|
The
War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture |
|
The Blackwater Killings in Baghdad |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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) |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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 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 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: 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” |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
February 1st, 2010 - AP Source: DOJ Probing Alleged
Blackwater Payments 1 news
article from the Associated Press January 30th, 2010 - Father Pins Hopes on Last Blackwater
Lawsuit 1 news
article from the Charlotte Observer January 29th, 2010 - Justice Department Appeals
Dismissal of Blackwater Case 1 news
article from Main Justice January 24th, 2010 - Biden: US to Appeal Dismissal of
Blackwater Case 1 news
article from the Associated Press |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
The Accused in the Criminal Case |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Evan Liberty |
Dustin Heard |
Donald Ball |
Nick Slatten |
Paul Slough |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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: 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. […]” December 30th, 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 18th, 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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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: 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 […]” January 7th, 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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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: 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. […]” October 16th, 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 15th, 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 29th, 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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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. […]” “[…] 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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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: December 24th, 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 22nd, 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 16th, 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 12th,
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 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 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
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. […]” 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 Lead Executives of Blackwater |
||||||||||||
|
Erik Prince |
Gary Jackson |
Cofer Black |
Joseph Schmitz |
|||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||