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: Ex-Blackwater International Sold (17/12/2010/Agence France Presse)

Newest Government Report: An Examination of the Blackwater Contract (24/2/2010/Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate)

Newest Legal Document: Indictment (16/4/2010/U.S. vs. Jackson, Mathews Jr., Howell, Slezak & Bundy)

 

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

 

Background - September 16th, 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 21st, 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 I: U.S. vs. Slough, Slatten, Liberty, Heard & Ball/Appeal Proceedings

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 8th, 2008

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

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

 

December 17th, 2010 - Ex-Blackwater International Sold

1 news article from Agence France Presse

 

December 16th, 2010 - Blackwater Seeks Dismissal of Iraq Shooting Suit

2 news articles from the Associated Press & New York Times

 

October 22nd, 2010 - Erik Prince Sets Up Shop in Abu Dhabi

1 news article from United Press International

 

October 20th, 2010 - Efforts to Prosecute Blackwater Are Collapsing

1 news article from the New York Times

 

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 16th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on December 4th, 2008 at the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. The case was dismissed on December 31st, 2009 by order of the court. On January 29th, 2010, the U.S. filed an appeal with the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. circuit.

 

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

 

This criminal case concerns the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16th, 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 16th, 2007 in Baghdad. The criminal complaint was filed on September 4th, 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 16th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Himoud Saed Abtan and others on October 11th, 2007 at the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. On June 2nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit V. On July 17th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. II, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX. On January 6th, 2010, this case was dismissed together with the other connected civil cases due to a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

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 9th, 2007, where Ali Albazzaz died. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Mr. Albazzaz on December 19th, 2007 at  the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. On June 2nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit V. On July 17th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, III, VI, VII, VIII & IX. On January 6th, 2010, this case was dismissed together with the other connected civil cases due to a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

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 24th, 2006. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Mr. Sa’adoon on March 19th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On July 17th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, II, VI, VII, VIII & IX. On January 6th, 2010, this case was dismissed together with the other connected civil cases due to a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

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 16th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Mushtaq Karim Abd Al-Razzaq and others on March 26th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit I. On January 6th, 2010, this case was dismissed together with the other connected civil cases due to a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

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 9th, 2007 at Al Watahba Square in Baghdad. It was filed on behalf of the estate of Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah and others on March 27th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia and consolidated with Civil Suit II. On January 6th, 2010, this case was dismissed together with the other connected civil cases due to a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

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 7th, 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 1st, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in San Diego in California. On June 2nd, 2009 the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On July 17th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, II, III, VII, VIII & IX. On January 6th, 2010, this case was dismissed together with the other connected civil cases due to a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

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 13th, 2007 on a public roadway in Hilla. It was filed on June 10th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On July 17th, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases, Nos. I, II, III, VI, VIII & IX. On January 6th, 2010, this case was dismissed together with the other connected civil cases due to a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

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

 

This lawsuit concerns the wounding of several Iraqi citizens in Baghdad on September 9th, 2007 by Blackwater employee Evan Liberty. It was filed on September 9th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On October 22nd, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases Nos. I, II, III, VI, VII & VIII. On January 6th, 2010, this case was dismissed together with the other connected civil cases due to a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

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 16th, 2007 on Nisour Square in Baghdad. It was filed on September 16th, 2009 at the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. On October 22nd, 2009 this case was consolidated with Blackwater Civil Cases Nos. I, II, III, VI, VII & VIII. On January 6th, 2010, this case was dismissed together with the other connected civil cases due to a settlement agreement between the parties.

 

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 15th, 2009. On October 15th, 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 17th, 2009. On January 6th, 2010 the proceedings and all connected cases were dismissed as a settlement agreement was reached between the parties.

 

 

Criminal Case I

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Case No.: 10-3006

Filed on January 29th, 2010

 

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 4th, 2008

 

Recent Filings:

 

February 12th, 2010 - Order

 

“[…] Upon consideration of appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief, it is ordered that the motion be granted.

 

“The following revised briefing schedule will now apply in this case:

 

“Appellant’s Brief: April 30, 2010

 

“Appendix: April 30, 2010

 

“Appellees’ Brief: July 30, 2010

 

“Appellant’s Reply Brief: August 20, 2010 […]”

 

January 29th, 2010 - Notice of Appeal

 

“[…] By an Order and Memorandum Opinion dated December 31, 2009, the district court dismissed the indictment.

 

“[…] I, the above-named appellant, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the above-stated judgment.

 

“[…] United States of America, Appellant […]”

 

January 19th, 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 31st, 2009 - Order & Memorandum Opinion

 

“[…] For the reasons stated in the court’s Memorandum Opinion separately and contemporaneously issued this 31st 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. […]”

 

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

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

 

 

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 18th, 2008

 

Recent Filings:

 

March 16th, 2010 - Order

 

“[…] It is this 16th day of March, 2010, hereby ordered that the status hearing scheduled for April 6, 2010 is vacated. So ordered. […]”

 

September 14th, 2009 - Order

 

“[…] It is this 14th 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 10th, 2009 - Order

 

“[…] It is this 10th 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 10th, 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 […]”

 

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 4th, 2008

 

Recent Filings:

 

February 4th, 2010 - U.S.A.’s Memorandum to Admit Evidence Rel. to Def. Michael Henson

 

“[…] Facts giving rise to the charges:

 

“From approximately April 2007 until at least early 2008, the defendant was employed by SOS International [hereinafter SOSI], a company contracted by the United States Department of Defense, to provide services in Iraq. The defendant worked with the U.S. military and had access to firearms while in Iraq. During part of his employment, the defendant was supervised by codefendant John Houston, and both defendants Houston and Henson were otherwise personal friends.

 

“In early 2008, defendant Houston contacted Henson while the latter was on leave in the United States, specifically at his home in North Carolina, near Fort Bragg. Houston informed Henson that he was smuggling weapons from Iraq to Fort Bragg. Houston also asked Henson if he wanted to secrete any materials in the smuggled shipment and to retrieve the smuggled firearms upon their illicit arrival at Fort Bragg. Henson responded, via e-mail, that he concurred with the arrangements and that he would retrieve the shipment of smuggled weapons upon their arrival at Fort Bragg.

 

“Prior to his indictment and pursuant to their investigation of co-defendant John Houston, law enforcement officials contacted the defendant. The defendant agreed to speak with law enforcement officials on several occasions in late 2008 and early 2009. The defendant, however, made multiple false statements during the course of said interviews and meetings, including misrepresenting the fact that he had ever seen a particular weapon in co-defendant John Houston’s possession. The defendant, however, subsequently admitted that the weapon belonged to him [i.e., Henson] and that he previously observed said weapon under Houston’s bed in Iraq a short time before that weapon was one of eight others smuggled into the United States by both Houston and Henson. […]”

 

February 1st, 2010 - Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue

 

“[…] Defendant John A. Houston, through his attorneys, James Wyda, Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland, and Michael T. Citara Manis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, hereby requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the indictment herein for lack of venue in Maryland, or in the alternative, to order that this case be transferred to another, more appropriate district. […]”

 

January 28th, 2010 - U.S.A.’s Memorandum to Admit Evidence Rel. to Def. John Houston

 

“[…] Facts giving rise to the charges:

 

“From approximately April 2007 to August 2008, the defendant worked in Iraq for two companies contracted by the United States Department of Defense. From approximately April 2007 to May 2008, the defendant was employed by SOS International [hereinafter SOSI]. He thereafter obtained employment with MPRI until August 2008. At various times during his employment in Iraq, the defendant worked as a military analyst and in a supervisory capacity. While in Iraq, the defendant worked with the U.S. military and had access to firearms.

 

“From approximately mid-2007, the defendant approached U.S. military soldiers and asked the soldiers to unlawfully smuggle weapons from Iraq into the U.S. on his behalf. A U.S. soldier reported the matter to his superiors. Subsequently, in a series of e-mails in early 2008, the defendant arranged with the U.S. soldier and co-defendant Michael Henson to unlawfully smuggle firearms from Iraq to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in a manner that would evade U.S. military and civilian customs regulations and inspections. The defendant then transported a bag of weapons via two SOSI employees under his supervision to the U.S. soldier, who ostensibly had agreed to secrete the weapons to Fort Bragg on behalf of the defendant. Co-defendant Michael Henson agreed to collect the weapons once they arrived at Fort Bragg. Military investigators, however, seized the weapons before they departed Iraq. The weapons seized included eight machine guns and one semi-automatic pistol. […]”

 

December 16th, 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. […]”

 

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 2nd, 2009

Consolidated with Civil Suit IV on June 2nd, 2009

 

Prior to June 2nd, 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 11th, 2007

Consolidated with Civil Suit II on March 28th, 2008

 

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

 

Recent Filings:

 

July 20th, 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 17th, 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 1st, 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 12th, 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 16th, 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 2nd, 2009

Consolidated with Civil Suit V on June 2nd, 2009

 

Prior to June 2nd, 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 19th, 2007

Consolidated with Civil Suit I on March 28th, 2008

 

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

 

Recent Filings:

 

July 17th, 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 13th, 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 12th, 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. […]”

 

June 11th, 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 9th, 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 2nd, 2009

 

Prior to June 2nd, 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 19th, 2009

 

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

 

Recent Filings:

 

July 17th, 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 13th, 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. […]”

 

July 8th, 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 12th, 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 III re Killing of December 24th, 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 26th, 2009

 

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

 

Recent Filings:

 

June 2nd, 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 26th, 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 16th, 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 27th, 2009

 

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

 

Recent Filings:

 

June 2nd, 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 27th, 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 9th, 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 2nd, 2009

 

Prior to June 2nd, 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 1st, 2009

 

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

 

Recent Filings:

 

July 20th, 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 17th, 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. […]”

 

June 30th, 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 12th, 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 VI re Killing of February 7th, 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 10th, 2009

 

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

 

Recent Filings:

 

July 17th, 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 13th, 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 10th, 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 13th, 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 9th, 2009

 

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

 

Recent Filings:

 

October 22nd, 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 15th, 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 9th, 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 9th, 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 16th, 2009

 

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

 

Recent Filings:

 

October 22nd, 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.

 

“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 15th, 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 16th, 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 16th, 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 15th, 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 15th, 2009

 

Recent Filings:

 

February 17th, 2010 - Defendant Ridgeway’s Opposition to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery

 

“[…] Comes now Defendant Jeremy P. Ridgeway (‘Mr. Ridgeway’), by counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, and hereby submits this Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Separated Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery (the ‘Opposition’). Plaintiffs’ Separated Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery (the ‘Motion’) should be denied because Plaintiffs have not established the requisite prima facie evidence of personal jurisdiction that is needed for the Court to grant Plaintiffs leave to conduct the discovery in question. The grounds for this Opposition are set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum in Support.

 

“Wherefore, Mr. Ridgeway requests respectfully that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion. […]”

 

February 16th, 2010 - Defendants Ball, […] Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

 

“[…] Defendants Donald Wayne Ball, Dustin L. Heard, Evan Shawn Liberty, Nicholas Abrarn Slatten and Paul Alvin Slough hereby adopt, and refer the Court to the Corporate Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Strike Exhibits, which is being filed today. […]”

 

February 16th, 2010 - Corporate Defendants’ Memorandum in Support to Dismiss Complaint

 

“[…] Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Corporate Defendants’ motion to dismiss […] describes an event that was undeniably tragic. Every tragic event that occurs throughout the world is not redressable through a lawsuit in the courts of the United States, however. The issue presented by this motion is whether the Complaint states a valid claim for relief against the Corporate Defendants. For all of the reasons stated herein and in the opening brief […], it does not.

 

“[…] Plaintiffs are Iraqi citizens seeking compensation under Iraqi law for injuries allegedly sustained in the Iraq war zone at the hands of U.S. State Department contractors providing security services to U.S. diplomats. Such injuries are not redressable in this Court. […]

 

“[…] Even if they were actionable here, Plaintiffs’ claims are deficient under Iraqi law. […]”

 

January 25th, 2010 - Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery

 

“[…] Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(l), Local Civil Rule 7.1, EDNC, through undersigned counsel and upon the grounds set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an order allowing them a 90-day period to conduct limited discovery on the personal jurisdictional issue raised by Defendant Jeremy Ridgeway’s Motion to Dismiss and an additional twenty (20) days from the close of such discovery period to file a brief in opposition to said motion. In the alternative, if this Court does not grant Plaintiffs leave to conduct the requested limited discovery, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court allow them twenty (20) days from the date of such ruling to respond to Defendant Ridgeway’s Motion to Dismiss. While Defendant Ridgeway’s counsel does not consent to Plaintiffs’ request for leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery, counsel does consent to Plaintiffs’ request for an additional twenty (20) days, from the date the Court rules on this Motion, to respond to Defendant Ridgeway’s Motion to Dismiss. […]”

 

January 25th, 2010 - Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

 

“[…] Plaintiffs, through counsel, respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law opposing defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or to Strike (‘Motion’). For the reasons that follow, defendants’ Motion should be overruled. Plaintiffs submit that this case should first be remanded to the state court from which defendants improperly removed it. Should the Court remand, the need to decide this Motion will be mooted. In any event, defendants’ Motion is meritless and should be rejected.

 

“Nature of the case

 

“This case is not about the United States military or the conduct of the war against terrorism in Iraq. This case is not about national security, nor is it about politics, and it does not implicate the separation of powers amongst co-equal branches of our government. Although the location of events is a public traffic circle known as Nisur Square in Baghdad, Iraq, none of the relevant events has any military or national security component whatsoever. There are no federal claims or causes of action raised in the Complaint.

 

“The defendants consist of a private company and its employees that were hired, as independent contractors, by the United States Department of State (‘DOS’) to provide bodyguard services to diplomats and related personnel. Defendants’ employees, per Blackwater’s contract with the DOS, were expressly prohibited from using deadly force except for purely defensive purposes. […] Defendants, including the instant guard-defendants, also agreed to ‘comply with the laws of the United States and the host countries in which they are required to provide services under th[e] [WPPS II] contract.’ […]”

 

Case File of Civil Suit X re killing of September 16th, 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 17th & October 22nd, 2009

 

Recent Filings:

 

January 6th, 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 6th, 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 9th, 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 19th, 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

 

February 24th, 2010 - An Examination of the Blackwater Contract and the Need for Oversight

Report by the Committee on Armed Services of the U.S. Senate

 

“[…] Prepared Statement By Senator Carl Levin

 

“President Obama has said that a primary objective of our effort in Afghanistan is to strengthen Afghanistan’s government and security forces so that they can take the lead in securing their nation. The President has ordered the deployment of approximately 30,000 additional U.S. troops to help achieve our goals in Afghanistan.

 

“While most attention has understandably been focused on those 30,000 troops, attention also needs to be paid to the thousands of contractor personnel who are operating in Afghanistan. From training Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) to guarding our forward operating bases, contractor personnel are performing missioncritical tasks. According to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), in the last quarter of fiscal year 2009 alone, the number of Department of Defense (DOD) contractor personnel increased by 30,000, bringing the total number in Afghanistan to more than 100,000.

 

“While we distinguish between American servicemembers and contractor personnel, Afghan civilians often do not. As John Nagl and Richard Fontaine of the Center for New American Security put it: ‘local populations draw little or no distinction between American troops and the contractors employed by them; an act committed by one can have the same effect on local or national opinion as an act carried out by the other.’

 

“In the fight against the Taliban, the perception of Afghans is crucial. As General Stanley McChrystal said in August of last year ‘the Afghan people will decide who wins this fight, and we … are in a struggle for their support.’ If we are going to win that struggle, we need to know that our contractor personnel are adequately screened, supervised, and held accountable - because in the end the Afghan people will hold us responsible for their actions.

 

“Most contractor personnel act responsibly and within the rules to help us execute the mission, often at great risk to their own safety. Today’s hearing, however, will explore contract activities which fell far short of our requirements.

 

“In the fall of 2008, a company called Paravant entered into a subcontract with Raytheon Technical Services Company to perform weapons training for the Afghan National Army (ANA). The statement of work governing Paravant’s performance was developed by the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC–A) and contracted out by the U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office Simulation Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) to Raytheon.

 

“Paravant was created in 2008 by Erik Prince Investments (the company which is now named Xe). I’m going to use the names ‘‘Blackwater’’ and ‘‘Paravant’’ interchangeably. I do that for clarity as there is no meaningful distinction between the two. At the time Paravant was awarded its one and only subcontract, it had no employees.

 

“In Afghanistan, the company operated under Blackwater’s license and shared a bank account with Blackwater. Former Paravant Vice President Brian McCracken reported to Blackwater personnel. According to Mr. McCracken, Raytheon paid Blackwater for services rendered by Paravant and Paravant relied on Blackwater for its billing. Paravant and Blackwater were ‘one and the same,’ according to Mr. McCracken, and he added, Paravant was only created to avoid the ‘baggage’ associated with the Blackwater name.

 

“It has been widely reported that on May 5, 2009, Justin Cannon and Christopher Drotleff, two men working for Paravant in Afghanistan, fired their weapons, killing two Afghan civilians and injuring a third. In reviewing the Army’s investigation of the incident, then-CSTC–A Commanding General Richard Formica said that it appeared that the contractor personnel involved had ‘violated alcohol consumption policies, were not authorized to possess weapons, violated use of force rules, and violated movement control policies’. According to the Department of Justice prosecutors, the May 5, 2009 shooting ‘caused diplomatic difficulties for U.S. State Department representatives in Afghanistan’ and impacted ‘the national security interests of the United States.’ According to one media report, the shooting ‘turned an entire neighborhood against the U.S. presence’ and quoted a local elder as saying, ‘if they keep killing civilians, I’m sure some Afghans will decide to become insurgents.’

 

“On January 6, 2010, Mr. Cannon and Mr. Drotleff were indicted on firearm and homicide charges for their involvement in the May 5th shooting. Responsibility for litigating those charges is with the Department of Justice. Today’s hearing will focus on Blackwater-Paravant’s conduct and operations in Afghanistan. As acknowledged by a Blackwater senior executive after the May 5th shooting, an environment was created at Paravant which had ‘no regard for policies, rules, or adherence to regulations in country’.

 

“Our investigation dug into the events that occurred before the May 5th shooting. We will hear how that environment developed and also discuss failures in U.S. Government oversight that allowed it to persist. In particular, we will hear about Blackwater personnel’s reckless use of weapons, its disregard for the rules governing the acquisition of weapons in Afghanistan, and failures in the company’s vetting process that resulted in those weapons being placed in the hands of people who never should have possessed them. […]”

 

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 8th, 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. […]”

 

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 21st, 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 8th, 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 8th, 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 8th, 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 8th, 2008 -  Douglas C. Pizac/Associated Press;

10) Blackwater Worldwide security guard Paul Slough leaves federal court in Salt Lake City. - December 8th, 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 24th, 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