Case
1:12-cv-01860-JEB Document 2 Filed 11/16/12
ALAN
GROSS... and JUDITH GROSS, Plaintiffs, v.
DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVES, INC., and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
COMPLAINT
(excerpts)
since December 3,
2009. Mr. Gross is imprisoned in Cuba due to his work on a project
that Defendant United States negligently
directed, organized, and oversaw
(pp 1-2)
Worse,
Defendant DAI, with negligence, gross negligence and willful
disregard for Plaintiffs’
rights, failed to take these basic remedial steps because doing so
would have delayed or
prevented DAI’s complete performance under part of a lucrative
contract with Defendant United
States, thereby depriving Defendant DAI of significant revenue.
Indeed, upon information
and belief, Defendant DAI’s business model depends upon obtaining
and performing contracts
with Defendant United States. Defendant DAI engaged in this behavior
– putting profits before safety – (pp 2-3)
21.
USAID’s “Cuba Democracy and Contingency Planning Program” (the
“Cuba Program”)
was developed pursuant to the Helms-Burton Act.
22.
USAID’s Cuba Program was “expressly designed to hasten Cuba’s
peaceful transition
to a democratic society.” Task Order No. DFD-I-03-00250-00 (“Cuba
Task Order”) at B.1.1
One of its objectives is to “[d]evelop and . .
. activate plans for launching a
rapid-response programmatic
platform that will meet USAID’s interest for having and
coordinating an on-island presence.”
Id.
(p 9)
66.
The Subcontract stated that “[t]he pilot [project] will diminish
portions of the information blockage by – on a limited test basis – establishing internet
connections using multiple
redundant devices in order to improve intra and intergroup
communications channels. The
pilot will . . . [e]nable target beneficiaries via training to use
ICT devices to connect to the internet
so that they can have regular and direct contact with each other and
with JBDC, as well as
enable access to a large volume [of] data and information not
previously accessed
. . . .”
(p 18)
74.
Upon information and belief, USAID, and the United States’
diplomatic mission in Cuba,
were required to communicate with each other regularly regarding
Mr. Gross’ trips to Cuba.
75.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Gross was not provided with the same information
that Defendants USAID and DAI possessed regarding the specific risks
involved in performing
this kind of project in Cuba.
(p 19)
76.
As discussed further below, Defendants DAI and United States breached
their duty to
protect Mr. Gross from specific risks that Defendants, based on their
position, had the unique ability
to know. Defendants also ignored Mr. Gross’ own expressions of
concern about the Project,
opting instead to continue an operation from which Defendant DAI
stood to benefit financially
and that Defendant United States was committed to ideologically.
(p 20)
83.
Instead, Defendant United States continued, without any adjustment,
the Cuba ICT Project,
using
Mr. Gross as a pawn in its overall Cuban policy efforts.
(P21)
91.
A failure by Mr. Gross to complete the work would have jeopardized
not only the millions
of dollars owed to DAI by USAID on the Cuba Task Order, but, upon
information and belief,
also would have jeopardized other existing, and future, business
generally between DAI and
USAID.
(p22)
102.
In his fourth trip memorandum, Mr. Gross began his section on risk
with the following
sentence in bold lettering: “In no uncertain terms, this is very
risky
business.” To illustrate
the risks involved, he described an incident during which Cuban
customs officials attempted
to seize some of his team’s equipment when they arrived at the
airport in Havana. Fourth
Trip Memo. at 5. He described efforts by Cuban authorities to detect
or “sniff out” wireless
networks and other unauthorized radio frequency use, especially
outside of Havana. . He reiterated that the
detection of these networks could result in arrests of his contacts
there.
(pp
23-24)
117.
Notwithstanding the verdict by the Cuban court, Mr. Gross’
activities were entirely lawful
under the laws of the United States.
(p 26)
129.
Mr. and Mrs. Gross likewise have suffered significant economic losses
due to Mr. Gross’s
wrongful arrest and continuing wrongful detention.
(p 30)
139.
Defendant United States’ breaches of its duties were a
direct and proximate cause of
Mr. Gross’ detention and imprisonment in Cuba and the injuries
and damages suffered as a result.
(p 32)
152.
Defendant DAI’s breaches of its duties were a direct and
proximate cause of Mr. Gross’
detention and imprisonment in Cuba and the injuries and damages
suffered as a result.
(p 34)
for
full text of the Complaint, download from here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6Mo1c2bIFLWUGtILWlhdWRIZXM/edit?pli=1
or
go to
http://alongthemalecon.blogspot.com/2012/11/alan-gross-bombshell-lawsuit-against_16.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AlongTheMalecn+%28Along+the+Malec%C3%B3n%29
