Blackwater Sues Dead Soldiers' Families

[Admiral Valdemar]

Blackwater Sues Families of Slain Employees to Shut Them Up

by Daniel J. Callahn / Marc P. Miles

The following article is by Daniel J. Callahn and Marc P. Miles, the lawyers representing the families of four American contractors who worked for Blackwater and were killed in Fallujah. After Blackwater refused to share information about why they were killed, the families were told they would have to sue Blackwater to find out. Now Blackwater is trying to sue them for $10 million to keep them quiet. This article was first posted on AlterNet.org’s website.

The families of four American security contractors who were burned, beaten, dragged through the streets of Fallujah and their decapitated bodies hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River on March 31, 2004, are reaching out to the American public to help protect themselves against the very company their loved ones were serving when killed, Blackwater Security Consulting. After Blackwater lost a series of appeals all the away to the U.S. Supreme Court, Blackwater has now changed its tactics and is suing the dead men’s estates for $10 million to silence the families and keep them out of court.

Following these gruesome deaths which were broadcast on worldwide television, the surviving family members looked to Blackwater for answers as to how and why their loved ones died. Blackwater not only refused to give the grieving families any information, but also callously stated that they would need to sue Blackwater to get it. Left with no alternative, in January 2005, the families filed suit against Blackwater, which is owned by the wealthy and politically-connected Erik Prince.

Blackwater quickly adapted its battlefield tactics to the courtroom. It initially hired Fred F. Fielding, who is currently counsel to the President of the United States. It then hired Joseph E. Schmitz as its in-house counsel, who was formerly the Inspector General at the Pentagon. More recently, Blackwater employed Kenneth Starr, famed prosecutor in the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, to oppose the families. To add additional muscle, Blackwater hired Cofer Black, who was the Director of the CIA Counter- Terrorist Center.

After filing its suit against the dead men’s estates, Blackwater demanded that its claim and the families’ existing lawsuit be handled in a private arbitration. By suing the families in arbitration, Blackwater has attempted to move the examination of their wrongful conduct outside of the eye of the public and away from a jury. This comes at the same time when Congress is investigating Blackwater.

Over 300 contractors have been killed in Iraq with very little inquiry into their deaths. The families claim that Blackwater is attempting to cover up its incompetence, its cutting of corners in favor of higher profits, and its over billing to the government. Due to lack of accountability and oversight, Blackwater’s private army has been able to obtain huge profits from the government, utilizing contacts established through Erik Prince’s relationships with high-ranking government officials such as Cofer Black and Joseph Schmitz.

In addition to assembling its litigation troops, Blackwater also stonewalled the families concerning any information about how the men were killed. Over the past two and a half years, Blackwater has not responded to a single question or produced a single document. When the families’ attorneys, Callahan & Blaine, obtained a Court Order to take the deposition of a former Blackwater employee with critical information about the incident, Blackwater quickly re-hired him and sent him out of the country. When the witness returned to the United States more than a year later, the families obtained another Court Order for his deposition. Blackwater again prevented them from taking his deposition by seeking the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to block the deposition under the guise that he possibly possessed national secrets. Following an investigation, the U.S. Army reported that the witness had no secret information and that it had no objection to the deposition.

Blackwater has now lifted this atrocity to a whole new level by going on the offensive and suing the families for $10 million. The families now find themselves looking down the barrel of a gun as Blackwater, armed with a war chest and politically-connected attorneys, is aggressively litigating against them. Blackwater has also threatened to hold the administrator of the estates personally liable to scare him into abandoning his position, and has threatened the families’ attorneys as well.

The families are simply without the financial wherewithal to defend against Blackwater. By filing suit, Blackwater is trying to wipe out the families’ ability to discover the truth about Blackwater’s involvement in the deaths of these four Americans and to silence them from any public comment. In February, the families testified before Congress.

However, Blackwater’s lawsuit now seeks to gag the family members from even speaking about the incident or about Blackwater’s involvement in the deaths. This is a direct attack to their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

“I initially took this case because it was the right thing to do in helping the families find closure by discovering the events surrounding their loved ones deaths, ” said Daniel J. Callahan, attorney for the families. “I have found the evidence concerning Blackwater’s involvement in the deaths to be overwhelming and appalling. Even more disturbing though is the callous nature in which Blackwater has not only concealed the truth, but also outright sued to force the families to stop pursuing the case and to silence them.” Blackwater has spent millions of dollars and hired at least five different law firms to fight the families, rather than meeting and addressing what should be Blackwater’s top priority - the safety and well being of the mothers, wives, and children left behind. Blackwater has said that it will not pay one red cent to assist or console the surviving families, but instead has counter sued for $10 million.

Without help, Blackwater will succeed in avoiding scrutiny for its conduct, escaping accountability for its actions, and silencing the families of the four Americans killed in Fallujah. A defense fund has been established by which the public is able to donate money to assist the families with litigation costs and expenses.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute.

Because they haven't quite gotten all the public's ire recently.

[Admiral Valdemar]

And, amazingly, I posted this not in my forum.

Someone drop kick this back to N&P while I consider some sleep.

[Mr Bean]

And, amazingly, I posted this not in my forum.

Someone drop kick this back to N&P while I consider some sleep.

Ask and you shall receive small party gifts

[Vympel]

Suing em for what?

[Sephirius]

Suing em for what?

They don't have to have any good reason. They're so financially powerful that even to show up in court will cost the families a fortune.

[Noble Ire]

Suing em for what?

They don't have to have any good reason. They're so financially powerful that even to show up in court will cost the families a fortune.

Couldn't the judge presiding over the case simply throw out the suit? Its obvious that Blackwater has absolutely no basis for its legal action.

[Academia Nut]

I'm pretty sure since there is no loser pays rule in the states, so for a judge to throw it out of court, they first have to go to court, which will cost the families a bundle. Basically Blackwater doesn't intend to win, it intends to intimidate these people into shutting up.

[Vympel]

So there are no orders for costs made in American courts?

God your justice system blows donkey balls.

[Lisa]

http://ubersoft.net/comics/hd20070614.png

[Edi]

So there are no orders for costs made in American courts?

God your justice system blows donkey balls.

Vympel, they have a legal system, but they do NOT have a justice system. There is a significant difference between the two.

[Lost Soal]

I'm pretty sure since there is no loser pays rule in the states, so for a judge to throw it out of court, they first have to go to court, which will cost the families a bundle. Basically Blackwater doesn't intend to win, it intends to intimidate these people into shutting up.

Someone explain this to me please. How will it cost a bundle just to show up in court. Does their lawyers fee jump up, are charged for the judges time, hiring of the court, what?

I've never understood whats supposed to be so prohibitavely expensive outside they lawyers fees, or are lawyers fees just that expensive?

[Uraniun235]

Lawyers are pretty expensive, especially for ordinary people. That, and supposedly the "really powerful" lawyers know arcane means by which they can prolong any legal proceedings for much longer than they would 'normally' take, and thus inflict further costs on the defendants whose lawyers must slog through the endless legal procedures.


Personally, I think someone needs to create a "how to" database on how to defend yourself against frivolous lawsuits intended to inflict financial harm or intimidate with the threat thereof, since I doubt 'loser pays' is likely to be implemented in the U.S. any time soon.

[Vympel]

Someone explain this to me please. How will it cost a bundle just to show up in court. Does their lawyers fee jump up, are charged for the judges time, hiring of the court, what?

I've never understood whats supposed to be so prohibitavely expensive outside they lawyers fees, or are lawyers fees just that expensive?

There's court costs, but they're negligible - it really is just all the time that the lawyers are spending before the court case to get the damn documents ready. It's many hours of drafting, and conferences to obtain instructions, and letters to the other side, etc to comply with all the court procedures, it quickly racks up.

And let's just say court lasts for one day. If your lawyer charges $30.00 per unit (Unit = 6 minutes) then from 9.00am to 4.00pm you've just lost $2,100.00 in legal fees.

(Note, that's a low charge-out rate - top lawyers charge waaaay more).

And if you've got more than one lawyer? (in Australia it's solicitor and barrister- and the barrister is more expensive) - more than double that, easy.

For a 9 day court case we did recently, the client spent $48,000. $19k was our fees, the remainder was for the barrister.

[CJvR]

...who worked for Blackwater and were killed in Fallujah. After Blackwater refused to share information about why they were killed...

Well they were Americans working in Iraq, it's not that hard to put 1+1 together here is it?

[Ariphaos]

Someone explain this to me please. How will it cost a bundle just to show up in court. Does their lawyers fee jump up, are charged for the judges time, hiring of the court, what?

I've never understood whats supposed to be so prohibitavely expensive outside they lawyers fees, or are lawyers fees just that expensive?

A client of mine was charged $500 to be told absolutely nothing.

Twice.

There are loser pays rules in some states, but I'm not sure if all of them have them. The problem is, unless your legal team is working pro bono or somesuch (in a case as ugly as this, it can well happen), you are out that insane amount of money until after you've won.

This, however, is pure evil. If it gets a lot of coverage, they will likely get help.

[Darth Wong]

This, however, is pure evil. If it gets a lot of coverage, they will likely get help.

Don't count on any of the 24-hour news networks to take this up as a cause celebre. They're part of the media, and the media IP organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA are fond of using these same tactics themselves.

[Srynerson]

So there are no orders for costs made in American courts?

God your justice system blows donkey balls.

In Federal court and every state court I'm aware of, the trial court at least has discretion to award costs to the prevailing party, and it's mandatory in most instances (although since the cost award is limited to what the court deems "reasonable", this can be significantly less than what the client has actually paid). But those are typically no more than a few thousand dollars. The big expense is fees. However, unless there's a fee shifting statute or a prevailing party provision in a contract, fee awards are almost never made (the court would have to find the claim was completely frivolous).

I'm curious as to what Blackwater is raising as counterclaims. I'll look it up at work tomorrow and see if I can get copy of the answer downloaded. (The arbitration demand is, I'm pretty sure, perfectly legit because the employment contracts probably had arbitration clauses in them. It's a rare employment contract that doesn't these days.)

[Darth Wong]

Even if there was a "loser pays" system in place, the company could drag it out for so long and drive the defendant so deeply into debt before any such ruling that it wouldn't matter. The carrying costs on the legal debt alone could easily swamp a typical middle-class family's finances.

The real question is why judges don't throw out these cases or identify and punish the kind of delay tactics that make this behaviour so effective. You would think that judges would be able to tell a plaintiff's lawyer that his demands are unreasonable and clearly intended to delay the case, and that the demand will be denied, with possible threat of contempt of court charges if the lawyers do not cease and desist in this behaviour.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

People need to realize that the First Amendment, like every other constitutional protection, doesn't apply to corporations, who can do whatever the hell they want to you. Once a person realizes that, they're bound to get really pissed off about it.

[Ariphaos]

Don't count on any of the 24-hour news networks to take this up as a cause celebre. They're part of the media, and the media IP organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA are fond of using these same tactics themselves.

Celebre, no. However, that isn't necessary. Lawyers like publicity, it gets them more business (when rich people/businesses are looking for good lawyers, they research - hell I do), and pro bono often means they are taking a huge cut of the winnings in the inevitable countersuit.

You might take that to mean the American system is so broken it sometimes fixes itself, of course.

Unless there is some incredible mitigating concern, here, I will be honestly surprised if they don't get significant help.

The real question is why judges don't throw out these cases or identify and punish the kind of delay tactics that make this behaviour so effective. You would think that judges would be able to tell a plaintiff's lawyer that his demands are unreasonable and clearly intended to delay the case, and that the demand will be denied, with possible threat of contempt of court charges if the lawyers do not cease and desist in this behaviour.

This occasionally does happen, but it's rare, in part because of the appeals process, in part because they are lawyers and bringing people up on barratry is bad for their profession. Robert Novak of petswarehouse.com fame was legally barred from bringing further civil cases in Florida, for example (I think there were exceptions for certain classes of cases or something but it was a pretty impressive ruling).