Talk:Prioria Robotics Maveric

Untitled

This article suggests that we should have a more important article with the word Maveric:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05schwartz.html

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prioria Robotics Maveric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203075601/http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/united_states_army_puchases_maveric_bird_camouflage_uas_unmanned_aerial_system_2611135.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/united_states_army_puchases_maveric_bird_camouflage_uas_unmanned_aerial_system_2611135.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711090515/http://www.geospatial-intelligence-forum.com/mgt-archives/7-mgt-2008-volume-6-issue-5/29-geoint-aerial-vehicles.html to http://www.geospatial-intelligence-forum.com/mgt-archives/7-mgt-2008-volume-6-issue-5/29-geoint-aerial-vehicles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Major overhaul

I found this article lingering in the abyss as a copy-pasted marketing write-up from the ill-fated company behind this ill-fated drone. It had been appropriately given several templates, all of which were very old.

I reworked the entire article, keeping but rewording portions of its content that I found in the provided sources (the company's marketing write-up was conveniently not included in those). I also found a few independent sources to supplement the pre-scandal coverage of the drone. Since the company was found to have misrepresented the specs of the product, I removed the specs infobox entirely and rephrased mentions of specs that could not be verified through independent sources who were not just reporting the company's false specs. I then added a section on the scandal that resulted from the company's misrepresentation of their product.

There are likely still issues, as I'm not really interested in the subject and have probably missed some mistakes while checking my work, but I've removed the templates as I believe I've fixed all issues they pointed to.

If this topic is of interest to you, please review what I've done and make any further changes you see beneficial! Thanks. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Undid revision 926358236 by (Daemanheart)

Just wanted to leave a note regarding my undo of this revision.

I disagree that my contributions were "inflammatory hearsay." The information was presented in a neutral tone and relied on news coverage for sourcing. The additional information provided in the edit may be perfectly valid, but should be provided in addition to what was there before. I'd like to point out that there were/are no statements of certainty about Prioria's conduct in the article. Statements are framed as allegations and accusations (not hard facts), and I believe it is factually true that these accusations and allegations were made... to the point, in fact, that they were heard in civil court. If you have grounds to believe that the news sources reporting these allegations are unreliable, please discuss that here.

In addition, please check WP:MOS for information on formatting, and work to make sure further revisions follow the guidelines defined there. Further, do not leave orphaned sources in an article after removing content. You left several of the sources I added, but removed the content they pertained to, unnecessarily leaving the article in a poorly-sourced and confusing state. Leaving my sources as an example of "a series of false press releases" is unnecessary and does not logically back your claim that the cited news articles are false.

Please consider re-adding the content you replaced mine with, but unless you have some way of founding your complaint that my additions were "inflammatory hearsay," add your content as an addition to mine in order to create well-rounded, multi-perspective coverage of the lawsuit. It is okay for there to be conflicting perspectives present regarding the court case. In fact, I personally think it will improve the article.

Thanks. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Added improved sources and information

I added information from the court record and government websites which contradict most of the newspaper articles. The court record is massive and was difficult to cite subsections. I will work on additional detailed citations. Per Skeletor3000 comments I have added my comments to his.

Thanks. Daemanheart (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

If there's still more to be done by tomorrow, I'll take some time to read the references you added and add citations. I might try to synthesize our edits together once everything is all compiled, too. Thanks for taking the time to consider my input and for your work on improving the article! Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It surely is important to update the article if the previously cited newspaper articles turn out to be wrong. However, I have reverted this edit for now, because it has several serious problems:

• The "Court Records" link, used four times as a reference, does not work. Also, this would seem to be a primary source which is unsuitable for many purposes.
• The second citation "System for Award Management" (used three times) is broken as well.
• The next two links [1] [2] do not support the statement they are cited for ("In addition the Maveric Drone was certified by the FAA").
• Numerous other claims are lacking citations entirely (e.g. "The company has never had any issues with its Army contracts and has completed all contracts successfully.")
• Overall, the added text seems to violate WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view, undertaking a "review of the facts" to "find an alternative story". Wikipedia articles should not be used to publish novel analyses of "the facts" to correct the prevailing viewpoint.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we compile/review additional sources here on the talk page in an effort to form some kind of consensus prior to making any more substantial changes to the article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Skeletor3000, lets place edits here. I have updated links and citations. We can add them to a new section. To HaeB's comments I read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_and_secondary_source_paradoxes_in_law-related_articles, and inferred that court records were good sources. Are there other guidelines? I believe that the newspaper articles function as original research because they both contradict themselves in the body of the article and provide no actual evidence other than the persons point of view. Thanks,--Daemanheart (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Daemanheart

Revisions for discussion

Condor claimed:

• That the drone was easily damaged, and that "Prioria failed to return drones sent to them for repairs, which financially crippled Condor"- The Court Transcripts shows that the only plane not returned for repairs was the one that was the subject of the contracts dispute which Condor never paid for and claimed ownership off. The court sided with Condor, which was the subject of the appeal. [Court trial testimony pg 174] https://www.alachuaclerk.org/court_records/gis/imageview_cf.cfm?p=TTMqKzE0JVMjVlhCJUBLKDpAPSM5I1EiNFE%2FMyFDXUMsUzxbKFchMjc3XV4zUUxUP1FJXz5TTF4uVEg7PQpNSCZcPFQoXTNESks7L0w2OSUsN1tBIExaUSlZPVBYWzRWQFM8VkwuQFRaSyEiNC9IIV1JQ1ohKls6IU00Ck0zSTBRIS1WRUpTLkpAUCZJRlhXSi41IzhKLDMmR1xYJFVfPzJVXEQ2VEQoPUc6PSRaVCcxQj1FNCZQVzgKNk5LJi1HKF4vTCBPQ100UD0kLlolJ1IsW1M%2FWlIiQCAgCg%3D%3D

Response It looks like this document can only be viewed by logging in. Assuming it's public record, any way it can be uploaded elsewhere? Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Response Trying to add the court record has been challenging. I was able to download it, it is 29MB is there an easier way to upload it? ThanksDaemanheart (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Response It's not a requirement that it's online somewhere in order to be included as a reference, I just thought that would make it easier to get more eyes on it. Maybe you could paste some relevant quotes from it here? Might be better as a new topic, too, as this one is starting to get kind of cluttered. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• That Army claimed that Prioria misrepresented the drone's abilities, and further claimed a "pattern of misconduct" – this is untrue. The company was in good standing through out its life[11]. The army never made such claims and in fact certified the Drones operations after passing the system through Army Test and Evaluation Command. In addition the Maveric Drone was certified[12] by the FAA[13], US ATEC, US DHS, Canadian Defense forces, and many others.

NOAA document shows multiple certifications for the product on page 43. https://uas.noaa.gov/Portals/5/Docs/Library/NOAA-2nd-UAS-Arctic-River-Forecasting-Workshop-2014-Report_Final.pdf

• ✔ Above reference now included in Legal scandal section

The FAA shows a 333 exemption and flight authorization https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/section_333/authorizations_granted/media/Prioria-Robotics-Inc-13325.pdf

• That there was a complaint from the US Army calling for criminal charges – This is untrue, Condor called for Criminal charges but the US Government and US Army found no basis for the charges. In fact since the initial claims of wrong doing by Condor, the company would go on to win multiple DOD defense contracts[14]. Given that all of the contracts were audited by the GAO the company was never listed as having any issue with any of its contracts[11]. The company has never had any issues with its Army contracts and has completed all contracts successfully.

Response You're correct on this. Other sources indicate that the accusations of defrauding the military stemmed from the Condor complaint, not a separate complaint by the military. I've gone ahead and removed that information from the article, as your links below regarding Prioria's standing indicate that military agencies did not share this viewpoint. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Response works for me

ThanksDaemanheart (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Shows a contract won 2 years after Condor publicly made their complaints, if the Federal government had a complaint they would not have been able to issue the award. https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1608825

• ✔ Above reference now included in Legal scandal section

SAM.gov can be used to see if a contractor is in good standing, if they have been disbarred, or if they have had any issues on any of their contracts. From the governments contractor registration I enter in the name Prioria select inactive records and get the following results - From SAM.gov Your search for Prioria Robotics, Inc.* returned the following results... • Entity Prioria Robotics, Inc. Status: Inactive DUNS:

078398960 CAGE Code:

6PWY3 Has Active Exclusion?: No DoDAAC:

Expiration Date:

11/13/2018 Debt Subject to Offset?:

No Purpose of Registration:

All Awards

• That the businesses offices were “raided” by law enforcement – this is untrue. Law enforcement arrived with a writ of garnishment to attempt to collect on the Contracts dispute judgement won by Condor. Those assets were held by the sheriff as the bankruptcy process had already started and were part of the estate. The writ of Garnishment was Condor's attempt to circumvent other creditors, and was later rescinded. Here is the specific link to the writ https://www.alachuaclerk.org/court_records/gis/imageview_cf.cfm?p=TTMqKzE0JVMjVlhCJUBLKDpAPSM5I1EiNFE%2FMyFDXUMsUzxbKFchMjc3XV4zUUxUP1FJXz5TTF4uVEg7PQpNSCZcPFQoXTNESks7L0w2OSUsN1tBIExaUSlZPVBYWzRWQFM8VkwuQFRaSyEiNC9IIV1JQ1ohKls6IU00Ck0zSTBRIS1WRUpTLkpAUCZJRlhXSi41IzhKLDMmR1xYJFVfPzJVXEQ2VEQoPUc6PSRaVCcxQj1FNCZQVzgKNk5LJi1HKF4vTCBPQ100UD0kLlolJ1IsW1M%2FWlIiQCAgCg%3D%3D Here is where that writ was reversed https://www.alachuaclerk.org/court_records/gis/imageview_cf.cfm?p=TTMqKzE0JVMjVlhCJUBLKDpAPSM5I1EiNFE%2FMyFCTVcoUzwzL1UxMjc3XV4zUUxUP1FJXz5TTF4uVEg7PQpNSCZcPFQoXTNESks7L0w2OSUsN1tBIExaUSlZPVBYWzRWQFM8VkwuQFRaSy4iND9IIV1JQ1ohKls6IU00Ck0zSTBRIS1WRUpTLkpAUCZJRlhXSi41IzhKLDMmR1xYJFVfPzJVXEQ2VEQoPUc6PSRaVCcxQj1FNCZQVzgKNk5LJi1HKF4vTCBPQ100UD0kLlolJ1IsW1M%2FWlIiQCAgCg%3D%3D

Response The "raided" wording was taken from the cited article, but does appear to be misleading. I've gone ahead and reworded that statement. Again, however, the court links aren't viewable without registering. If you can share them elsewhere it would be helpful. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Response works for me

ThanksDaemanheart (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• That a senior Prioria employee signed an affidavit asserting Prioria’s wrong doing – the employee later could not recall when called to the witness stand to testify in court, per the court record. Pg 467 Line 3 Seidel wasn’t there when it happened and is only based on his belief, he is speculating. Pg 473. Seidel says that he wasn’t aware of what was going on and wrote his affidavit in restrospect

• That the civil court case going against Prioria drove the company into bankruptcy. Prioria’s filing documents show that the company had started the process of moving into bankruptcy long before when the company lost a program bid to Lockheed Martin 4 months earlier. The company went through the process of winding down its classified facility and finishing existing contracts. The SAM registration show that the company allowed there government registration to become Inactive in November 2 months before the judgement, a sign the company is being wound down.

• Condor Claimed that the company improperly ended its vendor relationship with Condor to sell to law enforcement. The company claimed that Condor did not represent themselves correctly

The court record Pg.163 - pg 177, shows that the agreement was not renewed

Shows where Condor was unable to sell to law enforcement because of criminal record.

     https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-charlotte-observer/20130328/281805691384597

Response: Thanks for posting these here. Culbertson's record appears to have been problematic for the city. I propose incorporating this reference into the paragraph regarding Condor's accusations as follows:

In 2013, Condor Aerial entered a contract to become a licensed retailer of the Maveric system. While Prioria would handle defense contracts itself, Condor would have the right to sell the product to local law enforcement agencies. However, after Condor founder Fred Culbertson advocated for use of the Maveric to the Monroe, NC City Council, it was revealed that he had served time in prison for obtaining property by false pretenses. The City Council cited concern over Culbertson's criminal record, as well as upcoming legislation and negative public response, in their unanimous decision to halt discussions of purchasing drones for use by local law enforcement.[*] Condor later accused Prioria of providing false specifications for the drone, and therefore selling it a hobby-grade drone at a military-grade price.[4] Specific complaints included that the drone was easily damaged, and that Prioria failed to return drones sent to them for repairs, which financially crippled Condor.[5]

Update Looks like there's no objections, so I went ahead and modified the article as proposed above. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Response works for me, however the NOAA publication talks about thousands of flight hours and doesn't mention any performance issues. what if we add to the last sentence Despite Government reports to contrary (add citation for NOAA report PDF) Condor later accused Prioria of providing false specifications for the drone, and therefore selling it a hobby-grade drone at a military-grade price.[4] Specific complaints included that the drone was easily damaged, and that Prioria failed to return drones sent to them for repairs, which financially crippled Condor.

ThanksDaemanheart (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to avoid directly asserting a connection between Culbertson's problematic legal record and Condor's lawsuit because that would be based off my own analysis of the events. It might take me a bit to comb through these other references, but I thought I'd start by taking a stab at integrating this one. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Response works for me ThanksDaemanheart (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Shows Condor founders criminal conviction for fraud https://casetext.com/case/state-v-culbertson-9

Condor previous business judgement https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5611063/10/ocean-strategic-holdings-ltd-v-all-star-professional-bull-bronc-tour/

Response:I see why these are relevant, but both require too much inference to include, in my opinion. In other words, even if it's true and relevant that Condor was run by a shady individual, we can't demonize him in the article without documentation of a direct connection (no matter how obvious of an inference it seems). The Charlotte Observer article documents an instance where his background directly influenced his ability to sell the drone. These are both indirectly related. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Response I understand your point, I will thin on it some more. It seems like there is a connection and relationship between the concepts but I am not sure how you bridge that connection without inference. ThanksDaemanheart (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ThanksDaemanheart (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes requested

Fellow members,

I am requesting to edit the 'Legal scandal' section in this article to accurately present facts which can be easily verified online. My intention is to present a balanced point of view would be appreciated. Please change the name of the section and it's content as per the suggestion given below. Thank you.

From

Legal scandal

In 2013, Condor Aerial entered a contract to become a licensed retailer of the Maveric system. While Prioria would handle defense contracts itself, Condor would have the right to sell the product to local law enforcement agencies. Condor purchased a Prioria drone for demonstrations with vendors.

After a 7 month wait time by Condor to receive the Maveric drone demo, Prioria asked Condor to send it back for data and tech updates. The demo drone was never seen again. Later it was discovered that Bryan da Frota (Founder of Prioria) was reselling used demos to the military as new systems. A Prioria employee testified that Mr. da Frota was knowingly falsifying information on government contracts to sell used equipment as new.

Condor exposed Prioria in court when the judge found Bryan da Frota and his attorney (George Franjola) guilty of falsifying documents, falsifying evidence, threats against witnesses, threats against attorneys, knowingly falsifying testimony, spoliation of evidence.

A judgement in favor of Condor for $192,533.47 on October 3, 2017 for sanctions and fees was then levied against Prioria. Condor filed a writ of execution and seized Prioria bank accounts.

The Condor Aerial lawsuit resulted in a jury award of $1,523,515.00 on December 7, 2017 and a court-ordered seizure of Prioria's assets in January, 2018. Prioria then absconded with all of the company assets moving from a 22,000 sg ft facility to a 2 story residential house in Gainesville where they were found hiding Prioria assets.

After the seizure was carried out by law enforcement, the company went into insolvency.

To

Controversy

In 2015, a Prioria vendor - Condor Aerial alleged Prioria of providing false specifications for the Maveric UAV, and therefore selling it a hobby-grade drone at a military-grade price. The complaint included allegations that the UAV was easily damaged and also consisted of sworn statements by a prior employee who claimed that then CEO of Prioria was knowingly falsifying information on government contracts, however, the employee later changed his position while testifying in the court. Reports from government entities countered these claims. A report by NOAA, which documented their own Maveric drones lasted over six years without mechanical incident over the course of 4,500 combined sorties.

Over several years and multiple attorneys, Condor only won a breach of contract suit with a jury award of $1.5 million on December 7, 2017 and a writ of execution was assessed on Prioria's assets in January, 2018. The verdict was appealed but the company filed for Chapter 11 (reorganization) bankruptcy protection on January 29th 2018, and the appeal has been on hold ever since.  Done. I found this source, and did not see where the accusing former employee later changed his position while testifying in the court, so the statement was not included in the edit. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

References