Sentencing in the criminal trial against a Cask Government Services employee has been extended to June 2023 following a joint motion by the parties to allow more time for evidence gathering.
Although not named in the case USA vs. Liberty Gutierrez, Oxebridge was able to identify Cask as “Contractor-1” in the court filings. The case is centered on actions alleged by Cask management to bribe a SPAWAR representative in order to gain access to federal contracts. The filings allege that Cask officials gave the wife of James Soriano a fake job at Cask, paying her for work that was never performed. Soriano then worked to help Cask win at least one Federal contract. Soriano is named only as “Individual-1” in the docket filings.
The DOJ arrested one Cask employee, Liberty Gutierrez, in 2019 after a DOJ raid of the offices. Gutierrez pleaded guilty and is allegedly cooperating with the US Attorney’s office, who sources say is trying to build a case against Cask’s senior management and Soriano.
The recent motion filed with the court moves Gutierrez’ sentencing date. It is expected that once additional arrests are made, the charges against Gutierrez will be dropped.
Cask also operates under the names Cask LLC and Cask NX.
Despite the case suggesting Cask has a history of steering US contracts towards itself, the CyberAB (formerly CMMC Accreditation Body) nevertheless ignored the ethical cloud surrounding Cask, and awarded it official CMMC C3PAO status. This means that Cask will now have even more control over whether its competitors can gain access to contracts.
Sources reported that the CyberAB Board simply asked Cask if the matter in the USA vs. Gutierrez case was true, and took Cask’s word without any independent investigation. This appears to be yet another violation of the CMMC scheme’s ethics code, and more evidence of the CyberAB putting its thumb on the scale to favor friendly colleagues.
At least one Cask manager had previously worked with the CMMC-AB’s first Board Chair, Ty Schieber, at a previous company.
CMMC Still Stalled
The CMMC scheme has still not taken off, despite false claims by its architect Katie Arrington, that certification would be possible in 2019. Partly due to fraud reporting done by Oxebridge, CMMC underwent a major overhaul to become “CMMC 2.0” and the DFARS rules initially establishing the program have been scuttled. A new provisional rule is now expected, but has already been pushed into late 2023.
Nearly all of the original architects of the CMMC program have since been thrown off of their committees or resigned while facing scandal.
The CyberAB has not produced a single fully accredited certification body yet, but has earned millions on selling dubious personal “certifications” for CMMC assessors, consultants and trainers. The CyberAB has ignored all calls to stop the practice, which raises questions on just how the AB will be able to adjudicate complaints over companies or persons it has credentialed.
Currently, CyberAB bodies may only perform CMMC audits with DIBCAC oversight.
The CyberAB attempted to overcome criticisms by spinning out a new organization, called “CAICO,” to manage personnel credentials. But rather than selling CAICO outright to ensure it is not managed by the same Board, the CyberAB has retained ownership over CAICO, thus continuing the conflicts of interest.
The CyberAB has tried to defang criticisms by redefining standard terms like “conflict of interest” or “certification” to suit its own purposes.
Recently a CyberAB senior official reported to Oxebridge that it intends to allow ANAB to accredit CAICO to ISO 17024, exposing the entire CMMC scheme to foreign oversight. ANAB accreditations are overseen by IAAC in Mexico and the IAF, which formerly granted its Chair position to a member of the Chinese Communist Party. The IAF’s president is now from Italy, but the Chinese retain outsized influence the entire IAF scheme.
Oxebridge has warned the CyberAB that this means complaints will be escalated to Mexico and China for final adjudication, thus exposing the entire CMMC scheme to foreign influence, but the CyberAB has largely dismissed the claim. Oxebridge critics call the matter a “tin foil hat” theory, even though the roles of Mexico and China, as well as other countries, are public information and fully documented.
The IAAC website, for example, is clearly run out of Mexico, a fact the CyberAB has ignored to date.
Congress, meanwhile, has responded with concern over the influence of Mexico and China in the CMMC scheme, and the CyberAB’s cavalier attitude towards the issue.