The War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture
The Blackwater Killings Civil Suit IX
Case File: Civil Lawsuit related to the September 16th, 2007 Killings
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.
October 22nd, 2009 - Order
“[…] It is hereby ordered that defendant’s motion to consolidate is granted. Accordingly, this matter is consolidated with Nos. 1:09cv615, 1:09cv616, 1:09cv617, 1:09cv618, 1:09cv645, and 1:09cv1017 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. […]”