U.S. v. Jackson--Mem. in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery Re: King of Jordan

7/29/2019 U.S. v. Jackson--Mem. in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery Re: King of Jordan

1/15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINANORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))

v. ) Crim. No. 2:10-CR-8-FL)

GARY JACKSON, )WILLIAM WHEELER MATHEWS, JR., )

ANDREW HOWELL, )

RONALD SLEZAK, and )ANA BUNDY )

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY REGARDING KING OF JORDAN VISIT

Defendants Gary Jackson, William Wheeler Mathews, Jr., Andrew Howell, Ronald

Slezak, and Ana Bundy (collectively, Defendants), by their respective counsel, respectfully

submit this Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding King of

Jordan Visit.

I. BACKGROUNDa. King of Jordan Visit

In the course of the Defendants ongoing investigation, it has come to the attention of

counsel that the gifting of weapons to His Majesty, the King of Jordan, in March 2005 occurred

at the request of, under the direction of, and pursuant to authorization received from the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA). Defendants investigation has also revealed that the CIAs

standard policies and procedures required it to take responsibility for documenting the

disposition of said firearms and ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Evidence at trial will show that the CIA failed or refused to comply with its own policies and

1


2/15

procedures, which resulted in an easily-corrected regulatory paperwork error in Blackwaters

firearms disposition logs.

By letter dated April 12, 2012 (attached as Exhibit A), Defendants requested that the

Government perform a spin search1

of the CIAs files for all documents related in any way to

the March 2005 official visit of King Abdullah of Jordan to the United States, including but not

limited to documents related to any gifts provided to the King, and U.S. personnel travelling with

the King to the United States, within the United States, and returning to Jordan. As support for

their motion, Defendants enclosed a Declaration of John Maguire, a former CIA official, in

which he indicates that he has knowledge regarding the circumstances of the CIAs request for

and authorization of gifts to the King of Jordan in March 2005. (See Exhibit A.) Subsequent to

the Defendants April 12, 2012 letter to the Government, the Defendants also received the

Declaration of Charlie Seidell (attached as Exhibit B), another former CIA official who has

knowledge regarding the circumstances of the King of Jordans visit to Blackwater.

So as to adhere to the proposed scheduling order the parties have submitted to the Court,

Defendants requested that the Government advise Defendants no later than Friday, April 20,

2012 whether it intended to perform the requested search and produce the results to Defendants.

The Government responded by letter dated May 10, 2012 (attached as Exhibit C), indicating that

they had produced all discoverable information. The Government further represented that it

would interview John Maguire and would produce any discoverable information he revealed. Id.

1Defendants are informed and believe that a spin search is a phrase known to the CIA which

will result in a complete search and production of the CIAs documents and records within the

scope of the request set forth herein.

2


3/15

II. DISCOVERY REQUESTSa. Spin Search Request

Request: Defendants request that the Government direct the CIA to perform a

"spin search" for all documents related in any way to the March 2005 official visit of King

Abdullah of Jordan to the United States, including but not limited to documents related toany gifts provided to the King, and U.S. personnel travelling with the King to the United

States, within the United States, and returning to Jordan, and that the Government

produce all such documents in its possession, custody, or control. For purposes of this

request, "documents" means all records and other tangible forms of expression in your

possession, custody, or control, whether drafts or unfinished versions, originals, copies,

however created, produced or stored (manually, mechanically, electronically, or otherwise),

including but not limited to cables, authorizations, papers, files, notes, reports,

correspondence, emails, same time text messages, other text messages, letters, facsimiles,

electronic mail, other electronic communications, word processing documents,

spreadsheets, databases, offline storage or information stored on removable electronic

media, information contained on laptops or other portable devices, ledger sheets,telegrams, telexes, telephone logs, notes or records of conversations or meetings, minutes of

meetings, contracts, agreements, calendars, date books, bank statements, worksheets,

summaries, invoices, bills, records of billings, checks, wire transfers, drafts for money,

records of payment, magnetic tape, tape recordings, disks, diskettes, and other electronic

media, microfilm, microfiche, and any other storage device.

As support for this request, Defendants have attached the Declarations of John Maguire

(Exhibit A) and the Declaration of Charlie Seidell (Exhibit B). Due to the fact that Mr. Maguire

and Mr. Seidell have not yet been cleared by the CIA to share classified information regarding

the King of Jordan March 2005 visit with the Defendants, Defendants have been unable to obtain

detailed information beyond that set forth in the attached Declarations. However, based upon the

limited information available to Defendants at this time, Defendants have a good faith basis to

believe that evidence at trial will show that:

1.

The King of Jordan visit to Blackwater was conceived and organized by the CIAwith the assistance of other U.S. Government agencies, including without

limitation the Department of State and Secret Service.

2. The King of Jordan visit to Blackwater arose as a result of the relationshipbetween individuals identified in Defendants Preliminary Rule 12.3 Notice,

including, without limitation, Erik Prince, Ric. P., Jose R., and Rob. R.

3


4/15

3. Contrary to the allegations contained in the Indictment, the King of Jordan visit toMoyock, North Carolina was not a Blackwater marketing effort, but was instead a

CIA-organized and CIA-sanctioned diplomatic event attended by dozens of U.S.

Government officials with the aim not of increasing Blackwaters potentialprofits, but instead of furthering relations between the two countries.

The Indictment alleges a factual scenario that is significantly different from the facts that

Defendants will show at trial. The Indictment alleges that the King of Jordan visit to Blackwater

occurred during the course of an ongoing conspiracy allegedly designed, at least in part, to

aggressively expand [Blackwaters] business into various other

fields including contracts for the provision of protective serviceson behalf of foreign Government personnel, the training of foreign

nationals to provide such services for their own countries, and the

construction of training facilities in such foreign countries. One ofthe foreign countries with whom Blackwater/Xe hoped to contractto provide such services was the Kingdom of Jordan. (Indictment

at 4-5.)

The Manner and Means section of Count One of the Indictment further alleges that

Another means [of carrying out the alleged conspiracy tocircumvent the law as it relates to the possession and disposition of

firearms]2

consisted of Blackwater/Xes efforts to gain favor withthe Government of the Kingdom of Jordan. When the King of

Jordan came to examine Blackwater/Xes training facility atMoyock, North Carolina, the defendants arranged to present theKing and/or his entourage with several firearms as gifts. When the

defendants subsequently realized they were unable to account for

the disposition of the firearms, they falsified four separate Alcohol,

Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Form 4473s for submission tofederal authorities. The defendants falsely completed the forms to

give the appearance that the weapons had been purchased by them

as individuals. (Indictment at 8.)

Further, the Overt Acts section of Count One, with respect to which the Court has

previously acknowledged the Government must produce all exculpatory information within its

possession, alleges that:

2See Indictment at 7, Manner and Means, 1.

4


5/15

On or about March 19, 2005, five firearms . were presented to

the King of Jordan and/or his entourage at Blackwater/Xes facilityin Moyock, North Carolina, as arranged by defendant GARY

JACKSON and others. (Indictment at 13 (emphasis added).)

The requested documents and information would clearly refute the allegation that the

King of Jordans visit to Blackwater was arranged by defendant Gary Jackson. In fact, the

documents and information sought in this request go directly to a portion of Defendants public

authority defense with respect to Counts One and Counts Two through Six: specifically, the King

of Jordan visit, and all gifts and documentation of gifts to the King of Jordan, were specifically

requested, authorized, directed, and organized by the CIA.

Further, information regarding the CIAs instruction to the Defendants and/or to

individuals identified in Defendants Preliminary Rule 12.3 Notice are relevant and material to

the Defendants state of mind with respect to the King of Jordan charges. Specifically, CIA

requests, directions, authorizations, and other communications with respect to the weapons are

relevant and material to proof that the Government, including without limitation the CIA or some

subdivision or related entity, requestedthe transfer of weapons to the King of Jordan yet, at the

same time, violated its own policies and procedures by failing to assist Blackwater with the

proper documentation of this transfer.

Moreover, such documents and information rebut the allegations of an unlawful

conspiratorial agreement with respect to the King of Jordan firearms. At a bare minimum, such

documents and information are relevant and material in the event of a conviction.

III. CONCLUSIONBased upon the foregoing points, Defendants respectfully request that the Court compel

the Government to produce all documents and information requested herein. Defendants

5


6/15

respectfully request a hearing on this motion and believe that oral argument will aid the Court in

its decision-making process.

This 18th

day of May, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Kenneth D. Bell

Kenneth D. Bell (N.C. Bar No. 10800)

Jonathan Vogel (N.C. Bar No. 34266)Les S. Bowers (N.C. Bar No. 38039)

McGUIREWOODS LLPBank of America Corporate Center

100 North Tryon Street

Suite 2900Charlotte, NC 28202

T: 704.373.8999F: 704.373.8935Counsel for Defendant Gary Jackson

/s/Gary H. Clemmons

Gary H. Clemmons (N.C. Bar No. 9750)

CHESNUTT, CLEMMONS & PEACOCK, P.A.225C Broad Street

Post Office Box 12530

New Bern, NC 28561

T: 252.633.6868F: 252.637.2450

/s/James R. Sweeney II

James R. Sweeney II

Larry A. MackeyJason R. Barclay

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

11 South Meridian Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204

T: 317.231.7771F: 317.231.7433

Counsel for Defendant William Wheeler Mathews, Jr.

6


7/15

/s/Stephen W. Petersen

Stephen W. Petersen (N.C. Bar No. 23462)SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP

Two Hannover Square

Suite 2800434 Fayetteville St.

Raleigh, NC 27601T: 919.755.8834

F: 919.838.3125

/s/Thomas E. WilsonThomas E. Wilson

Jason McClurg

BERLINER, CORCORAN & ROWE LLP1101 Seventeenth St. NW

Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20036T: 202.293.5555F: 202.293.9035

Counsel for Defendant Andrew Howell

/s/Brian L. Whisler

Brian L. Whisler (N.C. Bar No. 20662)BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP

815 Connecticut Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20006

T: 202.452.7000F: 202.452.7074

/s/Pat M. Woodward, Jr.

Pat M. Woodward, Jr.Counselor at Law

1783 Forest Drive, Suite 330

Annapolis, MD 21401T: 202.246.4679

F: 443-926.9349

Counsel for Defendant Ronald Slezak

/s/Gregory L. PoeGregory L. Poe (D.C. Bar No. 426020)

POE & BURTON PLLC

The Executive Building

7


8/15

1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 580 West

Washington, D.C. 20005T: 202.583.2500

/s/Claire J. Rauscher

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLCOne Wells Fargo Center

Suite 3500301 South College Street

Charlotte, NC 28202-6037

T: 704.331.4961Counsel for Defendant Ana Bundy

8


9/15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINANORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))

v. ) Crim. No. 2:10-CR-8-FL)

GARY JACKSON, )WILLIAM WHEELER MATHEWS, JR., )

ANDREW HOWELL, )

RONALD SLEZAK, and )ANA BUNDY )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I filed the foregoing document in camera and under seal with the

Court Security Officer or designee, and that I caused a copy of the foregoing to be servedthrough the Court Security Officer on the following counsel of record:

John S. [email protected] D. Goulian [email protected]

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800Raleigh, NC 27601

Gary H. Clemmons [email protected]

CHESNUTT, CLEMMONS & PEACOCK, P.A.225C Broad StreetPost Office Box 12530

New Bern, NC 28561

James R. Sweeney [email protected] A. Mackey

Jason R. Barclay

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP11 South Meridian Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Counsel for Defendant William Wheeler Mathews, Jr.

Brian L. [email protected]

BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP815 Connecticut Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

9


10/15

10

Pat M. Woodward, [email protected] at Law

1783 Forest Drive, Suite 330

Annapolis, MD 21401Counsel for Defendant Ronald Slezak

Gregory L. Poe [email protected]

POE & BURTON PLLCThe Executive Building

1030 15th Street, N.W, Suite 580 West


Claire J. [email protected]

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLCOne Wells Fargo Center

Suite 3500

301 South College StreetCharlotte, NC 28202-6037Counsel for Defendant Ana Bundy

Stephen W. Petersen [email protected] MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP

Two Hannover Square

Suite 2800434 Fayetteville St.

Raleigh, NC 27601

Thomas E. Wilson [email protected], CORCORAN & ROWE LLP1101 Seventeenth St. NW

Suite 1100


Counsel for Defendant Andrew Howell

This 18th

day of May, 2012.

/s/ Kenneth D. Bell

Kenneth D. Bell

Counsel for Defendant Gary Jackson


11/15


12/15


13/15


14/15


15/15

U.S. v. Jackson--Mem. in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery Re: King of Jordan

Documents

Transcript of U.S. v. Jackson--Mem. in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery Re: King of Jordan