Mancano Law, PLLC recognizes that results count. Below is a small sample of matters in which Mr. Mancano has successfully represented clients. Many of his most successful representations, however, occur “behind the scenes” or outside the “public record.” Because he values his clients’ privacy and is professionally obliged to protect confidential client information, he cannot report on some of our most significant successes. 

Mancano Law, PLLC Notable Cases...

Settlement Announced in Boeing Whistleblower Case

Boeing To Pay $8.1 Million to Resolve Allegations That It Knowingly Submitted Fraudulent Claims for Manufacturing Work Performed Under Contracts With the United States Department of Defense For The Production of V-22 Osprey Aircraft

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced today that The Boeing Company, one of the nation’s largest defense contractors, will pay $8.1 million dollars, plus the whistleblowers’ attorneys’ fees, to settle a longstanding Qui Tam lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Ill and Joseph D. Mancano on behalf of the United States government under the federal False Claims Act.

In response to that settlement, attorneys Fitzpatrick and Mancano stated: “The whistleblowers in this case should be commended for their courage and perseverance, and for the vital assistance they provided to the government over the nearly seven years since their claims were filed. We appreciate the fact that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania worked closely with us throughout the process. The American public deserves honesty from companies that contract with their government.”

The whistleblowers are former Boeing employees whose Complaint alleged that the company made false claims to the United States government for a period of at least three years, during which time Boeing manufactured and delivered approximately 80 V-22 Osprey aircraft to the Department of Defense. Following its investigation the government contended that Boeing failed to comply with the subject manufacturing specifications for a longer period of time – from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2018. Specifically the Relators’ Complaint alleged that Boeing:

• knowingly manufactured V-22 components without having performed critical Temperature Uniformity Surveys required by the government’s specifications

• knowingly produced and delivered V-22 aircraft which contained components that did not conform to contract specifications

• knowingly failed to disclose its non-compliant “Free Air Cure” process and products to the Department of Defense

• knowingly created false and fraudulent Temperature Uniformity Survey Compliance Reports and submitted them to the Department of Defense

• knowingly failed to generate and maintain required Temperature Uniformity Survey Compliance Reports

The V-22 Osprey is a military aircraft that utilizes tilt-rotor technology to combine the vertical performance of a helicopter with the speed and range of a fixed-wing airplane. Approximately half of a V-22’s components are made of carbon fiber, a material which can be engineered to have similar properties to metals, with comparatively less weight.

V-22 carbon fiber components are made in autoclaves – large oven/pressure vessels that subject the material to specified temperatures and pressures for specified periods of time. The Relators’ Complaint alleged that uniform molecular bonding will not take place if the fabrication process is not performed in exact accordance with applicable temperature specifications, whereupon the components will contain resin voids, linear porosity, and other defects not visible to the eye, and that such defects can compromise the strength and other characteristics of the material and cause catastrophic structural failures and delaminations.

The Relators’ Complaint alleged that Boeing knowingly failed to perform critical autoclave testing procedures called Temperature Uniformity Surveys which were mandated by the manufacturing specifications, and quoted from a Boeing engineer’s own written assessment that the risks of not performing those “free air cure maintenance activities” included “non-uniform cure profile within parts … unknown residual stress effect … acceptance of discrepant parts”. The Relators’ Complaint is entitled United States of America ex rel. Robert C. Roath, et al., v. The Boeing Company, US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 16-6547. It can be downloaded by clicking here, or on Pacer.

On September 28, 2023 the United States Department of Justice announced that it had reached an agreement with Boeing to settle the government’s claims in return for a payment of $8.1 million dollars. The Relators will receive $1,539,000 from that amount for their contributions to the government’s prosecution of their whistleblower claims. In addition Boeing is statutorily required to pay the Relators’ attorneys’ fees.

The Department of Justice did not file its own Complaint against Boeing, but intervened in the Relators’ Qui Tam action for settlement purposes. The Settlement Agreement provides that the resolution is neither an admission of liability by Boeing nor a concession by the United States that its claims are not well founded.

The whistleblowers were jointly represented by F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Ill, Esq., and Joseph D. Mancano, Esq. For more information please contact them.

Felony Convictions Vacated In The Fat Leonard Navy Corruption Case

Felony Convictions Vacated in the Fat Leonard Navy Corruption Case

Joseph Mancano of Mancano Law, PLLC, and other defense counsel, successfully represented four Navy Officers targeted in the sprawling “Fat Leonard” criminal case, pushing the government to withdraw their felony convictions of a year ago. Mr. Mancano, who represented retired Navy Captain David Newland, the lead defendant in the case, joined with counsel for Mr. Newland’s co-defendants in raising numerous instances of serious government misconduct involving concealment of evidence, false testimony by the government’s lead case agent, intentional misrepresentations by the prosecutors and improper argument during the 4-month long trial in June 2022. The Court called the government’s misconduct “outrageous,” vacating the felony convictions of Captain Newland and three others.

Summarizing the case, Mr. Mancano said: “This is a case that should have never been brought. Captain Newland was a highly-decorated and respected Navy officer for 30 years who was falsely accused of criminal activity. The prosecution team hitched its wagon to Leonard Francis, an admitted forger, sex trafficker, liar and thief. He controlled and manipulated the government’s investigation and prosecution. The government intentionally ignored Leonard Francis’ lies and closed its eyes to extensive evidence that undermined his credibility. The government’s willingness to conceal evidence from the defense, lie about the sources of evidence, and promote false testimony and narratives in order to convict innocent men was shocking. Ultimately, the government was forced to admit that it had violated the defendants’ constitutional rights to a fair trial.”

Law 360 Article

United States v. Patrick Squires, et al.

On January 28, 2016, following a two-week trial, Joseph D. Mancano, achieved a complete victory for Patrick M. Squires, when a federal court jury in Philadelphia found Mr. Squires not guilty of conspiracy and wire fraud charges.  In the matter of United States v. Squires, et al. (Docket No. 15-424), Mr. Squires, a distributor of various custodial and maintenance supplies and services was charged with conspiracy with the maintenance director of the Bristol Township School District to direct business to Mr. Squires and avoid School District purchasing rules.  The government also accused Mr. Squires of attempting to conceal his involvement with various of his companies that received work from the School District.  At trial, it was established that the investigators ignored exculpatory evidence and avenues of investigation that, if pursued, would have demonstrated Mr. Squires’ innocence.

After five (5) hours of deliberation, the jury acquitted Mr. Squires on all charges.

Owner of Personal Care Home Vindicated

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mina Panah

Joseph Mancano represented the owner of a licensed personal care home charged by the Pennsylvania Attorney General with neglect of a care-dependent person, a felony offense in Pennsylvania.  The charges were brought when a resident of the home suffering from severe diabetes, developed diabetic ketoacidosis that resulted in the amputation of his leg.  The Attorney General alleged that the home’s owner failed to properly monitor the resident’s diabetes and afford appropriate medical care.  The home’s owner was a young wife and mother with no prior history of criminal behavior or regulatory violations.  A conviction would have meant a jail sentence, loss of license for the personal care home, and serious financial penalties.

Following an unprecedented three-day preliminary hearing, where the court allowed extensive cross-examination of government witnesses and presentation of defense evidence, the court dismissed the felony charges.  Immediately after the hearing, the Attorney General voluntarily dismissed the remaining misdemeanor offenses resulting in complete vindication for the home’s owner.

Undercover Sting Exposed

United States v. Kobeski and M. Brizer and Company, Inc.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture ran a fourteen-month undercover “sting” operation in Northeastern Pennsylvania that nabbed five meat processing plants and eleven plant operators for processing and selling beef unfit for human consumption.  Joseph Mancano represented one of the plant operators, Francis Kobeski and his company, M. Brizer and Company, Inc., both caught in the sting dubbed “Operation Roundup.”  According to the government, Kobeski and his company conspired with a corrupt on-site USDA inspector who branded the unfit meat as having passed inspection.  The government claimed that the inspector received money from Kobeski to look the other way.

The “sting” involved sending an undercover USDA agent into the meat plant with medicated cows to see if Kobeski and the inspector would accept the livestock for slaughter.  After the livestock was accepted for slaughter, Kobeski, Brizer, and the alleged corrupt on-site inspector were indicted.

Joseph Mancano and his defense team launched an intensive investigation that lasted several months to determine what happened.  The defense concluded that the undercover agent knowingly withheld information that would have exonerated Kobeski and Brizer from the U.S. Attorney.  Mr. Mancano presented evidence about the agent’s misconduct to the U.S. Attorney, who then asked the court to dismiss all charges.  Shortly before the scheduled trial, the court dismissed the charges and publicly criticized the USDA for its actions.

© Mancano Law, PLLC 2022