The War Profiteers - The Blackwater Killings in Baghdad

The War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture

War Profiteers Main Index

Killing of Iraqi Civilians Index

Killings Database – Year 2007

The Blackwater Killings in Baghdad

Background

Media Reports

Court Cases

Government Reports

Photo Credits

Newest Media Report: AP Source: DOJ Probing Alleged Blackwater Payments (1/2/2010/Associated Press)

Newest Government Report: Audit of Blackwater Contract for Protective Services in Iraq (6/2009/U.S. State Department)

Newest Legal Document: Memorandum Opinion (19/1/2010/U.S. vs. Slough, Slatten, Liberty, Heard & Ball)

Subscribe to the RSS feed to receive news about the Blackwater killings

Background - September 16^th, 2007

“[…] Lawyer Hassan Jabir was stuck in traffic when he heard Blackwater USA security contractors shout ‘Go, Go, Go.’ Moments later bullets pierced his back, he said Thursday from his hospital bed. Jabir was among about a dozen people wounded Sunday during the shooting in west Baghdad’s Mansour neighborhood. Iraqi police say at least 11 people were killed. […] ‘No one fired at them,’ Jabir said of the Blackwater guards. ‘No one attacked them but they randomly fired at people. So many people died in the street.’ […]”

Excerpt of an Associated Press article from September 21^st, 2007

Burnt-out car after the Blackwater shootings

The Document Archive of the Blackwater Killings

The Legal Archive:

Criminal Case I: U.S. vs. Slough, Slatten, Liberty, Heard & Ball

Criminal Case II: U.S. vs. Jeremy P. Ridgeway

Criminal Case III: U.S. vs. John Houston & Michael Henson

Civil Suit I: Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al vs. Blackwater et al

Civil Suit II: Estate of Ali Hussamaldeen Albazzaz vs. Blackwater et al

Civil Suit III: Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon vs. XE (Blackwater), Andrew Moonen et al

Civil Suit IV: Estate of Mushtaq Karim Abd Al-Razzaq et al vs. XE, Blackwater et al

Civil Suit V: Estate of Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah et al vs. XE, Blackwater et al

Civil Suit VI: Estate of Sabah Salman Hassoon et al vs. XE, Blackwater et al

Civil Suit VII: Estate of Husain Salih Rabea et al vs. Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater et al

Civil Suit VIII: Adil Shikhayiss et al vs. Erik Prince

Civil Suit IX: Estate of Sa’adi Ali Abbas Husein et al vs. Erik Prince

Civil Suit X: Daniel Brady et al vs. Xe, Blackwater, Erik Prince et al

Consolidated Civil Pretrial Proceedings: Civil Lawsuits I, II, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX

Exhibits - Filed in the Criminal and Civil Cases

The Media Archive:

The 2010 Media Reports File

The 2009 Media Reports File

The 2008 Media Reports File

The 2007 Media Reports File

The 2006 Media Reports File

The Video Archive:

U.S. Department of Justice on Blackwater Indictment - Press Conference from December 8^th, 2008

News Feed on Blackwater Killings - Short CNN Documentary from September 19^th, 2007

Jeremy Scahill talks about Blackwater - Speech from June 16^th, 2007

Diverse Archives:

The Government Reports File

Diagrams of the Killings - Diagrams included in New York Times/Washington Post articles from September/October 2007.

Interview with Suzanne Simons, Author of “Master of War”

Recent Media Reports

February 1^st, 2010 - AP Source: DOJ Probing Alleged Blackwater Payments

1 news article from the Associated Press

January 30^th, 2010 - Father Pins Hopes on Last Blackwater Lawsuit

1 news article from the Charlotte Observer

January 29^th, 2010 - Justice Department Appeals Dismissal of Blackwater Case

1 news article from Main Justice

January 24^th, 2010 - Biden: US to Appeal Dismissal of Blackwater Case

1 news article from the Associated Press

The 2010 Media Reports File

The 2009 Media Reports File

The 2008 Media Reports File

The 2007 Media Reports File

The 2006 Media Reports File

The Accused in the Criminal Case

Evan Liberty

Dustin Heard

Donald Ball

Nick Slatten

Paul Slough

Court Cases

Criminal Case I: U.S. vs. Slough, Slatten, Liberty, Heard & Ball

This criminal case concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16^th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on December 4^th, 2008 at the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC.

Criminal Case II: U.S. vs. Jeremy P. Ridgeway

This criminal case concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16^th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The defendant, Jeremy Ridgeway agreed to a plea deal and to testify against the defendants in Criminal Case I.

Criminal Case III: U.S. vs. John Houston & Michael Henson

This criminal case concerns the illegal smuggling of firearms into the United States. Some of the firearms are connected to the Blackwater shootings on September 16^th, 2007 in Baghdad. The criminal complaint was filed on September 4^th, 2008 at the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Civil Case I: Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al vs. Blackwater USA, Erik Prince et al

This lawsuit concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16^th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Himoud Saed Abtan and others on October 11^th, 2007 at the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. On June 2^nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit V. On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. II, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX.

Civil Case II: Estate of Ali Hussamaldeen Albazzaz vs. Blackwater USA, Erik Prince et al

This lawsuit concerns the killing of 5 Iraqi civilians near the al-Watahba Square in Baghdad on September 9^th, 2007, where Ali Albazzaz died. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Mr. Albazzaz on December 19^th, 2007 at the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. On June 2^nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit V. On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX.

Civil Case III: Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon vs. XE (Blackwater), Andrew Moonen et al

This lawsuit concerns the killing of Raheem Sa’adoon, a security guard for Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi, by Andrew Moonen, a Blackwater employee, on December 24^th, 2006. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Mr. Sa’adoon on March 19^th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2^nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, II, VI, VII, VIII & IX.

Civil Case IV: Estate of Mushtaq Karim Abd Al-Razzaq et al vs. XE (Blackwater) et al

This lawsuit concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16^th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Mushtaq Karim Abd Al-Razzaq and others on March 26^th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2^nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit I.

Civil Case V: Estate of Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah et al vs. XE (Blackwater) et al

This lawsuit concerns the killing of several Iraqi civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 9^th, 2007 at Al Watahba Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah and others on March 27^th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2^nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit II.

Civil Case VI: Estate of Sabah Salman Hassoon et al vs. XE (Blackwater) et al

This lawsuit concerns the killing of three Iraqi security guards by Blackwater personnel on February 7^th, 2007 at the Iraqi Media Network compound in central Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Sabah Salman Hassoun and two other estates on April 1^st, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2^nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, II, III, VII, VIII & IX.

Civil Case VII: Estate of Husain Salih Rabea et al vs. Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater et al

This lawsuit concerns the killing of Husain Salih Rabea and the wounding of Ali Kareem Fakhri by Blackwater personnel on August 13^th, 2007 on a public roadway in Hilla. It was filed on June 10^th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, II, III, VI, VIII & IX.

Civil Case VIII: Adil Shikhayiss et al vs. Erik Prince

This lawsuit concerns the wounding of several Iraqi citizens in Baghdad on September 9^th, 2007 by Blackwater employee Evan Liberty. It was filed on September 9^th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On October 22^nd, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases Nos. I, II, III, VI, VII & VIII.

Civil Case IX: Estate of Sa’adi Ali Abbas Husein et al vs. Erik Prince

This lawsuit concerns the killing of Iraqi citizen Sa’adi Ali Abbas Husein during the shooting on September 16^th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on September 16^th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On October 22^nd, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases Nos. I, II, III, VI, VII & VIII.

Civil Case X: Daniel Brady et al vs. Xe, Blackwater, Erik Prince et al

This lawsuit concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estates of several killed victims at the Superior Court in Wake County in North Carolina on September 15^th, 2009. On October 15^th, 2009, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Consolidated Civil Pretrial Proceedings: Civil Lawsuits I, II, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX

These proceedings consolidate all pretrial proceedings of civil lawsuits I, II, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX before the U.S. District Court in Alexandria Virginia. The order for the consolidation if these cases was filed on July 17^th, 2009.

Criminal Case I

U.S. vs. Slough, Slatten, Liberty, Heard & Ball

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Case-No.: CR-08-360

Filed on December 4^th, 2008

Recent Filings:

January 19^th, 2010 - Memorandum Opinion

“[…] This matter is before the court on the motions of defendants Nicholas Slatten and Donald Ball (‘the defendants’) to dismiss the indictment against them with prejudice. The government obtained an indictment against the defendants and three other individuals, charging them with multiple counts of voluntary manslaughter and firearms violations based on their alleged role in a shooting that occurred in Baghdad, Iraq on September 16, 2007. On December 31, 2009, the court dismissed the indictment in its entirety because the government had failed to prove that it had not used compelled, immunized information in the course of obtaining the indictment.

“Although the court concluded that much of the government’s evidence was tainted, it did not bar the government from seeking another indictment based solely on untainted evidence. In the motions now before the court, defendants Slatten and Ball contend that the indictment should be dismissed against them with prejudice - meaning that the government could not attempt to re-indict them - because there is insufficient untainted evidence to support another indictment and because the prosecutors committed gross misconduct in obtaining the original indictment. Because the court finds no legal justification warranting dismissal with prejudice, the court denies the defendants’ motions. […]”

December 31^st, 2009 - Order & Memorandum Opinion

“[…] For the reasons stated in the court’s Memorandum Opinion separately and contemporaneously issued this 31^st day of December, 2009, it is hereby ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment based on the government’s violations of Kastigar and Garrity is granted; and it is further ordered that the indictment is dismissed against all defendants; and it is ordered that the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment against defendant Slatten without prejudice is denied as moot. […]

“[…] The defendants have been charged with voluntary manslaughter and firearms violations arising out of a shooting that occurred in Baghdad, Iraq on September 16, 2007. They contend that in the course of this prosecution, the government violated their constitutional rights by utilizing statements they made to Department of State investigators, which were compelled under a threat of job loss. The government has acknowledged that many of these statements qualify as compelled statements under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), which held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination bars the government from using statements compelled under a threat of job loss in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The Fifth Amendment automatically confers use and derivative use immunity on statements compelled under Garrity; this means that in seeking an indictment from a grand jury or a conviction at trial, the government is prohibited from using such compelled statements or any evidence obtained as a result of those statements. […]

“[…] In short, the government has utterly failed to prove that it made no impermissible use of the defendants’ statements or that such use was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court must dismiss the indictment against all of the defendants. […]”

December 30^th, 2009 - Motion to File Def.s’ Submission Re New Evidence of Kastigar Violation

“[…] Defendants respectfully move for leave to file the accompanying Defendants’ Supplemental Submission Regarding New Evidence of Kastigar Violation.

“Pursuant to this Court’s scheduling order dated November 5, 2009, briefing following the Kastigar hearing was completed on November 25, 2009. As explained in the accompanying Supplemental Submission, on December 23, 2009, the Government submitted to the defense, in support of its proposed jury instructions, a citation to a source that recounts information that is concededly compelled under Garrity. Defendants respectfully seek to bring this new evidence of the prosecution’s continuing violation of Garrity and Kastigar to the Court’s attention through the accompanying six-page supplement.

“Defense counsel have conferred with the government’s Garrity counsel regarding this submission. Without taking a position on its substantive contents, the government has indicated its consent to this motion for leave to file the Supplemental Submission. Pursuant to this Court’s November 5, 2009 scheduling order, the Supplemental Submission will be filed under seal. […]”

December 18^th, 2009 - Government’s Motion to Exclude Out-Of-Court Legal Opinions

“[…] The United States, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, respectfully submits this Motion in Limine, seeking to preclude the presentation of evidence of any out-of-court statements of legal opinion made by members of Congress or the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government concerning the applicability of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (‘MEJA’), 18 U.S.C. § 3261 et seq. to private security contractors in Iraq. […]”

Case File of Criminal Case I: U.S. vs. Slough, Slatten, Liberty, Heard & Ball

Criminal Case II

U.S. vs. Jeremy P. Ridgeway

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Case-No.: 1:08-cr-00341-RMU-1

Filed on November 18^th, 2008

Recent Filings:

September 14^th, 2009 - Order

“[…] It is this 14^th day of September 2009 ordered a status hearing in the above-captioned case shall take place on April 6, 2010 at 10:15. So ordered. […]”

February 10^th, 2009 - Order

“[…] It is this 10^th day of February 2009, hereby ordered a status hearing in the above-captioned case shall take place on September 14, 2009 at 10:15 am. So ordered. […]”

February 10^th, 2009 - Minute Order

“Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina: Status Hearing as to Jeremy P. Ridgeway held on 2/10/2009. A further Status Hearing is scheduled for 9/14/2009 at 10:15 A.M. in Courtroom 30, Annex Building, Sixth Floor, before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. Case not referred at this time. Bond Status of Defendant: Personal Recognizance […]”

January 7^th, 2009 - Order

“[…] it is this 7th day of January, 2009, hereby, ordered that all matters filed and docketed in the case of United States v. Jeremy Ridgeway, Crim. No.08-341 (RMU) shall be unsealed by the Clerk of Court, with the exception of the following documents and transcripts that will remain sealed for a period of 60 days from the issuance of this order:

“1. Transcripts from any plea hearings held on November 18, 2008 and December 5, 2008.

“2. Any plea agreements entered into the record on November 18, 2008 or December 5, 2008.

“3. Any government motions to seal and sealing orders issued by the Court in relation to any plea proceedings that occurred on November 18, 2008 and December 5, 2008. […]”

Case File of Criminal Case II: U.S. vs. Jeremy P. Ridgeway

Criminal Case III

U.S. vs. John A. Houston & Michael Henson

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Case No.: 1:09-cr-00232-AW-1

Filed on September 4^th, 2008

Recent Filings:

December 16^th, 2009 - Memo to Counsel

“[…] Pursuant to the telephonic scheduling conference with counsel today, the parties will proceed with the following schedule. The two week jury trial in the above referenced matter will take place on March 30, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, courtroom, 4A. Motions are to be filed on or before January 29, 2010. The pre-trial conference and motions hearing are scheduled for March 9, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. in courtroom, 4A. Counsel is instructed to bring joint voire dire, joint jury instructions, verdict sheet, and any motions in limine to the conference. […]”

October 16^th, 2009 - Motion to Unseal

“[…] The United States of America by and through its attorneys, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, and James A. Crowell IV, Assistant United States Attorney for said District, hereby moves this Court to unseal all documents and docket entries connected to the search warrant filed in the above case, including those sealed pursuant to case numbers 08-2811-WC, 09-418-WC and 09-419-WC when the aforementioned matter was before United States Magistrate Judge William Connelly prior to indictment. The unsealing is now necessary for court proceedings.

“Wherefore, it is respectfully requested that the Government's Motion to Unseal be granted. […]”

October 15^th, 2009 - Government’s Motion in Limine Regarding Affirmative Defenses

“[…] The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b), respectfully moves the Court in limine to prohibit the Defendants, individually and jointly, from presenting the affirmative defenses of coercion, duress, or necessity to defend or otherwise authorize their illegal acts.

“The United States believes that both Defendants may claim, individually or jointly, that they, in some so far unexplained fashion, committed the charged felonies because of coercion or duress inflicted by a coconspirator and/or other yet unknown individual or out of necessity. Under controlling case law, these Defendants are not entitled to offer this defense, individually or jointly, unless they proffer evidence establishing each of the elements of the defense.

“In Bailey, the Court reasoned that juries should not be burdened with testimony relating to duress and necessity in cases where the asserted defense fails as a matter of law, noting pointedly that such cases ‘present a good example of the potential for wasting valuable trial resources.’ […] Procedurally, ‘[i]n order to have [an affirmative] defense submitted to a jury, a defendant must first produce or proffer evidence sufficient to prove the essential elements of the defense.’ […]

“Where ‘an affirmative defense consists of several elements and testimony supporting one element is insufficient to sustain it even if believed, the trial court and the jury need not be burdened with testimony supporting other elements of the defense.’ […] Accordingly, where the defendants' individually or jointly proffered evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support an affirmative defense the trial judge should exclude that evidence. […]”

April 29^th, 2009 - Indictment

“[…] 1. Beginning on or about February 19, 2008, and continuing until on or about February 28, 2008, in the Republic of Iraq and elsewhere, the defendants, John A. Houston and Michael Henson and others known and unknown, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, to knowingly and willfully, with intent to defraud the United States, attempt to smuggle and clandestinely introduce into the Unted States merchandise which should have been invoiced, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 545.

“2. It was part and an object of the conspiracy that defendants Houston and Henson would and did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly to smuggle firearms from Iraq into the United States. […]”

Case File of Criminal Case III: U.S. vs. John Houston & Henson

Civil Suit I

Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al vs. Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater Worldwide et al

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case No.: 1:09-cv-617-LMB-TRJ

Filed on June 2^nd, 2009

Consolidated with Civil Suit IV on June 2^nd, 2009

Prior to June 2^nd, 2009:

Estate of Himoud Saed Abtan et al vs. Blackwater USA, Erik Prince et al

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Case-No.: 1:07-cv-01831-RBW

Filed on October 11^th, 2007

Consolidated with Civil Suit II on March 28^th, 2008

On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. II, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX.

Recent Filings:

July 20^th, 2009 - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

“[…] Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 17(b)(3), Defendants hereby move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Dismissal is required for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350) or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-62, 1964), and without these claims there is no basis for federal jurisdiction; (2) the Complaint presents nonjusticiable political questions; (3) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under applicable Iraqi law; (4) Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed under the government contractor defense; (5) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by absolute immunity; (6) Plaintiffs have not established capacity to sue; (7) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against certain Defendants; and (8) Plaintiffs have sued a non-legal entity.

“The grounds for Defendants’ Motion are set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. […]”

July 17^th, 2009 - Order

“[…] It appears from a review of the record that this case presents certain legal issues essentially identical to those presented in four additional civil matters also pending in this division, namely 1:09cv616, 1:09cv617, 1:09cv618 and 1:09cv645. It also appears that all of the plaintiffs in these five related matters are represented by the same counsel, as are all of the defendants.

“Accordingly, for the reasons stated from the Bench, and for purposes of judicial economy, It is hereby ordered that civil actions 1:09cv616, 1:09cv617, 1:09cv618 and 1:09cv645, which actions are currently assigned to other judges in this division, are reassigned to the undersigned district judge for the limited purpose of discovery and pre-trial motions.

“It is further ordered that this matter is consolidated with 1:09cv616, 1:09cv617, 1:09cv618 and 1:09cv645 for all pretrial purposes, including discovery and dispositive motions. Whether the matters will ultimately require separate trials to be presided over by the originally assigned judges is a question that will be addressed at a later date. […]

“It is further ordered that defendants’ motion to stay discovery […] is granted and discovery in each of these five consolidated civil actions is accordingly stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed by defendants in these matters.

“It is further ordered that a hearing on all motions to dismiss filed by defendants in these five consolidated civil actions is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Friday, August 28, 2009. […]”

July 1^st, 2009 - First Amended Complaint

“[…] Count Nine Against Defendant Erik Prince - Violations Of Rackeeter Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (‘Rico’)

“114. The RICO Plaintiffs are Estates of Abtan, Abbass, Ali Khaleel, Abdulwahab Abdulqadir Al-Qalamchi, Sami Hawas Hamood, Fereed Waleed Hassoon, Bara’a Sa’adoon Ismael, Sameer Hoobi Jabbar, Mohammed Hassan Mohammed, Haider Ahmed Rabe’a, Hassan Jabir Salman, Estate of Mohamed Abbas Mahmoud, and Zuhair Najim Abbood Al-Mamouri.

“115. These RICO Plaintiffs all suffered property damage to their cars during the Nissor Square massacre. RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c).

“116. The RICO Plaintiffs bring claims under RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (b) and (c) against Defendant Erik Prince. […]

“[…] 119. The Prince RICO Enterprise is an ongoing criminal enterprise that has been in existence since at least 2003. The conduct of the Prince RICO Enterprise demonstrates a pattern and practice of repeated illegality designed to create more wealth for Defendant Erik Prince and the Prince RICO Enterprise.

“120. There is no goal that accomplished, would bring this Prince RICO Enterprise to an end. Rather, as evidenced by a lengthy series of illegal acts - ranging from murder to tax evasion to destruction of evidence - Defendant Erik Prince and his RICO Enterprise will continue its racketeering unless stopped by this Court. […]”

June 12^th, 2009 - Order Granting Enlargement of Time for Defendants to Answer Complaint

“[…] This matter having come before the Court on the Joint Motion of the parties for an enlargement of time, until and including July 13, 2009, within which Defendants may answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, and good cause being shown therefor, it is hereby ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further ordered that Defendants shall file an answer or other response to the Complaint on or before July 13, 2009.

“So ordered. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit I re Killings of September 16^th, 2007

Civil Suit II

Estate of Ali Ibrahim Albazzaz et al vs. Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater Worldwide et al

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case No.: 1:09-cv-616-JCC-JFA

Filed on June 2^nd, 2009

Consolidated with Civil Suit V on June 2^nd, 2009

Prior to June 2^nd, 2009:

Estate of Ali Hussamaldeen Albazzaz vs. Blackwater USA, Erik Prince et al

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Case No.: 1:07-cv-02273-RBW

Filed on December 19^th, 2007

Consolidated with Civil Suit I on March 28^th, 2008

On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX.

Recent Filings:

July 17^th, 2009 - Order

“It is further ordered that a hearing on all motions to dismiss filed by defendants in these five consolidated civil actions is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Friday, August 28, 2009. […]”

July 13^th, 2009 - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint

“[…] Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 17(b)(3), and 21, Defendants hereby move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Dismissal is required for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350) and without this claim there is no basis for federal jurisdiction; (2) the Complaint presents nonjusticiable political questions; (3) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under applicable Iraqi law; (4) Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed under the government contractor defense; (5) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by absolute immunity; (6) Plaintiffs have not established capacity to sue; (7) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against certain Defendants; and (8) Plaintiffs have sued a non-legal entity.

“The grounds for Defendants’ Motion are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. […]”

June 12^th, 2009 - Order Granting Enlargement of Time for Defendants to Answer Complaint

“So ordered. […]”

June 11^th, 2009 - Defendants’ Financial Interest Disclosure Statement

“[…] Accordingly, the representations below are made on behalf of Prince Group LLC; Xe Services LLC; Greystone LTD; Total Intelligence Solutions LLC; U.S. Training Center, Inc.; GSD Manufacturing LLC; Blackwater Security Consulting LLC; and Raven Development Group LLC (collectively, ‘Defendants’).

“2. Defendants have no parents, subsidiaries, or affiliated entities (corporate or otherwise) that have issued stock or debt securities to the public, nor are there any publicly entities (corporate or otherwise) that own 10% or more of the stock in any of the Defendants.

“3. None of the Defendants are partnerships, general or limited. The following [are] the owners or members of a Defendant, excluding other Defendants, that are non-publicly traded entities such as LLCs or other closely held entities: Samarus CO LTD. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit II re Killings of September 9^th, 2007

Civil Suit III

Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon vs. Erik Prince, XE, Blackwater Worldwide et al

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case No.: 1:09-cv-615-TSE-IDD

Filed on June 2^nd, 2009

Prior to June 2^nd, 2009:

Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon vs. XE (Blackwater), Andrew Moonen et al

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Case. No.: 3:09-cv-00561-W-LSP

Filed on March 19^th, 2009

On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, II, VI, VII, VIII & IX.

Recent Filings:

July 17^th, 2009 - Order

“It is further ordered that a hearing on all motions to dismiss filed by defendants in these five consolidated civil actions is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Friday, August 28, 2009. […]”

July 13^th, 2009 - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint

“The grounds for Defendants’ Motion are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. […]”

July 8^th, 2009 - Joint Report Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26 (f)

“[…] Plaintiffs Estate of Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon, et al. and Defendants Erik Prince, et al., by counsel, jointly file this report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (f) and the Court’s Scheduling Order of June 16, 2009 (‘June 16 Order’).

“[…] Plaintiffs’ Position On Discovery

“(1) This is a wrongful death action involving a single victim. Although the location of the wrongful shooting was Iraq, Plaintiffs are able to complete the discovery by the September 11, 2009, discovery cutoff date set by the June 16 Order. The eyewitnesses to the shooting have been identified and are able to travel to the United States for depositions and trial. […]

“[…] Defendants’ Position On Discovery

“(1) Discovery should not commence at this time. On July 13, 2009, Defendants will file a motion to dismiss that may completely dispose of this case or reduce the number of claims. In addition, Defendants will be filing a pleading that seeks immunity from suit. In the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, discovery should be stayed until the Court has decided Defendants’ immunity claims and its arguments for dismissal. Defendants intend to file a motion seeking to stay discovery. Defendants may need to file motions seeking protection from one or more deposition notices. […]”

June 12^th, 2009 - Order Granting Enlargement of Time for Defendants to Answer Complaint

“So ordered. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit III re Killing of December 24^th, 2006

Civil Suit IV

Estate of Mushtaq Karim Abd Al-Razzaq et al vs. XE (Blackwater) et al

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Case. No.: 3:09-cv-00626-LAB-BLM

Filed on March 26^th, 2009

On June 2^nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit I.

Recent Filings:

June 2^nd, 2009 - Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

“[…] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss without prejudice their claims against all Defendants. […]”

March 26^th, 2009 - Complaint

“[…] 24. This action is being brought against Xe, formerly Blackwater, in all of its various corporate incarnations. These companies (including a Xe-Blackwater company called Falcon that continues to operate in Iraq), are all component parts a single private company wholly owned and personally controlled by a man named Erik Prince. Prince and his corporate entities earn billions of dollars selling mercenary services.

“25. On September 16, 2007, heavily-armed Xe-Blackwater mercenaries (known in Blackwater parlance as ‘shooters’) working in Iraq began firing on a crowd of innocent Iraqis, without justification, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The Xe–Blackwater ‘shooters’ involved in this senseless slaughter on September 16, 2007, are being criminally prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice. One Xe-Blackwater shooter has already plead guilty, admitting that the Xe-Blackwater shooters were not being threatened and instead intentionally killed innocents for no reason.

“26. The September 16, 2007 massacre is one episode in a lengthy pattern of egregious misconduct by Xe-Blackwater acting in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. Xe-Blackwater created and fostered a culture of lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the company’s financial interests at the expense of innocent human life. This action seeks compensatory damages to compensate the injured and the families of those gunned down and killed by Xe-Blackwater shooters. This action seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Erik Prince and his Xe-Blackwater companies for their repeated callous killing of innocents. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit IV re Killing of September 16^th, 2007

Civil Suit V

Estate of Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah et al vs. XE (Blackwater) et al

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Case. No.: 3:09-cv-00631-H-JMA

Filed on March 27^th, 2009

On June 2^nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit II.

Recent Filings:

June 2^nd, 2009 - Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

“[…] Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss without prejudice their claims against all Defendants. […]”

March 27^th, 2009 - Complaint

“[…] 11. This action is being brought against Xe, formerly Blackwater, in all of its various corporate incarnations. These companies (including a Xe-Blackwater company called Falcon that continues to operate in Iraq), are all component parts of a single private company wholly owned and personally controlled by a man named Erik Prince. Prince and his corporate entities earn billions of dollars selling mercenary services.

“12. On September 9, 2007, heavily-armed Blackwater mercenaries (known in Blackwater parlance as ‘shooters’) working in Iraq fired, without justification, on a crowd of innocent Iraqi persons in and around Al Watahba Square resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. Mr. Jarallah was among those killed in this massacre. This senseless slaughter on September 9, 2007, was only one in a series of recent incidents in Blackwater’s lengthy pattern of egregious misconduct in Iraq resulting in the deaths of innocent Iraqis.

“13. Xe-Blackwater created and fostered a culture of lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the company’s financial interests at the expense of innocent human life. The September 9, 2007 shooting is one episode in a lengthy pattern of egregious misconduct by Xe-Blackwater acting in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. This action seeks compensatory damages to compensate the family of Mr. Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah, who was gunned down and killed by Xe-Blackwater shooters. This action seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Erik Prince and his Xe-Blackwater companies for their repeated callous killing of innocents. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit V re Killing of September 9^th, 2007

Civil Suit VI

Estate of Sabah Salman Hassoon et al vs. Erik Prince, XE, Blackwater Worldwide et al

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case No.: 1:09-cv-618-LMB-IDD

Filed on June 2^nd, 2009

Prior to June 2^nd, 2009:

Estate of Sabah Salman Hassoon et al vs. XE (Blackwater) et al

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Case. No.: 3:09-cv-00647-L-JMA

Filed on April 1^st, 2009

On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, II, III, VII, VIII & IX.

Recent Filings:

July 20^th, 2009 - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

“The grounds for Defendants’ Motion are set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. […]”

July 17^th, 2009 - Order

“It is further ordered that a hearing on all motions to dismiss filed by defendants in these five consolidated civil actions is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Friday, August 28, 2009. […]”

June 30^th, 2009 - First Amended Complaint

“[…] July 2007 Shooting

“50. On July 1, 2007, a driver named Wala’a was driving a minibus for three related families who were going to Baghdad airport to apply for passports. The three families included (a) parents with four children, including a three-month old baby; (b) an uncle; and (c) a cousin and his wife.

“51. As the families were returning from the airport, six Xe-Blackwater vehicles, including three with turrets, surrounded the minivan and opened fire for absolutely no reason.

“52. The Xe-Blackwater shooters killed the nine-year boy.

“53. The Xe-Blackwater shooters shot the mother in the back as she bent over, trying to protect the three-month old daughter from being shot. She was unsuccessful, as the baby was shot in the face. […]

“[…] February 2007 Shooting

“57. On February 4, 2007, Suhad Shakir Fadhil, a 37-years old female was driving to office, which was located near the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Suhad Shakir Fadhil worked in media relations, including at times working within the Green Zone for the United States Agency for International Development (‘AID’).

“58. Xe-Blackwater shooters shot Suhad Shakir Fadhil in the head as she drove to work. Ms. Fadhil died shortly after being shot. […]

“[…] March 2005 Shooting

“74. On March 22, 2005, Messrs. Al Qaysi and Al Rubae as well as another person were picked up at the Baghdad airport by a paid driver driving Mr. Al Rubae’s BMW.

“75. As the BMW traveled from the airport to Baghdad, Xe-Blackwater shooters began to fire on the BMW for no reason.

“76. Xe-Blackwater shooters shot Mr. Al Qaysi in the head, killing him.

“77. His widow and six children suffered and continue to suffer from the senseless and violent slaughter of Mr. Al Qaysi. […]”

June 12^th, 2009 - Order Granting Enlargement of Time for Defendants to Answer Complaint

“So ordered. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit VI re Killing of February 7^th, 2007

Civil Case VII

Estate of Husain Salih Rabea & Ali Kareem Fakhri vs. Erik Prince, Xe, Blackwater Worldwide et al

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00645-CMH-JFA

Filed on June 10^th, 2009

On July 17^th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, II, III, VI, VIII & IX.

Recent Filings:

July 17^th, 2009 - Order

“It is further ordered that a hearing on all motions to dismiss filed by defendants in these five consolidated civil actions is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Friday, August 28, 2009. […]”

July 13^th, 2009 - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint

“The grounds for Defendants’ Motion are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. […]”

June 10^th, 2009 - Civil Complaint

“[…] 5. Plaintiff is the Estate of Husain Salih Rabea. On August 13, 2007, Xe-Blackwater shooters shot Mr. Rabea, a 72-year old Iraqi, for no reason, and departed without stopping to offer any medical aid. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Rabea died from the gunshot wounds, leaving behind five sons and three daughters.

“6. Plaintiff Ali Kareem Fakhri is a student at the Babylon University College of Biology. On August 13, 2007, as Mr. Fakhri was driving on a public roadway in Hilla, Xe-Blackwater shooters opened fire on him for no reason. Mr. Fakhri watched in horror as the Xe-Blackwater shooters hit an elderly man in a nearby car. […]

“[…] 13. On August 13, 2007, Xe-Blackwater shooters fired their weapons without care or cause. Such willful and wanton conduct on that date is part of larger pattern of misconduct by Xe-Blackwater that evinces a conscious disregard for the safety of others.

“14. Xe-Blackwater has a pattern and practice of recklessness in the use of excessive and deadly force.

“15. Xe-Blackwater hires persons known to have been violent in the past, including former military officials known to have been involved in human rights abuses in Latin American and elsewhere. […]

“[…] 19. Xe-Blackwater videotaped and audiotaped reckless and dangerous behavior by its shooters. Yet Xe-Blackwater did not investigate, report or punish the demonstrable misconduct. Instead, Xe-Blackwater intentionally destroyed the tapes.

“20. Xe-Blackwater constantly operates in an illegal fashion, sending a clear message to its personnel that they should consider themselves free to act with impunity. As but one recent example, Xe-Blackwater continues to provide armed protection services in Iraq despite the fact the Iraqi government has refused to grant Xe-Blackwater the licenses needed to do business and carry weapons in Iraq.

“21. That is, Xe-Blackwater is providing armed protection services under contract to the International Republican Institute (‘IRI’), an American government-funded organization operating in Iraq. Xe-Blackwater, seeking to obscure its continued illegal operation in Iraq, directed its employees to enter into new contracts under the Greystone name rather than the Blackwater name. But Greystone is simply another corporate incarnation of Xe-Blackwater, and is not licensed to carry weapons in Iraq. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit VII re Killing of August 13^th, 2007

Civil Case VIII

Adil Shikhayiss et al vs. Erik Prince

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01017-TSE-IDD

Filed on September 9^th, 2009

On October 22^nd, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases Nos. I, II, III, VI, VII & IX.

Recent Filings:

October 22^nd, 2009 - Order

“[…] It is hereby ordered that defendant's motion to consolidate is granted. Accordingly, this matter is consolidated with Nos. l:09cv615, l:09cv616, l:09cv617, l:09cv618, l:09cv645, and l:09cv1048 for all pretrial purposes, including discovery and dispositive motions.

“It is further ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part. Accordingly, Count 1 of the complaint in this case is dismissed with prejudice insofar as it alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b). Count 1 is dismissed with leave to amend to remedy, if appropriate pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., the factual allegations as required to state a cognizable claim alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Moreover, Count 2 is dismissed with leave to amend to remedy, if appropriate pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., the factual allegations as required to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1350. […]”

October 15^th, 2009 - Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint or to Strike Certain Allegations

“[…] Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(f), Defendant Erik Prince hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint or, in the alternative, to strike certain allegations contained in the Complaint.

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-62, 1964) and have failed to state a claim under RICO; (2) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350); (3) the Complaint presents nonjusticiable political questions; (4) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under applicable Iraqi law; and (5) Plaintiffs fail to allege that Defendant Prince is personally liable for their alleged injuries.

“Defendant’s Motion to Strike should be granted because Plaintiffs’ Complaint is replete with material that is scandalous, impertinent, highly prejudicial, and irrelevant to the causes of action they assert.

“The grounds for Defendant’s Motion are set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. […]”

September 9^th, 2009 - Civil Complaint

“[…] 3. Plaintiff Adil Lafta Miza'el Shikhayiss is a 37-year old citizen of Baghdad, Iraq. He was shot in the left leg on September 9, 2007.

“4. Plaintiff Mahdi Mohammed Salih Mahdi Al Sa'adi is a 35-year old citizen of Baghdad, Iraq. He was shot in the head on September 9, 2007.

“5. Plaintiff Ammar Ali Mahdi Abood Al Sa'adi is a 33-year old citizen of Baghdad, Iraq. He was assaulted by gunfire on September 9, 2007.

“6. Ali Mahdi Abood Al Sa'adi is a 61-year old citizen of Baghdad. He was assaulted on September 9, 2009. […]

“[…] 8. Defendant Erik Prince is a resident of McLean, Virginia, with business offices at 1650 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, Virginia 22102.

“9. Defendant Erik Prince created various corporate entities to serve as his alter ego. Mr. Prince created these corporate alter egos to obscure and hide his wrongdoing. He personally controls all actions by the corporate entities. These corporate entities do not abide by any corporate formalities. Funds are intermingled among the companies. Mr. Prince adds or subtracts funds from any given company to suit his own purposes without regard to any corporate formalities. […]

“[…] 14. Mr. Prince is personally responsible for the assaults on Plaintiffs because Mr. Liberty’s egregious misconduct was not an isolated or aberrational act. Rather, as will be shown by reasonable discovery, Mr. Prince personally directed and permitted a heavily-armed private army, including but not limited to Mr. Liberty, to roam the streets of Baghdad killing innocent civilians.

“15. Mr. Prince personally intended that his private army of men kill and wound innocent Iraqis, including Plaintiffs here.

“16. Not all men employed by Mr. Prince participated in this private army intent on killing innocent Iraqis, but a substantial number did so. Those who killed and wounded innocent Iraqis tended to rise higher in Mr. Prince's organization than those who abided by the rule of law.

“17. Mr. Prince was well aware that his men, including his top executives in Moyock, North Carolina, viewed shooting innocent Iraqis as sport. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit VIII re Wounding of September 9^th, 2007

Civil Case IX

Estate of Sa’adi Ali Abbas Husein et al vs. Erik Prince

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01048-TSE-IDD

Filed on September 16^th, 2009

On October 22^nd, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases Nos. I, II, III, VI, VII & VIII.

Recent Filings:

October 22^nd, 2009 - Order

“[…] It is hereby ordered that defendant’s motion to consolidate is granted. Accordingly, this matter is consolidated with Nos. l:09cv615, l:09cv616, l:09cv617, l:09cv618, l:09cv645, and l:09cv1017 for all pretrial purposes, including discovery and dispositive motions.

October 15^th, 2009 - Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint or to Strike Certain Allegations

“The grounds for Defendant’s Motion are set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. […]”

September 16^th, 2009 - Complaint & Jury Demand

“[…] 3. Plaintiff is the Estate of Sa’adi Ali Abbas Husein. Before being shot and killed by Mr. Prince’s employees, Mr. Husein was a 52-year old citizen of Baghdad, Iraq. He was shot and killed on September 16, 2007. […]

“[…] 10. On or about September 16, 2007, Mr. Prince’s heavily armed employees drove into Nisoor Square in Baghdad and opened fue on innocent civilians stopped in traffic.

“11. Sa’adi Ali Abbas Husein was one of those struck and killed by the wanton shooting of Mr. Prince’s employees.

“12. Mr. Prince is personally responsible for the assaults on Mr. Husein because the egregious misconduct of Mr. Prince and his employees was not an isolated or aberrational act. Rather, as will be shown by reasonable discovery, Mr. Prince personally directed and permitted a heavily-armed private army, including but not limited to the shooters at Nisoor Square, to roam the streets of Baghdad killing innocent civilians.

“13. Mr. Prince personally intended that his private army of men kill and wound innocent Iraqis, including Mr. Husein. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit IX re killing of September 16^th, 2007

Civil Case X

Daniel Brady et al vs. Xe Services LLC, Blackwater Security Consulting LLC et al

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

Case No.: 5:09-cv-00449-BO (5:09-cv-00450-BO)

Filed on October 15^th, 2009

Prior to being transferred to Federal Court:

Daniel Brady et al vs. Xe Services LLC, Blackwater Security Consulting LLC et al

Superior Court Division, Wake County

Case No.: 09-cv-018387

Filed on September 15^th, 2009

Recent Filings:

December 24^th, 2009 - Defendant Jeremy Ridgeway’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

“[…] Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1 and Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (‘Rules’), Defendant Jeremy P. Ridgeway hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Defendant Ridgeway’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ridgeway. The grounds for this Motion to Dismiss are set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum in Support.

“Wherefore, Defendant Ridgeway respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion. […]”

December 22^nd, 2009 - Def.s’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand

“[…] Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of a tactical support mission in Iraq conducted by security contractors employed by the Department of State to guard U.S. diplomats traveling through the Iraq war zone. Compl. […] Defendants include U.S. Training Center, Inc. (‘USTC’), the company that contracted with the State Department, certain individuals who worked as Independent Contractors (‘ICs’) under the State Department contract, and other legal entities allegedly related to USTC. Plaintiffs assert tort claims for injuries allegedly suffered during a security mission in Baghdad on September 16, 2007. Plaintiffs allege that the ICs used unjustified force in carrying out the mission, and that USTC was negligent in retaining and supervising those ICs.

“Defendants removed this case from North Carolina state court on the grounds that they were acting under a federal officer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1) and that Plaintiffs’ claims implicate significant federal issues. The case for removal is clear: Plaintiffs concede that USTC and the Individual Defendants were under contract to the State Department to assist with the performance of a vital governmental function, i.e., securing U.S. diplomats traveling in a war zone […], and that the Defendants injured them during a tactical support mission conducted pursuant to the State Department contract […]. Moreover, Defendants assert numerous federal defenses […]. Thus, it is indisputable that ‘removal in th[is] case fulfills the federal officer removal statute’s purpose of protecting persons who, through contractual relationships with the Government, perform jobs that the Government otherwise would have performed.’ […]

“Plaintiffs nevertheless have moved to remand, advancing a narrow conception of the federal officer removal statute that is at odds with the statute’s plain text and with the Supreme Court’s long-standing admonition that the statute’s purpose of ensuring that federal defenses proffered by those executing federal policy will be heard in a federal forum should not be defeated by a ‘narrow, grudging interpretation of § 1442 (a)(1).’ […] The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion. […]”

November 16^th, 2009 - Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand

“[…] Come now plaintiffs in the above-entitled action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and hereby move the Court for an Order remanding the above-entitled action back to the North Carolina Superior Court, Wake County. This Motion for Remand is based upon the following grounds:

“1. The plaintiffs’ Complaint does not allege any claims which ‘arise under’ the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States;

“2. The defendants are not persons acting under color of any agency or office of the United States, and are not entitled to invoke the federal officer removal statute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 (a)(l) to establish removal jurisdiction;

“3. The defendants’ anticipated defenses, as stated in their removal papers, even if based upon a federal statute or federal preemption, do not provide a basis for removal jurisdiction; […]”

November 12^th, 2009 - Corporate Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

“[…] The Corporate Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs lack standing to sue in this Court; (2) the Complaint presents nonjusticiable political questions; (3) Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal foreign policymaking authority; (4) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under applicable Iraqi law; (5) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the government contractor defense; (6) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by absolute immunity; and (7) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against any of the corporate entities named as defendants or against defendant Erik Prince personally.

“The Corporate Defendants’ Motion to Strike should be granted because Plaintiffs have improperly appended evidentiary materials to their pleading, and because these materials are irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and prejudicial to Defendants.

“The grounds for the Corporate Defendants’ Motion are set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. […]”

Case File of Civil Suit X re killing of September 16^th, 2007

Consolidated Civil Pretrial Proceedings

In Re: Blackwater Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case No.: 1:09-cv-615, 1:09-cv-616, 1:09-cv-617, 1:09-cv-618, 1:09-cv-645, 1:09-cv-1017, 1:09-cv-1048

Consolidated on July 17^th & October 22^nd, 2009

Recent Filings:

January 6^th, 2010 - Order

“[…] On January 6, 2010, plaintiffs by counsel, withdrew their previously filed motions seeking relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. In an accompanying affidavit, plaintiffs’ counsel states that all plaintiffs have knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement reached between the parties. Accordingly, the parties’ stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(l), Fed. R. Civ. P., filed November 6, 2009, remains effective.

“Accordingly, and for good cause, it is hereby ordered that plaintiffs’ motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., are withdrawn.

“It is further ordered that these cases are dismissed with prejudice.

“The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to place these matters among the ended causes. […]”

January 6^th, 2010 - Plaintiffs’ Notice of Withdrawal of Rule 60(b) Motions for Relief

“[…] 1. On November 4, 2009, the undersigned counsel, on behalf of plaintiffs, executed written settlement agreement with the defendants. Prior to doing so, the undersigned, with the assistance of interpreters, solicited the consent of all plaintiffs and certain other claimants. At the time the undersigned executed the settlement agreement, the undersigned believed that all plaintiffs had provided verbal and/or written assent to the agreement.

“2. Having executed the settlement agreement, the undersigned, on November 5, 2009, filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in each of the above-captioned actions.

“3. Thereafter, plaintiffs’ counsel learned that two plaintiffs objected to the settlement agreement. Accordingly, on November 8, 2009, the undersigned filed a Withdrawal of Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice in each of the above-captioned cases.

“4. On November 30, 2009, the undersigned traveled to Istanbul and met personally with the two plaintiffs who had claimed they had not agreed to the settlement agreement. During these meetings, I was accompanied by Usama Fahum, an interpreter whom I confirmed is fluent in Arabic. With the assistance of Mr. Fahum, I fully explained the terms of the settlement agreement to these two plaintiffs. Thereafter, each plaintiff informed me that he fully understood the terms of the settlement, and that he desired to enter into the agreement. Each plaintiff then executed the agreement in my presence.

“5. All plaintiffs and claimants have now consented to and signed the settlement agreement with the defendants in my presence or in the presence of my representative.

“6. I have personally ascertained and am confident that all plaintiffs and claimants fully understand the terms of the settlement agreement and made a knowing and informed decision to enter into the agreement.

“7. The undersigned counsel has been duly authorized by all plaintiffs to withdraw the previously filed motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) in each of the above-captioned cases.

“8. In light of the foregoing, the pending Rule 60(b) motions should be denied as moot, and each of the above-captioned cases should stand dismissed with prejudice. […]”

December 9^th, 2009 - Order

“[…] This matter having come before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion For Enlargement Of Deadlines On Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) Motions For Relief From Final Judgment, and good cause being shown therefore, it is hereby:

“Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further ordered that defendants shall complete all discovery in connection with plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motions by January 18, 2010; and it is further ordered that plaintiffs shall file their supplemental submissions in support of the Rule 60(b) motions by 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2010; and it is further ordered that defendants shall file their supplemental submissions in opposition to the Rule 60(b) motions by 5:00 p.m. on February 1, 2010; and it is further ordered that an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motions is scheduled for 11:00 am, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2010. […]”

November 19^th, 2009 - Order

“[…] The matter came before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for relief from a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiffs argue that their counsel was under the mistaken belief that plaintiffs had authorized settlement of these cases at the time the stipulation of dismissal was filed. Because plaintiffs now allege that their counsel lacked any such authorization, they contend that relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate. During the course of the hearing held on November 19, 2009, it became clear that there may be factual disputes as to whether plaintiffs’ counsel had actual or apparent authority to settle these cases.

“Accordingly, limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing are appropriate to resolve this dispute. […]

“Accordingly, and for good cause, It is hereby ordered that defendants may conduct discovery limited to (i) plaintiffs’ counsel’s authority to settle these cases and (ii) the settlement process as pertains to these cases. This discovery must be completed by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 29, 2009.

“It is further ordered that plaintiffs are directed to file a memorandum setting forth their factual and legal contentions, a witness list, and a forecast of witness testimony by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 5, 2010.

“It is further ordered that defendants are directed to file a response to plaintiffs’ pleading setting forth their factual and legal contentions, a witness list, and a forecast of witness testimony by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

“It is further ordered that an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for relief from a stipulation of dismissal is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 14, 2010. […]”

Case File of Consolidated Civil Pretrial Proceedings: Civil Lawsuits I, II, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX

Recent Government Reports

June 2009 - Joint Audit of Blackwater Contract for Personal Protective Services in Iraq

Report by U.S. State Department & Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction

“[…] The Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), is responsible for protecting personnel, facilities, and information - both domestic and abroad. Over the years, DS has been unable to provide long-term personal protective services solely from its pool of special agents, and it has turned to contractual support. When, in 2004, on short notice, the Department assumed responsibility for protecting Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) personnel in Iraq, it turned to contractor support.

“In mid-2004, the Department negotiated sole-source letter contracts with Blackwater Security Consulting and with Triple Canopy for personal security services in Iraq, which were already providing personal protective services in Iraq to the CPA under Department of Defense contracts. In June 2005, the Department awarded its second Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract to three companies - Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and DynCorp International, LLC. This report focuses on the Blackwater contract in Iraq and associated task orders.

“The total estimated costs for the Department’s contracts and task orders with Blackwater for Iraq were over $1 billion as of May 29, 2008. The contracts are funded primarily with Department Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) funds and about $76 million of Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds (IRRF). A joint audit by the Department of State Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Audits, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), Office of Audits, was determined to provide an efficient way to review funding and performance under the contract. […]”

December 8^th, 2008 - Transcript of Blackwater Press Conference

Transcript from the U.S. Department of Justice

“[…] We’re here today to announce that a 35-count indictment has been unsealed in the District of Columbia. As you are aware, an indictment is merely a formal charging document notifying a defendant of the charges against him or her. All defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

“The indictment unsealed charges five Blackwater security guards with voluntary manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, and weapons violations, for their alleged roles in the September 16, 2007, shooting at Nisur Square in Baghdad, Iraq.

“Specifically, the defendants are charged with killing 14 unarmed civilians and wounding 20 other individuals in connection with this event. In addition, we can report that a sixth Blackwater security guard has pleaded guilty to charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter for his role in the same shooting. This guilty plea also was unsealed today.

“While there were dangers in Baghdad in September 2007, there were also ordinary people going about their lives, performing mundane daily tasks, like making their way through a crowded traffic circle.

“For the safety of these people, as well as U.S. government personnel and their own colleagues, security guards were obligated to refrain from firing their powerful weapons except when necessary for self-defense. The documents unsealed today allege that these six men disregard that obligation, and in doing so, violated U.S. law. […]”

December 2008 - Status of the Secretary of State’s Panel on Personal Protective Services in Iraq

Report by the Office of Inspector General, US State Department

“[…] On September 16, 2007, private security contractors working for Blackwater USA conducted an armed convoy through the Nisoor Square neighborhood of Baghdad that resulted in the death of 17, and wounding of 24 Iraqi civilians. More than a year later, the facts are still under investigation, and the incident continues to bring focused attention to the actions of private security contractors operating in Iraq.

“In October 2007, the Secretary of State’s Panel on Personal Protective Services in Iraq (The Panel), composed of outside experts, was assembled to review the Department’s security practices in Iraq following the Nisoor Square incident and to provide recommendations to strengthen the coordination, oversight, and accountability of Embassy Baghdad’s security practices. This report examines the status of The Panel’s recommendations and whether changes in operations enhanced the protection of U.S. mission personnel and furthered U.S. foreign policy objectives.

“In making this assessment, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) visited Embassy Baghdad and sites throughout Iraq where private security contractors provide movement and personal protection for U.S. mission personnel, including Erbil, Kirkuk, Hillah, Tallil, and Basra. In addition, OIG examined Department reporting on the status of the recommendations and consulted with senior and operational-level officials in Management and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), Embassy Baghdad, Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), and the three security companies under contract with the Department to provide protective services in Iraq - Blackwater USA, DynCorp International, and Triple Canopy. The evaluation was conducted according to Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. […]”

August 2008 - Contractors’ Support of U.S. Operations in Iraq

Report by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office

“[…] Private Security Contractors

“Providing security for all personnel, including contractors, is an inescapable aspect of U.S. operations in Iraq because of the instability and violence in that country. Under current DoD policy in Iraq, the military provides security to contractors and government civilians only if they deploy with the combat force or directly support the military’s mission […]. Unless special arrangements are made, U.S. government agencies and contractors, such as reconstruction contractors, that do not meet that requirement must provide their own security. As a result, the use of contractors to provide security has increased - a well-publicized and controversial aspect of contractor support in Iraq.

“Private security contractors, or PSCs (also referred to as private security companies), protect people and property in Iraq for U.S. agencies, the Iraqi government, and private businesses, namely, other contractors working in Iraq. Virtually all PSCs in the Iraq theater work in Iraq. They provide personal security details for officials, security escorts for government and contractor personnel, security for convoys and at fixed sites, and advice and planning related to security […].

“Costs for Private Security Contractors and Subcontractors

“CBO estimates that total spending by U.S. agencies and U.S.-funded contractors for private security services ranged between $ 6 billion and $ 10 billion over the 2003–2007 period. Between $ 3 billion and $ 4 billion of that spending was for obligations made directly by the U.S. government for private security services in Iraq. The government’s obligations for those services have amounted to roughly between $ 500 million and $ 1.2 billion annually since 2005. DoD, DoS, and USAID have awarded all of the U.S. government contracts for security services in Iraq. Since Iraq’s transition to sovereignty, DoS’s security contracts have also protected USAID employees, so USAID is not obligating new funds for PSCs in Iraq.

“Contractors hired by the U.S. government that are not protected by the U.S. military generally hire PSCs as subcontractors to provide security. Neither FPDS-NG nor officials, security escorts for government and contractor personnel, security for convoys and at fixed sites, and advice and planning related to security […].

“CBO estimates that U.S.-funded contractors spent $ 3 billion to $ 6 billion for subcontractors to provide security services over the 2003–2007 period. That spending makes up the balance of CBO’s $ 6 billion to $ 10 billion estimate of total spending for those services. CBO calculated that range by first estimating the value of the government’s service contracts performed in Iraq that required nonmilitary security. That estimate - $ 32 billion - is based on the assumptions that the military provides security for the LOGCAP contract, that contracts for products do not have significant security costs, and that JCC-I/A contracted for products or services at a ratio similar to that for all other in-theater contracts supporting operations in Iraq. CBO then determined that contractors spend between 10 percent and 20 percent of that $ 32 billion on security subcontracts. […]”

The Government Reports File

The Lead Executives of Blackwater

Erik Prince

Gary Jackson

Cofer Black

Joseph Schmitz

Photo Credits

Background

1) The burned remains of a car in Baghdad Thursday marked Sunday’s shootings by private security guards that killed at least eight people. - September 21^st, 2007 - Ali Yussef/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images;

The Accused in the Criminal Case

1) This handout photo provided by Evan Liberty’s defense team shows Evan Liberty. - undated - Liberty Defense Team/AP;

2) This handout photo provided by Dustin Heard’s defense team shows Dustin Heard. - undated - Heard Defense Team/AP;

3) This handout photo provided by Donald Ball’s defense team show Donald Ball. - undated - Ball Defense Team/AP;

4) This handout photo provided by Nick Slatten’s defense team shows Nick Slatten. - undated - Liberty Defense Team/AP;

5) This handout photo provided by Paul Slough’s defense team shows Paul Slough. - undated - Slough Defense Team/AP;

6) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Evan Liberty leaves federal court in Salt Lake City. Five guards were indicted for the 2007 shooting of Iraqi civilians. - December 8^th, 2008 - Douglas C. Pizac/Associated Press;

7) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Dustin Heard and his attorney, David Schertler, rear, leave federal court in Salt Lake City. - December 8^th, 2008 - Douglas C. Pizac/Associated Press;

8) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Donald Ball, center, and his attorney Steven McCool, right, leave federal court in Salt Lake City. - December 8^th, 2008 - Douglas C. Pizac/Associated Press;

9) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Nick Slatten leaves federal court in Salt Lake City. Wild, unprovoked gunfire and grenades killed 14 innocent Iraqis and hurt dozens more in a 2007 Baghdad attack, prosecutors said Monday in announcing charges with mandatory 30-year prison terms against five Blackwater Worldwide security guards. - December 8^th, 2008 - Douglas C. Pizac/Associated Press;

10) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Paul Slough leaves federal court in Salt Lake City. - December 8^th, 2008 - Douglas C. Pizac/Associated Press;

The Lead Executives of Blackwater

1) - 4) Erik Prince, Gary Jackson, Cofer Black & Joseph Schmitz - undated - The 4 photos were published by the Viriginian-Pilot as part of an article on Blackwater on July 24^th, 2006. The original sources of the photos are unknown.

Back to the Second Gulf War/Iraq Invasion II

Back to U.S. Department of Defense

Back to main index