EDO Corporation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Edocorplogo.gif|thumb]] |
[[Image:Edocorplogo.gif|thumb]] |
||
EDO Corporation |
'''EDO Corporation''' |
||
EDO Corporation engages in the design and manufacture of products for defense, intelligence, and commercial markets. It also provides related engineering services to the United States and allied governments, and their prime defense contractors. The company has two segments, Electronic Systems and Communications; and Engineered Systems and Services. The Electronic Systems and Communications segment provides electronic force protection equipment; interference cancellation technology; airborne electronic warfare systems; reconnaissance and surveillance systems; other specialized electronic systems; command, control, communications, and computers products and services; and antenna products. The Engineered Systems and Services segment offers aircraft armament systems, integrated composite structures, mine countermeasure systems, sonar systems, and flight line products to integrated systems and structures, undersea warfare, and professional services markets. The company was founded by Earl Dodge Osborn in 1925 and is headquartered in New York City. |
|||
''''''EDO = Every Death An Opportunity'''''' |
|||
Slogan from[http://www.smashedo.org.uk/ Smash EDO]demonstration. |
|||
External links |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
EDO's website says it 'provides products and services to military and government organizations around the world.' |
|||
In the UK it is now well known in the anti-war movement as a notorious US arms company having attracted much adverse publicity in the city of Brighton where its subsidiary, EDO MBM Technology Ltd, under directorship of David A. Jones attempted to criminalise anti-war protest outside its gates with the use of anti-stalking legislation alleging anti-war protesters had taken on 'extremist' tactics. |
|||
A highly defamatory article by journalist Nicola Woolcock was published in The Times a few days before an interim injunction hearing in April 2005 began at the High Court. At the hearing EDO were granted a reduced interim injunction on prima facia grounds till the trial which was ordered to be a 'speedy'one due to the infringements of fundemental human rights. The injunction applied not just to the defendants but to anybody who sought to protest outside EDO's factory in Home Farm Road, Brighton and carried a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment for any breach of its terms. |
|||
The injunction led to a major outcry both locally and nationally with several robust demonstrations where arrests were made and even the remand of two protesters to HMP Lewes during that summer. The case was one of several that have contributed to the recognition that the UK has suffered severe restrictions in civil liberties since the war in Iraq began in March 2003. |
|||
After 12 months of battling in the High Court including a preliminary issues trial where the UK Government intervened to support EDO against the protesters argument that war crimes had occured in Iraq an Palestine in which EDO were involved, EDO finally lost the case losing the company a large amount of money in legal costs at the smae time. |
|||
Shortly before a damaging High Court ruling about the conduct of EDOs legal team (including the self publicist solicitor-advocate Tim Lawson-Cruttenden ) Managing Director David A.Jones suddenly 'retired' from his position on December 31st 2005. |
|||
Then EDO Corporation sent their Vice President and Gen. Counsel Lisa Palumbo from New York to broker a settlement with some of the defendants in London who had been represented by prominent human rights lawyers. A settlement was reached with all but the defendants who had chosen to represent themselves as litigants in person. |
|||
Much to EDOs disquiet and dispite appointing new lawyers and even a QC to fight the case, the two remaining defendants managed to continue the abuse of legal process argument against EDO without the support of qualified lawyers. |
|||
The company were then ruled in March 2006 to have abused the legal process in their delaying of the action against peaceful anti-war activists and ordered to pay all costs of the case up to that point. EDO have now completely discontinued the action[1] having dropped all litigation against all defedants including even those who did not come forward to defend themselves. The cost of the whole affair to EDO Corporation has not been disclosed but its wide effect on the company is estimated to have damaged the market value of EDO Corp to the tune of around $50 Million as of 20 June 2006 or in the region of 10% of its value before the litigation. |
|||
On April 27th 2006 EDO reported a 1st quarter operating loss of $930,000. They admitted that unexpected legal costs of 2.7 million to be part of reason and their stock price dropped over 7% on the news. The company have continued to drop in market value as a result of the news of the loss leading to downgrading by several US financial analysts. |
|||
The campaign group Smash EDO were the first outside the animal rights movement to be targeted with the injunction brought under the 1997 Protection From Harassment Act in April 2005, but a High Court judge ruled at the start of the case that the group could not be sued because no-one came forward to identify themselves as a member or organiser. EDO continued the litigation against 14 named activists who they claimed had been part of a course of conduct amounting to harassment but in the year long battle no significant evidence against any of the defendants was brought forward. |
|||
The collapse of the lawsuit led to a dropping by the Crown Prosecution Service of numerous criminal charges against protesters for no apparent reason including serious charges of assualt of police. It is suspected by defence solicitors that Sussex Police were anxious to prevent disclosure of documents that would have assisted the defence argument which stated Police had colluded with EDO to make false arrests and charges of protesters in order to intimidate them and give the impression of a situation of disorder that would assist EDO in gaining a draconian injunction. |
|||
The campaign continues against EDO MBM Technology Ltd in Brighton and protesters have vowed to keep up the pressure till EDO MBM is shut down. The raised profile of the campaign has led to greater involvement by local Brighton residents and a recognition of the vulnerability of the company to pressure at an economic level. It has been seen in the UK by some commentators as a rare victory against the combined attack of state and corporation against civil liberties but protesters say the true victory will come the day EDO is shut down. |
|||
On 10th July 2006 the Brighton local daily [[The Argus (Brighton)]] reported that Sussex Police were being referred to the [[Independent Police Complaints Commission]] in relation to 13 complaints about their politically motivated policing of the EDO demonstrations and what several solicitors beleive to be collusion between EDO and Sussex Police to supress protest outside the factory gates. |
|||
---- |
|||
The Argus |
|||
10th July 2006 |
|||
News |
|||
New battle over EDO bomb parts factory |
|||
Anti-war protesters have lodged 13 complaints over Sussex Policeís handling of a two-year campaign against a factory providing parts for fighter jets. |
|||
One refers to the attempted eviction of a peace camp outside EDO MBM in Home Farm Road, Brighton, last August. |
|||
Others cover the use of Public Order Act powers to arrest protesters and stop demonstrations throughout 2005, the arrest and imprisonment of a protester for allegedly breaching a High Court civil injunction and harassment of peaceful demonstrators. |
|||
Solicitors representing the protesters have referred the complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. |
|||
They said the complaints together showed biased political policing aimed at suppressing freedom of expression and collusion with EDO MBM to obtain a civil injunction suppressing peaceful protest. |
|||
EDO MBM, which makes bomb-release components for fighter jets used in Iraq, fought for months for a permanent injunction banning protests in an exclusion zone around the factory. It dropped the case unexpectedly in March and agreed to pay thousands of pounds costs to the protesters. |
|||
Sussex Police declined to comment. |
|||
---- |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
*[http://www.smashedo.org.uk/ Smash EDO Website] |
|||
Revision as of 22:57, 10 July 2006
EDO Corporation
'EDO = Every Death An Opportunity'
Slogan fromSmash EDOdemonstration.
EDO's website says it 'provides products and services to military and government organizations around the world.'
In the UK it is now well known in the anti-war movement as a notorious US arms company having attracted much adverse publicity in the city of Brighton where its subsidiary, EDO MBM Technology Ltd, under directorship of David A. Jones attempted to criminalise anti-war protest outside its gates with the use of anti-stalking legislation alleging anti-war protesters had taken on 'extremist' tactics.
A highly defamatory article by journalist Nicola Woolcock was published in The Times a few days before an interim injunction hearing in April 2005 began at the High Court. At the hearing EDO were granted a reduced interim injunction on prima facia grounds till the trial which was ordered to be a 'speedy'one due to the infringements of fundemental human rights. The injunction applied not just to the defendants but to anybody who sought to protest outside EDO's factory in Home Farm Road, Brighton and carried a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment for any breach of its terms.
The injunction led to a major outcry both locally and nationally with several robust demonstrations where arrests were made and even the remand of two protesters to HMP Lewes during that summer. The case was one of several that have contributed to the recognition that the UK has suffered severe restrictions in civil liberties since the war in Iraq began in March 2003.
After 12 months of battling in the High Court including a preliminary issues trial where the UK Government intervened to support EDO against the protesters argument that war crimes had occured in Iraq an Palestine in which EDO were involved, EDO finally lost the case losing the company a large amount of money in legal costs at the smae time.
Shortly before a damaging High Court ruling about the conduct of EDOs legal team (including the self publicist solicitor-advocate Tim Lawson-Cruttenden ) Managing Director David A.Jones suddenly 'retired' from his position on December 31st 2005.
Then EDO Corporation sent their Vice President and Gen. Counsel Lisa Palumbo from New York to broker a settlement with some of the defendants in London who had been represented by prominent human rights lawyers. A settlement was reached with all but the defendants who had chosen to represent themselves as litigants in person.
Much to EDOs disquiet and dispite appointing new lawyers and even a QC to fight the case, the two remaining defendants managed to continue the abuse of legal process argument against EDO without the support of qualified lawyers.
The company were then ruled in March 2006 to have abused the legal process in their delaying of the action against peaceful anti-war activists and ordered to pay all costs of the case up to that point. EDO have now completely discontinued the action[1] having dropped all litigation against all defedants including even those who did not come forward to defend themselves. The cost of the whole affair to EDO Corporation has not been disclosed but its wide effect on the company is estimated to have damaged the market value of EDO Corp to the tune of around $50 Million as of 20 June 2006 or in the region of 10% of its value before the litigation.
On April 27th 2006 EDO reported a 1st quarter operating loss of $930,000. They admitted that unexpected legal costs of 2.7 million to be part of reason and their stock price dropped over 7% on the news. The company have continued to drop in market value as a result of the news of the loss leading to downgrading by several US financial analysts.
The campaign group Smash EDO were the first outside the animal rights movement to be targeted with the injunction brought under the 1997 Protection From Harassment Act in April 2005, but a High Court judge ruled at the start of the case that the group could not be sued because no-one came forward to identify themselves as a member or organiser. EDO continued the litigation against 14 named activists who they claimed had been part of a course of conduct amounting to harassment but in the year long battle no significant evidence against any of the defendants was brought forward.
The collapse of the lawsuit led to a dropping by the Crown Prosecution Service of numerous criminal charges against protesters for no apparent reason including serious charges of assualt of police. It is suspected by defence solicitors that Sussex Police were anxious to prevent disclosure of documents that would have assisted the defence argument which stated Police had colluded with EDO to make false arrests and charges of protesters in order to intimidate them and give the impression of a situation of disorder that would assist EDO in gaining a draconian injunction.
The campaign continues against EDO MBM Technology Ltd in Brighton and protesters have vowed to keep up the pressure till EDO MBM is shut down. The raised profile of the campaign has led to greater involvement by local Brighton residents and a recognition of the vulnerability of the company to pressure at an economic level. It has been seen in the UK by some commentators as a rare victory against the combined attack of state and corporation against civil liberties but protesters say the true victory will come the day EDO is shut down.
On 10th July 2006 the Brighton local daily The Argus (Brighton) reported that Sussex Police were being referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission in relation to 13 complaints about their politically motivated policing of the EDO demonstrations and what several solicitors beleive to be collusion between EDO and Sussex Police to supress protest outside the factory gates.
The Argus
10th July 2006
News
New battle over EDO bomb parts factory
Anti-war protesters have lodged 13 complaints over Sussex Policeís handling of a two-year campaign against a factory providing parts for fighter jets.
One refers to the attempted eviction of a peace camp outside EDO MBM in Home Farm Road, Brighton, last August.
Others cover the use of Public Order Act powers to arrest protesters and stop demonstrations throughout 2005, the arrest and imprisonment of a protester for allegedly breaching a High Court civil injunction and harassment of peaceful demonstrators.
Solicitors representing the protesters have referred the complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
They said the complaints together showed biased political policing aimed at suppressing freedom of expression and collusion with EDO MBM to obtain a civil injunction suppressing peaceful protest.
EDO MBM, which makes bomb-release components for fighter jets used in Iraq, fought for months for a permanent injunction banning protests in an exclusion zone around the factory. It dropped the case unexpectedly in March and agreed to pay thousands of pounds costs to the protesters.
Sussex Police declined to comment.