|
The
War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture |
|
DynCorp and the “Plan Colombia” - The
Class Action Lawsuit |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
“Ecuadorian Indians are taking legal action in
federal court here, charging that a U.S. company contracted to carry out
fumigation of illicit crops in neighbouring Colombia recklessly sprayed their
homes and farms, causing illnesses and deaths, and destroying crops.
U.S.-based attorneys representing 10,000 individuals living in the Amazon
rainforest near the border with Colombia filed a class action complaint
against Virginia-based DynCorp Corporation in federal court here Sep. 11. […]
In addition to charging DynCorp with violating the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
complaint alleges the company also breached the U.S. Torture Victim
Protection Act, among others. It seeks millions of dollars in compensation
and an immediate halt to spraying that allegedly affects Ecuador. […]” Excerpt
of an IPS article
from September 24th, 2001. |
Colombian Children standing in a
destroyed crops field |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
November 21st, 2009 - Lloyd’s Appeals Ruling on
Colombian Drug Eradication Liability 1 news
article from Bloomberg News July 19th, 2009 - US Role in Massive Aerial
Herbicide Spraying Revealed 1 feature article
from the Public Record June 18th, 2009 - International Narcotics
& Law Enforcement Affairs’ Office of Aviation 1 news
article from Defense Update February 27th, 2002 - Ecuadorian Farmers Fight
DynCorp’s Chemwar on the Amazon 1
feature article from Counterpunch September 24th, 2001 - Ecuadorians File U.S. Suit
Over Plan Colombia 1 news article
from Inter Press Service July 5th, 2001 - Anti-Coca Fumigation Takes
Toll in Border Area 1 news
article from Inter Press Service May 25th, 2001 - DynCorp in Colombia: Outsourcing
the Drug War 1 news
article from CorpWatch March 1st, 2001 - Plan Colombia 1
feature article from the Nation November 21st, 2000 - Plan Colombia: Fumigation
Threatens Amazon, Warn Indigenous Leaders, Scientists 1 news
article from Inter Press Service |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
1) Venancio
Aguasanta Arias, et al vs. DynCorp et al 2) Nestor
Quinteros et al vs. DynCorp Aerospace Operations LLC et al 3) Nestor
Quinteros & Venancio Arias et al vs. DynCorp et al Nestor Quinteros & Venancio Arias et al vs. DynCorp et al U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia Case No.: 1:07-cv-01042-RWR-DAR Filed on August 29th,
2007/(This Case consolidates the other two cases) July 7th, 2009 - Minute Order “[…] For the reasons set for on the record at the 07/07/2009 hearing, Plaintiffs
Motion to Stay and Extend the July 3, 2009 Deadlines […] is denied. For the
reasons set forth on the record at the 07/07/2009 hearing, Part One of
Defendants Motion for Enlargement of Discovery Deadlines […] is granted in
part, and that (1) the deadline by which Defendants shall serve all documents
responsive to Plaintiffs first of requests for production of documents is
extended to 09/08/2009, and (2) the deadline by which Defendants shall serve
all documents responsive to Plaintiffs second set of requests for production
of documents is extended to 10/30/2009. Further consideration of Part Two of
Defendants motion is stayed until a further status hearing before the
undersigned, now scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on 07/24/2009. […]” June 24th, 2009 - Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
the Three Provincial Plaintiffs “[…] Defendants DynCorp, et al. (‘DynCorp’) hereby move pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) to dismiss on the pleadings the claims of the three
provincial government plaintiffs (‘Provinces’) in Quinteros, or, in the
alternative, defendants move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 for summary
judgment, because the Provinces have neither standing nor legal capacity to
pursue their claims in this Court. The Provinces lack standing because (1)
foreign governments do not have standing to bring parens patriae claims in
U.S. courts and (2) the Provinces' derivative claims based on alleged
personal injuries and property damages to provincial residents are too remote
from the alleged conduct of which they complain. […] “The Provinces also do not have the legal capacity to bring suit
because Ecuadorian law does not authorize provincial governments to bring
suit in U.S. court but instead vests such power solely with the central
government through the office of the Attorney General. See Declaration of
Andres Donoso-Calvo, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Provinces’ lack of
standing and legal capacity in this Court is further demonstrated by the fact
that the Republic of Ecuador has elected to pursue identical claims against
the Republic of Colombia in a proceeding pending before the International
Court of Justice in the Hague. […]” June 22nd, 2009 - Plaintiffs’ Response and
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion “[…] DynCorp seeks extensions of two discovery deadlines. Plaintiffs
agree on the need for an extension of the overall fact discovery deadline,
though they urge the Court to adopt a somewhat different period for that
extension. No such agreement exists on DynCorp’s other desired extension -
four full months to complete a long over-due document production. Although
DynCorp refused Plaintiffs’ repeated requests to produce its responsive
documents by a date certain, the Court rightfully gave DynCorp a deadline
(July 3, 2009) in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. DynCorp’s request
for an extension of that deadline should be denied to prevent Plaintiffs from
being further delayed in their ongoing efforts to take discovery from
DynCorp. […]” April 21st, 2009 - Joint Status Report August 12th, 2008 - Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’
Motion to Compel Discovery “[…] Defendants’ Motion to Compel must be denied in its entirety due
to their blatant failure to comply in good faith with the meet and confer
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P 37 (a)(1) and L. Civ. R. 7 (m). As Plaintiffs
have demonstrated that the parties in fact were in essential agreement on a
revised schedule to allow Plaintiffs to address the technical problems that
occurred in assembling their initial 800 responses to DynCorp’s
questionnaire, and to fully respond to the total of 3,300 questionnaires,
Plaintiffs respectfully request that their Proposed Order with this agreed
schedule, filed concurrently herewith, be entered. As per Plaintiffs Proposed
Order, Defendants should be directed to meet and confer in good faith with
Plaintiffs on all remaining issues, and if they fail to reach agreement on
any of those issues, a Joint Report shall be submitted to Magistrate Judge
Robinson that indicates any issues in dispute, along with the parties’
competing positions. […]” April 14th, 2008 - Defendants’ Answer to First
Amended Consolidated Complaint “[…] 1. The first sentence of Paragraph 1 of the Quinteros complaint
requires no answer because it simply identifies the alleged basis for the
plaintiffs’ claims. Nonetheless, DynCorp International admits that it has
acted pursuant to its contracts with the United States government to assist
with the aerial eradication of coca and poppy plants in the Republic of
Colombia, and DynCorp International denies the remaining allegations in that
sentence. “The second, third and fourth sentences of Paragraph 1 are denied. “[…] 3. In response to the first sentence of Paragraph 3, the
defendants admit that this Court has diversity jurisdiction based on the
alleged controversy between citizens and instrumentalities of a foreign state
and the defendants, each of which is a citizen of a state in the United
States of America (‘USA’). “The defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to
admit or deny the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 3, but deny
that the plaintiffs are entitled to any damages. […]” April 3rd, 2008 - First Amended Consolidated
Complaint “[…] 5. There are approximately 3,200 individual
Plaintiffs who have alleged personal injury and property damage claims
against the DynCorp Defendants. Those Plaintiffs are herein collectively
referred to as the ‘Individual Plaintiffs.’ Second, the Provinces of
Provinces of Sucumbios, Carchi, and Esmeraldas have brought claims against
the Defendants. These Plaintiffs are collectively herein referred to as the
‘Provincial Plaintiffs.’ […] “[…] 11. Defendant DynCorp is fully liable for its
own acts and the acts of any subsidiaries, units, divisions, or other
entities directly or indirectly under its ownership and control, including,
but not limited to, DynCorp AT, DynCorp TS and DynCorp International LLC, in
relation to the unlawful acts herein. Further, any such subsidiaries, units,
divisions, or other entities are alter egos of Defendant DynCorp, or
alternatively, are in an agency relationship with it. Defendant DynCorp is
also vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the
acts or omissions of any subsidiaries, units, divisions, or other entities
under its ownership and control, and for the acts of any employees or agents.
[…]” August 29th, 2007 - Consolidated Complaint “[…] 1. The claims in this action arise from
Defendants’ conduct in connection with the implementation of their contracts
with agencies of the United States and Colombian governments to exterminate,
by the use of fumigants sprayed from airplanes and helicopters plantations of
cocaine and/or heroin poppies in large tracts of the Colombian rainforest.
During the course of implementing these contracts, Defendants also sprayed
large sections of the Esmeraldas, Carchi, and Sucumbios provinces in Ecuador,
across the border from Colombia, and caused severe physical and mental
damages to Plaintiffs and their children. Furthermore, as a direct and
proximate result of the cross-border spraying, the Provinces of Sucumbios,
Carchi, and Esmeraldas have suffered damage to their natural resources and
have expended, and will be required to expend in the future, funds to
remediate the situation and to address their citizens’ health, security, and
property. Plaintiffs have been subjected to serious and systematic damage to
their persons and their property in violation of the Alien Tort Claims Act
(‘ATCA’), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, international laws, treaties, conventions,
resolutions, and the common laws of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Texas, the State of
Delaware, and/or the country of Ecuador. […]” Nestor Quinteros et al vs. DynCorp
Aerospace Operations LLC et al U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale) Case No.: 0:06-cv-61760-WPD Filed on November 21st, 2006 May 22nd, 2007 - Order Granting Defendants’
Motion to Dimiss or Transfer “[…] In sum, each of the factors except for the
Plaintiffs’ choice of forum weighs in favor of the Defendants and in favor of
transfer to the District of Columbia. However, with the exception of the
public interest, each of the factors weighs only slightly in favor of
transfer. While Washington D.C. is clearly a more convenient forum to try
this case than is the Southern District of Florida, were the Plaintiffs not
foreign and had the events giving rise to the suit not occurred so far from
Florida, it would be a close question as to whether the Defendants had made
the showing necessary to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the
Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. However, because the foreign Plaintiffs’ choice
is entitled to less deference under the facts and circumstances of this case,
the Court finds that the Defendants have satisfied their burden and that
transfer pursuant to § 1404 (a) is appropriate. “Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Pursuant to the First-Filed Rule or,
in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) is hereby
granted. The Clerk is directed to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia and to close this case. […]” November 21st, 2006 - Complaint “[…] 51. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have witnessed
Defendants’ planes flying over their village in Ecuador, clearly beyond their
intended Colombian targets, spraying them with the harmful chemicals. The
toxic chemicals landed on Plaintiffs, their children, livestock, surrounding
land, and drinking water. “52. Defendants had knowledge and were aware of the
adverse and harmful effects of their wrongful conduct. Defendants’ aerial
spraying has been the subject of critical media attention. Despite knowledge
of the dangerous and harmful effects of their conduct, Defendants continue to
spray the toxic chemicals on Plaintiffs. “53. Plaintiffs allege on good faith, information
and belief that the fumigant sprayed by Defendants over Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs’ lands and livestock has a very high inhalation toxicity rating,
and that Defendants knew or should have known this, but acted to release the
poison spray on areas inhabited by Plaintiffs. Worse, in spite of product
warning labels, defendants have systematically sprayed toxins into the Mataje
River where Plaintiffs drink, bathe, wash their clothes and fish. […]” Venancio Aguasanta Arias et al vs.
DynCorp et al U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia Case No.: 1:01-cv-01908-RWR-DAR Filed on September 11th, 2001 May 21st, 2007 - Memorandum Opinion & Order “[…] Plaintiffs, citizens and domiciliaries of
Ecuador, brought an action under the Alien Torts Claims Act (‘ATCA’), 28
U.S.C. § 1350, the Torture Victim Protection Act (‘TVPA’), 28 U.S.C. § 1350,
the common law of the United States, statutes and common law of the District
of Columbia, and various international agreements and conventions, alleging
physical harm and property damage stemming from defendants’ contract with the
U.S. government to spray pesticides in order to eradicate cocaine and heroine
farms in Colombia. Defendants have moved to dismiss the action, or in the
alternative, for summary judgment. Defendants have also moved to stay
discovery pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have
moved to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories.
Because plaintiffs have presented a justiciable question of law under the
ATCA, but have not stated a claim for violation of the TVPA, the defendants'
motion to dismiss will be denied in part and granted in part and their motion
to stay discovery will be denied as moot. Because the parties have yet to
confer as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, plaintiffs’ motion
to compel will be denied as premature. […]” January 7th, 2002 - DynCorp International’s Motion
to Dismiss “[…] Defendants DynCorp, et al. (‘DynCorp
International’) hereby move this Court to dismiss this action pursuant to
FRCP 12 (b), or in the alternative, pursuant to FRCP 56. Plaintiffs’
complaint challenges foreign policy and national security determinations of
the executive and legislative branches and seeks to impose liability on
DynCorp International for conduct expressly authorized by Congress and
specifically dictated by the Department of State under the terms of DynCorp
International's government contract. The proper forums for plaintiffs'
complaints are in the Congress and before the Executive branch, and their
attempt to drag the judiciary into these matters should be rejected. “As set forth more hlly in the accompanying
statement of points and authorities in support of this motion and in the
sworn declaration of Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Rand Beers - who is
responsible for all United States government policies and initiatives in
support of international counter-narcotics efforts in the Andean region -
plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed on a number of grounds. “First, plaintiffs’ claims would entangle the Court
in nonjusticiable issues regarding United States foreign and national
security policy. Second, plaintiffs’ federal law claims based on alleged
violations of international law fail because the actions of which they
complain are expressly authorized by Congress and because plaintiffs do not
identify any actions that would constitute a violation of international law.
Third, plaintiffs' state common law claims are preempted by the federal
government's (a) exclusive authority over foreign policy and national
security and (b) specific approval of the safety of the herbicide used in the
drug spraying operations. Plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed in its
entirety. […]” September 11th, 2001 - Complaint for Equitable Relief “[…] 9. Plaintiffs Venancio Aguasanta Arias
(Ecuadorian Identity Card No. 1600251084) and Rosa Tanguila Andi (Ecuadorian
Identity Card No. 1500479611), are husband and wife, and reside in La
Comunidad San Francisco 2, Province of Sucumbios, Ecuador. They allege on
good faith information and belief, on behalf of themselves, their four minor
children, and all others similarly situated, that between January and
February of 2001, heavy spraying of toxic herbicides was carried out by
employees or agents of the DynCorp Defendants in Colombian territory located
no more than one mile from their home in Ecuador. The herbicides were sprayed
repeatedly over the aforementioned period day after day, with occasional rest
periods of two and three days. On the days the fumigation took place, the
spraying occurred between six in the morning and four in the afternoon. Heavy
clouds of liquid spray dropped from the planes, shifted with the wind, and
repeatedly fell on the home and land of Plaintiffs. “10. As a result of the heavy fumigation carried out
by the DynCorp Defendants over the area, Plaintiffs Venancio Aguasanta Arias
and Rosa Tanguila Andi, and their children, developed serious health problems
including heavy fevers, diarrhea, and dermatological problems. One of the
Plaintiffs’ children, Venancio Andres, was affected so severely by the
spraying that he suffered from heavy bleeding through his intestinal system
and had to be transported to the hospital at Lago Agrio, where he was treated.
Plaintiffs and their children were in an excellent state of health prior to
the fumigations by Defendants, and suffered the aforementioned medical
problems for a period of weeks after the fumigations stopped. They continue
to suffer to this day from serious irritations to their eyes which they have
not been able to cure. In addition to the health problems developed as a
result of the fumigations of their land, Plaintiffs suffered the losses of
their coffee, yucca, plantain and rice plantations, which is their sole
source of subsistence. The animals they own were severely affected by the
fumigations, including that their chickens developed blisters in their skin
and died. […] “[…] 22. Defendant DynCorp is a Delaware corporation
doing business in a number of locations in the United States. Its business
consists of information technology and outsourcing professional and technical
services primarily to the U.S. government, which accounts for 98% of its
revenue. Through its U.S. government related contracts, DynCorp regularly
conducts business within the District of Columbia. In addition, DynCorp
engages in activities to further its business within the District of Columbia
including regular interactions with Members of Congress, the Executive
Branch, and various agencies of the U.S. Government including the Department
of State. With more than 22,000 employees worldwide and average yearly sales
over 1.8 billion, DynCorp is among the largest employee-owned technology
companies in the United States. […] “[…] 26. Plaintiffs allege on good faith,
information and belief that Defendant DynCorp either itself or through its
subsidiaries/units DynCorp AT, DynCorp TS, and/or DynCorp Int’l contracted,
sometime in the years 1999 or 2000, with the U.S. Department of State or other
U.S. agency to allegedly exterminate, by use of fumigants sprayed from
airplanes, plantations of cocaine and/or heroin poppies in large tracks of
the Colombian rainforest owned by private citizens of Colombia. Upon
information and belief, the solicitation for this contract by the U.S.
Government, as well as the bid proposal for the contract and the award of the
contract occurred in the District of Colombia. […] “[…] 32. Plaintiffs allege on good faith,
information and belief that the spraying of Plaintiffs’ persons, lands and
livestock with toxic fumigants is nothing less than an act of mercenary war
carried out surreptitiously by the DynCorp Defendants in total defiance of
international law, and outside the parameters of any legal contract to
implement ‘Plan Colombia.’ […]” |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
January 11th, 2006 - Plan Colombia: A Progress
Report Report by the
Congressional Research Service “[…] Plan Colombia was developed by former President Pastrana
(1998-2002) as a six-year plan to end Colombia’s long armed conflict,
eliminate drug trafficking, and promote economic and social development. […] “[…] The objectives of Colombia and the United States differ in some
aspects, although there is a significant overlap of goals. The primary U.S.
objective is to prevent the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, as
well as to help Colombia promote peace and economic development because it
contributes to regional security in the Andes. The primary objectives of
Colombia are to promote peace and economic development, increase security,
and end drug trafficking. Both U.S. and Colombian objectives have also
evolved over time from a strict counternarcotics focus to encompass
counterterrorism activities. “[…] Both the State Department and United Nations report decreases in
acreage devoted to growing drug crops since 2001, although the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) recently reported no significant
reduction of coca cultivation during 2004. A key component of Plan Colombia
is the manual and aerial eradication of coca and poppy crops. (See the tables
below for eradication and cultivation statistics.) The United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates that at the end of 2003, Colombia had
212,506 acres of coca under cultivation, having reduced its production by 47%
since 2000. Opium poppy under cultivation covered about 10,000 acres, from
16,000 acres in 2000. In 2004, ONDCP reports that 337,000 acres of coca and
27,000 acres of opium poppy were sprayed. However, its recently completed
survey concluded that the area under cultivation for coca remained stable in
2004, due to replantings of previously eradicated crops. […]” July 5th, 2001 - Colombia: Plan Colombia
Legislation and Assistance Report by the
Congressional Research Service “[…] On February 7, 2000, the Clinton Administration,
as part of its annual budget request, asked Congress for FY2000 supplemental
appropriations of $ 954 million for assistance to Colombia and other Andean
counternarcotics efforts. FY2000 allocated funding for Colombia, from
appropriations made in 1999, already totals some $ 164.0 million. At the same
time, the Administration requested $ 318 million for FY2001 assistance to
Colombia and other regional efforts, in addition to the $ 150 million that it
previously indicated it had planned to allocate to Colombia in FY2001. […]” |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Background 1)
Colombian Children stand in a field of crops, now dead from aerial
fumigation. - undated - Retrieved from the “Witness for Peace” website on July
4th, 2009; |
|||||
|
|
|||||
