Your post is very clear in that you ASSUME someone

Your post is very clear in that you ASSUME someone employed by JBI violated a confidentiality agreement by posting an executive summary from a report by SAIC, notwithstanding the fact that people outside of JBI held that same report and could have just as easily posted same.  Yes, your posts are very clear in that regard. 

You also ASSUME that JBI made a host of unspecified assertions that were adopted wholesale by SAIC, without question, in order to arrive at SAIC's conclusions contained within the report that has not been made public (aside from an executive summary that the company promptly notified the public not to rely upon).  You further ASSUME that, by virtue of your numerous other assumptions, SAIC made some unspecified "lie" in its undisclosed report that you now attribute to JBI.  I see your point.  If we make all sorts of unsupported assumptions, all negative to JBI, we can arrive at the ultimate conclusion that JBI made some unarticulated misrepresentation/lie!  Wow! 

No "lawyer talk" is involved in asking someone to identify the lie you are claiming the company made (a "lie" is hardly a legal term).  Move over Perry Mason!  LOL