,

·        water supply to the Army in Iraq,

·        rough terrain trucks for the Army,

·        forklift trucks for the Army,

·        conveyor systems and forklifts for the Postal Service,

·        weapons instrumentation for the Navy,

·        road reconstruction for the Department of Interior,

·        submarines for the Navy,

·        missiles for the Air Force,

·        storage and distribution systems for DCMA,

·        repair and home construction for HUD,

·        aircraft engine parts for DCMA,

·        information systems for the Navy,

·        security systems for the FBI,

·        tug boats for the Coast Guard and

·        office furniture and filing systems for GSA.

Mr. Spriggs has a proven track record of enhancing client profitability, avoiding client losses from cost disallowances and default terminations, and resolving disputes on contract and regulation interpretation issues.

Enhancing Client Profitability

He investigates contract performance against contractual requirements and analyzes whether customer acts or omissions give rise to constructive changes to contract requirements or breaches of implied contract obligations.  As he investigates the facts, he examines various theories to submit requests for equitable adjustment under the changes clause.  He then prepares, offers, and negotiates settlement of the recommendations.  On occasion, he has taken these cases to the next level of the dispute resolution process.  He has over 70 published judicial decisions.  Although he has taken dozens of cases to trial, he has settled most of them by negotiating a settlement.  His recovery success rate exceeds 80%, with over 90% of the cases settled without expensive litigation.  His fee in these cases is recoverable as part of the settlements.

Avoiding Losses from Disallowances and Defaults

In several cases, Mr. Spriggs has assisted contractors and subcontractors in avoiding losses on government contracts and subcontracts by successfully negotiating cost disallowance issues with DCAA and convincing contracting officers to convert terminations from default to convenience.  Based on his knowledge of FAR Part 31 and the DCAA Contract Audit Manual, he has convinced auditors and contracting officers of the allowability of costs, often based on the proper application of allocability principles.  He frequently teams up with the forensic accounting firm McGovern & Greene to add expert accounting reports to his presentation.  He always presents a comprehensive written argument followed by finely tuned negotiation techniques.  His success rate in cost disallowance cases is nearly 100%.  In cases of terminations for default, he presents a comprehensive statement of the facts and all the excuses for failure to perform.  Since every compensable change is an excusable cause of failure to perform, his presentations include requests for an equitable adjustment under the contract's changes clause.  He consists of a pro forma termination for convenience settlement proposal to bolster his argument.  He also negotiates termination for convenience settlement proposals.  Based on his knowledge of FAR Part 31, he has successfully negotiated the allowability of costs, including his fee.

Resolving Disputes on Contract and Regulation Interpretation

Mr. Spriggs routinely advises clients on the meaning of contractual and regulatory language.  Often, these complex documents require the discerning eye of an expert knowledgeable in the legal principles of interpretation.  He has found that most disputes arise because the parties do not understand fully and have vastly differing interpretations of the meaning of language.  Proper contract administration requires both sides to be sure contractual documents are worded.  The best way to resolve a dispute is to prevent it.  So, Mr. Spriggs has concentrated on reviewing documents before and immediately after the award to ensure their meaning is clear to avoid possible disputes arising during performance.  Since differing interpretations of contract language can give rise to compensable changes, he also reviews performance problems to determine if language disputes should be resolved in the context of requests for equitable adjustment.  Regulations also are complex.  Mr. Spriggs advises clients on correctly interpreting rules such as data rights and computer software.  His vast working knowledge of all federal, state, and local acquisition regulations has positioned him to field questions on various subjects such as conflicts of interest, assignments, novations, commercial contracting, sole source procurements, source selection, protests, and small business programs.

Relevant Representative Experience

·        Reversing a termination for default.  The Army terminated a weapons systems manufacturer for default based on alleged failure to pass tests and make progress.  The contractor had made a valiant effort to pass the requisite tests, which had been changed without the contractor’s knowledge or consent.  Mr. Spriggs analyzed the situation and found that the cure notice was based on one type of test, and the show cause and default statements were based on a different test.  Since a default for test failure or to make progress must be preceded by a proper cure notice, he argued the default was improper.  He also assisted the client in preparing a termination for a convenience settlement proposal, and he augmented that proposal with detailed requests for equitable adjustment based on improper testing and impossibility of performance.  He invited his colleagues at McGovern & Greene to assist in cost presentations and with DCAA audits.  Throughout the audit process, he provided answers to questions from the auditors and prepared position papers on the allowability and allocability of costs, including his consultancy costs.  He put together a comprehensive presentation of the facts and legal principles in preparation for negotiating a settlement of the entire case.  He first argued the impropriety of the default based on failure to issue a proper cure notice and excusable causes of failure to perform based on constructive changes.  He also pointed out that the constructive changes based on impossibility would survive even if the default were upheld.  The DCAA auditors had disallowed costs based on the adjustment for loss formula.  Mr. Spriggs pointed out that the procedure does not apply when the government substantially contributes to the loss.  Following the written presentation, he led the negotiation team, which successfully settled the matter with the government, converting the default to convenience and paying a substantial portion of the contractor’s costs (which included his consulting attorney fees) plus profit.

 

·        Careful contract administration yields nearly a billion dollars.  The Corps of Engineers attempted to terminate improperly a Katrina disaster recovery contractor.  Mr. Spriggs devised a plan that successfully thwarted the removal attempts, resulting in the contractor’s recovery of $750,000,000 in revenues.  Then, seeing various constructive changes based on daily questions about contract interpretation, he prepared and submitted requests for equitable adjustment and claims for an additional sum of over $100,000,000.  Most of the demands and claims were based on contract interpretation issues. Still, the allowability of certain costs also came into play, requiring him to work with DCAA to resolve cost allowability and allocability issues.   One of the claims involved the unique theory that the contractor is entitled to relief under the Changes clause, where the government and the contractor were equally ignorant of the underlying facts.  Through that theory, a variation on the superior knowledge doctrine, Mr. Spriggs convinced the Corps of the efficacy of equal ignorance. He settled the claim for 100 cents on the dollar.   Later, Mr. Spriggs successfully prosecuted a protest of the advanced contracting initiative for disaster recovery services.

 

·        Proving DCAA auditors were wrong.  DCAA auditors disallowed certain overhead costs as not allocable to a government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) nuclear facility.  The allocability issue centered around how much off-site overhead would be allowed on the contractor’s employees at the GOCO facility.  Mr. Spriggs analyzed the situation, and based on his experience in the Arctic submarine tanker case (discussed below), he wrote a position paper explaining to the auditors that the allocability regulation was written in the disjunctive and that if the cost is necessary to the operation of the business in support of the statement of work, it is allocable to the government contract.  Moreover, only potential direct benefits must be demonstrated.  There is a benefit, general in scope, derived from costs necessary to the overall operation of the business.  In meetings with DCAA, the auditors finally concluded that the offsite overhead was allocable to the GOCO contract.

 

·        Government misuse of proprietary, confidential data.  The Air Force received a contractor’s unsolicited proposal for aircraft frame stress sensing systems and wrote the contractor saying it would treat the submission as proprietary and confidential.  After that, the government published a synopsis of the concept and asked for expressions of interest from contractors.  Mr. Spriggs argued that the contractor’s offer and the government’s acceptance formed an implied contract not to disclose the data.  Alternatively, he claimed the implied warranty resulted directly from his client’s response to the government’s offer to consider unsolicited proposals.  Detailed written presentations and extensive negotiations followed to no avail.  Mr. Spriggs tried the case and won a motion for summary judgment.

 

·        Stopping a sole source acquisition.   The government intended to award an exclusive source acquisition of bomb fuses.  Mr. Spriggs parsed the language of FAR Part 6 and the relevant precedents and determined adequate justification for the sole source award, which had not been adequately analyzed and documented.  The facts did not justify the prize, and an exception to the competition requirement did not exist.  After trying to convince the government of its error to no avail, he again sought relief in court, and the court agreed, issuing a permanent injunction prohibiting the sole source award and granting the client the opportunity to compete.

 

·        Creating a new theory of recovery.   The Army contracted for water to be supplied to troops in Iraq.  The contract required the government to assist the contractor by providing adequate facilities, space, and accommodations necessary for contractor personnel to perform the contract.  It then terminated the contractor for default and failure to meet the delivery schedule.  The agreement was awarded under FAR Part 12, which deals with commercial item contracting with special terms and conditions for such acquisitions.  Mr. Spriggs, an expert on commercial item contracting, prepared the contractor’s response to the termination for default based on claims that the government breached the express and implied terms of the contract, requiring the government to cooperate and provide the contractor with facilities and accommodations necessary for contract performance.  He pointed out that the principles of common law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) govern the parties' relationship under commercial contracting.  He thus prepared a presentation based on the principles of traditional contract damages, including incidental and consequential damages, reaching far beyond the constructive change equitable adjustment principles involving the FAR Part 31 cost principles.  The new theory arises almost of necessity, given that Mr. Spriggs argued that FAR Part 12 essentially removes the changes clause.  The case is pending.

 

·        Defective government-furnished drawings and specifications.  According to detailed drawings and specifications, the Army contracted for rough terrain forklift trucks.  The contract required significant engineering effort and completion of the first article testing.  The contractor encountered errors in the government-furnished data package and submitted dozens of requests for waivers (RFW) and engineering change proposals (ECP).  The government granted them in part and denied them in detail.  During and after the first article testing, the DCMA product inspectors descended on the contractor’s plant and frequently interfered with the contractor’s performance.  They also delayed and disrupted the contractor’s performance.  After completion of the work, but before final payment on the contract, the contractor sought the advice of Mr. Spriggs, who put together a constructive changes presentation with voluminous attachments and enclosures.  He then followed his time-honored pattern of describing each contract requirement, exactly how the government constructively changed the condition, and how the changes affected the nature and cost of the work.  He then put together a detailed presentation of all the associated costs, including his fee, plus profit.  Each RFW and ECP was discussed in detail, showing the technical engineering cause and the effect on production.  In addition to the detailed factual description, he followed his usual procedure of making sure each constructive change and request for equitable adjustment was supported by legal theory.  The legal principles used were defective government-furnished data, commercial impracticability, and overzealous inspection.  Each RFW and ECP, he argued, was an admission of government liability.  Extensive DCMA and DCAA technical and audit reviews followed.  Mr. Spriggs insisted on receiving all the technical evaluations and the audit report.  Then, with those in hand, he responded point by point to each position taken by the government.  He then set up negotiation sessions.  In the first session, he presented the contractor’s entire case, from beginning to end, including all costs associated with equitable adjustment.  He insisted on giving a chance without interruption and used several key contractor employees in the presentation.  He then offered the government the opportunity to present its case.   At the end of the government’s presentation, he gave the client a rebuttal and asked for a reasonable settlement offer.  After an intermission, settlement offers were exchanged, and the matter was favorably settled   (Mr. Spriggs has written monographs on How to Write a Winning Request for Equitable Adjustment and How to Settle Disputes Effectively, Efficiently and Amicably.)

 

·        Conflicts in performance specifications.  The Army purchases air transportable, heavy-duty forklift trucks with performance, form, fit, and function specifications.  The contractor encountered huge losses on the contract trying to design the car to meet the weight restriction and still be powerful enough to meet the performance requirements.  Mr. Spriggs was brought in.  He analyzed a basic and straightforward conflict or error in the performance specification’s weight and power train requirements.  The design could not meet the weight restriction to meet the power requirements.  So, he prepared a constructive change request based on a primary defect in the government-furnished data.  The presentation and negotiation of the request followed the time-honored pattern.  He began his review with a request for all the government documents.  He used the Freedom of Information Act and face-to-face persuasion.  Mr. Spriggs found internal government documents agreeing with his position and successfully settled the matter using these documents as trump cards.

 

·        Saving a small business from bankruptcy.  The Navy bought weapons guidance systems from a small business.  It then terminated the contract for default, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) converted the default to a termination for convenience.  The company asked Mr. Spriggs to prepare its termination settlement proposal.  He included requests for equitable adjustment in the proposal because the proposal exceeded the original contract price.  This brought into play the termination contracting officer (TCO) and the procurement contracting officer (PCO) with whom Mr. Spriggs had to deal.  The company then went into Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act.  The bankruptcy judge wanted to hear testimony from Mr. Spriggs on the nature of the contractor’s claims and the probability of recovery. Hence, Mr. Spriggs testified at length in New York before a bankruptcy judge as an expert on government contracts.  The issue was whether the Navy claims would settle for enough to fund the Plan of Arrangement to get the client out of bankruptcy.  Mr. Spriggs set about paying the claims and meeting weekly to discuss settlement.  The parties remained far apart.  The Navy refused to recognize any of the constructive changes.  Then Mr. Spriggs violated the rule that the contractor never bid against itself.  He got the Navy counsel aside and told him what number it would take to settle the case.  He said the number required to fund the Plan of Arrangement in bankruptcy was non-negotiable.  Shortly after, the Navy agreed to the number, the plan was funded, and the small business contractor emerged from Chapter 11, a viable company once again.  But not for long.  The company got back into financial trouble and sought Mr. Spriggs's advice again.  This time, Mr. Spriggs petitioned the Contract Adjustment Board 5 times for relief under Public Law 85-804, eventually getting the client the relief it needed.

 

·        The government pays the consultant’s fees.  The Department of Interior (DOI) specified road surface material for road reconstruction in Maui, Hawaii, which was unsuitable for the climate.  Doing right by mistake, the DOI terminated the contractor’s contract for the government's convenience.  Having received a note from Mr. Spriggs reminding him that consultant’s fees are recoverable from the government, the contractor’s president called Mr. Spriggs.  After that, Mr. Spriggs put together the termination for a convenience settlement proposal, including all of the subcontractors’ claims and, of course, his fees and expenses.  A most pleasant negotiation followed with the contracting officer in Denver, after which Mr. Spriggs settled the settlement proposal for 97 cents on the dollar.

 

·        The government pays for the contractor’s futile efforts to get commercial work.  A shipbuilding contractor devoted 100% to government work faced a decline in its backlog and sought to diversify.  A consortium of private companies asked the contractor to design a submarine tanker to transport oil.  The contractor created the vessel and prepared its proposal to the consortium.  It spent a considerable sum in the process and charged its costs to its overhead pool, which was then allocated to all its existing work, which was government work only.  The government objected, and the DCAA auditors disallowed all the costs.  The consortium never accepted the tanker proposal.  The contractor appealed and sought Mr. Spriggs's counsel.  The case turned on the allocability section of FAR Part 31.  Mr. Spriggs argued that the criteria for allocability were stated in the disjunctive and that the costs were beneficial and, therefore, allocable to the government since they were necessary to the overall operation of the contractor’s business.  Necessity was demonstrated in the need to acquire additional work, ultimately bringing the government’s costs down and preserving the contractor’s pool of talented engineers for the future and potential government benefit.  The government continued to object.  After cross-examination of the DCAA auditor at trial, during which Mr. Spriggs demonstrated the auditor had not been reading the regulation correctly, The ASBCA agreed with Mr. Spriggs and held that the costs were, in fact, allocable to the government in that they potentially could have benefitted the government.  The decision became a landmark and has formed the basis for many successful arguments that costs are allocable based on potential benefits.

 

·        Creating the government contractor defense in product liability cases.  When the asbestos litigation crisis peaked, a group of current and former manufacturers of asbestos-containing products sought Mr. Spriggs's advice on involving the government, which had approved the use of asbestos, in resolving the problems its use had created.  Over lunch one day, Mr. Spriggs outlined an approach most of the companies then followed to defend the underlying product liability cases and to seek the government’s contribution and indemnity for losses the companies had incurred.  The idea was a variation of the time-honored defective specification theory.  Mr. Spriggs became known as the father of the government contractor defense theory in product liability cases.  Although the idea took off slowly, the Supreme Court eventually articulated it, and courts have since applied it to all types of government contracts, including services.  The defense is an absolute bar to personal injury or property damage cases brought by third parties against government contractors following specific directions from the government.  Mr. Spriggs was instrumental in asserting this defense in a third-party suit against a government contractor in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  He also believes the theory correctly applies to subcontractors following the direction of prime contractors, who follow the government’s approach.

 

·        Recovering profit on top of consultancy fees.  A contractor encountered delay and changing requirements on a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) contract for mail storage and distribution systems, including pallet racks and conveyor systems.  After losing money on the agreement, the contractor sought Mr. Spriggs' advice.  He went to work on a request for equitable adjustment, which included delay and disruption costs, constructive acceleration of performance, and contract administration costs, including his fees.  After negotiations languished, he took the matter to the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals (PSBCA), where he won a complete victory, including the recovery of his fees plus the contractor’s average profit applied on top of those fees.

 

·        Using the battle of experts to the contractor’s advantage.  The Air Force contracted for missiles under an incentive compensation clause, which provided the contractor an incentive fee if the missile launch proved successful or if the cause of the failure could not be determined.  The launch failed.  Mr. Spriggs recovered the incentive fee for the contractor by showing it was impossible to determine the cause of the failure.  By extending the battle of the experts, he proved his point that no one knew what had happened.

 

·        Advice on countless cost-allowability questions.  Cost allowability questions abound.  The cost principles in FAR Part 31 come into play in all requests for equitable adjustment and terminations for convenience, to say nothing of cost-reimbursement contracts that are still alive and well.  Mr. Spriggs has advised several contractors on various cost allowability issues, including the allowability of bonding costs, compensation for personal services, cost of money, entertainment costs, idle facilities costs, independent research and development, bid and proposal costs, lobbying, professional and consultant benefits costs, selling costs, taxes, termination, and travel costs.  He also has successfully argued the applicability of the rule against retroactive disallowances to defeat all types of cost disallowances.

 

·        The premium placed on proper contract administration.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is contracted to repair damaged and construct new homes.  The contractor encountered delay, disruption, and feeble government contract administration.  Then, the government terminated for default.  Since a proper cure notice was not provided, Mr. Spriggs persuaded the agency to rescind the termination for default and instead consider requests for equitable adjustment based on the government’s failure to administer the contract properly.  The government had failed to keep proper contemporary records of the work performed.  The government also moved far too slowly under the emergency circumstances.  Counseled to do so by Mr. Spriggs, the contractor practiced timely, accurate, and complete record-keeping, thereby prevailing in recovering additional money.  Mr. Spriggs also established the ability to recover differing site condition costs when a limited site inspection is afforded.  He also found the government responsible for delay and disruption costs based on the theory the government implied warranted homeowners would not interfere with the work.

 

·        Sometimes, fundamental fairness prevails.  In a unique contracting situation, the government, acting through the Navy, refused to pay for aircraft engine parts and services because a subcontractor declined to provide cost or pricing data.  Mr. Spriggs argued that the subcontractor’s failure was irrelevant to the contractor’s claim to be paid.  The ASBCA agreed and held that the contractor was entitled to a reasonable value of the work performed. The subcontractor's failure to submit the cost or pricing data did not defeat the contractor’s claim.  It ordered that fair value had to be paid.

 

·        Hidden ambiguities are construed against the government.  The Army argued that the economic price adjustment clause did not apply to a first-article test report. Particular contract language addressed the circumstances under which the clause would be used.  However, the language in the specific clause was unclear.  Mr. Spriggs argued that government contracts are contracts of adhesion whereby the government dictates and writes the terms and conditions.  If language is not ambiguous, the lack of clarity must be construed against the government.  The Board agreed that the contractor could not reasonably have noticed the ambiguity while reviewing the solicitation to prepare its bid.

 

·        Cost disallowances and default terminations are government claims.  Cost allowability and default termination disputes involve claims by the government on which it bears the burden of proof.  In a Trident submarine contract for information systems, Mr. Spriggs demonstrated that a cost disallowance is a government claim, and the contractor does not need to certify its reimbursement claim.  Failure to pay routine vouchers also is not a certification claim.

 

·        No novation is needed for transfers by operation of law. Mr. Spriggs has also handled the recovery of unamortized labor learning costs in terminating a bomb fuse contract. He has established that requiring a novation of a contract agreement is unnecessary if the contract transfer is by operation of law. A merger is a transfer; therefore, it does not violate the Anti-Assignment statutes. Mr. Spriggs has, on numerous occasions, dissuaded the government from requiring a novation agreement when the transfer has taken place by operation of law.

 

·        Enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act time limits. Mr. Spriggs has been involved extensively in controversies involving the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He has used FOIA as a shield to prevent the release of proprietary and confidential business information (reverse FOIA actions) and as a sword to obtain timely information release. In one notable appellate case, he established the precedent that the government must promptly release abstracts of negotiated acquisition results for a client selling acquisition information.

Education:  B.A. in English Literature from Abilene Christian University, President Sigma Tau Delta, Honorary English Society; J.D. from Washburn University School of Law, where he served as an editor of the Washburn Law Journal.

Military: Mr. Spriggs served as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, serving eight years in the reserves and three years on active duty.

Employment history:

·        2011-present, Spriggs Law Group

·        2009-2010, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Washington, D.C.

·        1982-2009, Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Washington, D.C.

·        1972-1982, Sellers, Conner & Cuneo, Washington, D.C.

·        1969-1972, Martin Marietta Corp. (now Lockheed Martin), Denver, Colorado

·        1968-1969, The Boeing Company, Wichita, Kansas

Admissions:  District of Columbia Bar; Court of Federal Claims and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; United States Supreme Court.

Memberships:  DC Bar Association; American Bar Association; National Contract Management Association; Professional Services Council; National Defense Industrial Association; Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce; Prince William Chamber of Commerce.

Publications:  http://spriggslawgroup.BlogSpot.com