Eric Prince 23/08/2010

Volume 1 23/8/2010 9:11 a.m. VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. This is the beginning of tape 1 volume 1 in the video deposition of Mr Erik Prince. This is being held at the Hotel Rotana in Abu Dhabi. This deposition is being taken on 23rd August at 11 minutes past 9 a.m., as indicated on the video screen. This deposition is in the matter of United States of America ex rel Melan Davis and Brad Davis versus Erik Prince et al. The civil action number is 1:08-CV-1244-TSE-TRJ. The court reporter present today is Thelma Harries of European Deposition Services Limited, as is David Ross, who is also contracted by European Deposition Services Limited. Would counsel introduce themselves, please. MS BURKE: Susan Burke representing Melan and Brad Davis. MR BEIZER: Rick Beizer representing Mr Prince. VIDEOGRAPHER: And would the court reporter please swear in the witness. ERIK PRINCE having duly been sworn was examined and did testify as follows: EXAMINATION BY MS BURKE: Q. Please state your name for the record? A. Erik Prince. Q. What's MR BEIZER: Ms Burke, excuse me. Before you begin may I make just a couple of comments? MS BURKE: Yes, you may. MR BEIZER: One is, as I've stated to the court reporter, we'd like an opportunity to review and correct the record, as permitted under Rule 30(e), and I'd also like the exhibits attached to the deposition, Rule 30(f)(2). Also I need to state on the record that, although Mr Prince is appearing today as we've discussed, his appearance today does not waive any right that he or the other defendants have to contest subject-matter jurisdiction. With those comments, Ms Burke, thank Redacted Page 7, 8 Q. Who was the plaintiff in the second one? A. I don't remember. Q. Do you remember the courts that the cases were filed in? A. Virginia, and I think in Indiana. Q. Was the Virginia a Federal case or a State case? A. I've no idea. Q. Was the Indiana case a Federal or a State case? A. No idea. Q. Who represented you in the Virginia case? What lawyer? A. I don't know. Q. What lawyer represented you in the Indiana case? A. I don't know. Q. Who's representing you today? A. He is. (Indicating) Q. Are you on any type of medication? A. Are you kidding me? Q. No. Are you on any medication that could interfere with your memory or that could influence your testimony? A. Nothing that would interfere with anything like that, no. Q. You're on medications other than that, though? A. Correct. Q. You understand you're under oath? A. Yes. Q. And do you understand that -- well, let me ask you a different question. Do you believe yourself still subject to the laws of the United States?

A. Certainly. Q. What did you do to prepare for this deposition? A. I spent some time with him yesterday. Q. How much time? A. A few hours. Q. Did you look at any documents? MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer that question because it impinges on the attorney/client and the work product privilege. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, are you going to answer the question? A. I'll listen to my counsel. Q. Are you following your counsel's instruction? A. Yes, I am. Q. You know that you've been sued? A. I understand that. MS BURKE: I have before you the complaint, Exhibit 1. (Exhibit 1 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. If you'd take a quick look at that? You understand that's the lawsuit that brings you here today? A. Right. Q. Do you know Melan Davis? A. No. Q. Have you reviewed any records relating to Melan Davis? MR BEIZER: Again, I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer to the extent that any answer would involve anything that he discussed or learned or saw in connection with his meeting and discussions with counsel. To the extent, however, that, independent of that, Mr Prince has seen such documents, he can answer the question. Ms Burke, may I have a rather than doing that every time, may we assume -MS BURKE: No. MR BEIZER: -- that your questions may just finish and then you can respond? May I assume that your questions are not seeking anything which would reveal what Mr Prince and I discussed or what documents Mr Prince and I reviewed, so I don't have to MS BURKE: I think we have a disagreement. I do not believe the case law supports the invocation of the privilege for the reviewing of documents for a deposition, so I'm afraid, as cumbersome as it may be, you're going to have to state your objection for the record because it may be a matter we need to take up with the court if I feel that the failure to answer is of some import. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, have you reviewed any personnel records or any other records relating to Melan Davis? MR BEIZER: Same instruction. THE WITNESS: Same answer, so you can cut and paste. BY MS BURKE: Q. Just to make sure that the record is clear, Mr Prince, your answer is that, other than something you may have reviewed with counsel, you've not reviewed anything related to Melan Davis? A. Correct. Q. Have you read the complaint? MR BEIZER: Again, same instruction. MS BURKE: You're instructing Mr Prince not to answer whether or not he has read the complaint? MR BEIZER: I'm instructing him not to answer to the extent that revealing that answer would or giving that answer would reveal whether or not he's discussed certain documents with me in preparation for this deposition. Other than that, the same instruction. He can answer the question. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, have you read the complaint? MR BEIZER: The same instruction. THE WITNESS: I'm following counsel's advice. Next question. BY MS BURKE: Q. Have you done anything to look into Ms Davis? Have you hired -- for example, have you hired a personal investigator? A. No. Q. Do you know Brad Davis? A. No. Q. Have you reviewed any records related to Mr Davis?

MR BEIZER: Again, the same instruction. To the extent he's reviewed records in meetings with counsel, I instruct the witness not to answer. (To the witness) You can answer the question subject to that limitation. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, have you reviewed any records relating to Brad Davis other than records you reviewed with counsel? A. No. Q. And you know that you have been permitted by the court to be an individual defendant in the lawsuit? A. I understand that. Q. And you know that the companies that you created are the other defendants? MR BEIZER: Objection. Misleading. No foundation. BY MS BURKE: Q. You can answer, Mr Prince. A. What's the question again? Q. You know that the companies you created are the other defendants? MR BEIZER: The same objection. THE WITNESS: Companies I created. What do you mean by "created"? BY MS BURKE: Q. That you started? A. Sure. I understand that they're also listed. Q. Have you sold any interests in any of the defendants to anybody else? A. Well, let's see the -- no. Q. Do you intend to appear at trial to defend yourself? A. If it goes to trial I would imagine I'll make myself available. Q. Do you know who is going to who else is going to attend and testify for the companies? A. No idea. Q. That's not something you've given any thought to yet? A. No. Q. Do you understand that the lawsuit accuses you of being involved in the preparation of false musters? What's your defence to that charge? A. There are very competent people in the company and I'm sure they're preparing and will do so suitably. What our defence is, I'm sure our lawyers will have a -- well, our people together with the lawyers will have a very solid defence. Q. But what is it? What's going to be your defence, your defence to the charges that you were personally aware of the submission of false documents to the United States government? A. I wasn't personally aware of anything. Q. You say you weren't personally aware of anything. You weren't personally aware of any of the conduct that's alleged in the complaint? A. Having read through this was the first I heard of any of this. Q. I understand maybe it's the first you heard of it but, when you read it, did that jive with information that you already had from your supervision of the companies? MR BEIZER: Objection. Confusing. Perhaps you could go through this one-by-one instead of the entire complaint. BY MS BURKE: Q. Well, Mr Prince -A. Yes, be a bit more specific of "What's your defence to the entire complaint?" Come on, go through it line-by-line. Q. Mr Prince, if your defence is going to be that you deny everything, why would we need to go through it line-by-line? Is your defence going to be that you deny everything in the complaint? A. I don't know that we need to lay our defence strategy to you right now. Q. Actually you do. That's what discovery is for. This is why I came over here to take your deposition, Mr Prince, so that I could understand what you and the others were going to be putting on at trial. That's why we do this. Have you read the complaint? MR BEIZER: Again, the same instruction. BY MS BURKE: Q. Go ahead and answer, Mr Prince. A. Same instruction. I'm going to listen to my lawyer. Q. You've been accused of providing the United States government with men who were taking steroids. What's your defence to that allegation?

A. Well, the security services that we provided, there's a very long and detailed contract provided by the State Department to the bidders and you bid on it. Q. I understand all that, Mr Prince. What I'm asking is a more specific A. I'm going to answer the question. Q. Can you please A. Let me answer the question. Q. Please do. A. You know that there's policies and procedures that they expect us to abide by. There's recruiting and vetting standards. There's screening. They review the resumis of the guys. They approve the bials it goes through and, as part of that, there is drug screening and psychological screening and all those screening processes that we abide. Q. Mr Prince, would the answer the answer is not to my question. My question is you've been accused of knowingly providing, to the United States, men who were on steroids at the time. What is your defence to that accusation? MR BEIZER: Asked and answered. Objection. (To the witness) You may answer again. THE WITNESS: I may answer it again? We have policies and procedures that were put in place in accordance with the contract that I believe were followed. BY MS BURKE: Q. That you believe were followed. Is it your testimony that they were always followed and that you never provided men who were on steroids to the United States government? A. I'm sure you've reviewed the employment records that some people were terminated because of random drug testing and, if they didn't abide by the policies, they were released in accordance with the procedures laid out by the customer, the US government that we were serving. Q. So is that that on occasion you did provide people who were on steroids to the United States government but, when you found out about it, you subsequently terminated them? A. I don't know the details of that but, you know, you do random drug testing to test people to make sure that they're abiding by the policies laid out. Q. I understand that, Mr Prince, but my question was is it accurate then that you did provide men who were under the influence of steroids to the United States government but, when you subsequently found out about it, you terminated them? A. I don't know what the reason for each and every termination was. If it was a good order discipline issue, if it was a drug issue, if they violated the alcohol policy. Whatever those are, I don't know. I'm not down to the weeds on those things. Q. You say you're not down to the weeds. Are you aware of any terminations for the independent contractor being on steroids? A. I can't list a name, no. Q. Other than listing a name, though, are you aware that your company terminated people for being on steroids? A. I'm not sure. Q. You're not sure one way or the other? A. No. Q. So as you sit here today you really don't know whether or not your company provided the US with men on steroids? You just don't know? MR BEIZER: Objection. That's misleading. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. BY MS BURKE: Q. Is that something you intend to look into before trial, Mr Prince? A. I'm sure I'll be caused to read many documents. Q. Now, you've been accused of providing the US with men who repeatedly used excessive force. What's your defence to that allegation, Mr Prince? A. How do you define "excessive force"? Q. Contract itself. Not in keeping with the terms of the contract? A. Who defines "excessive force"? Q. The terms of the contract, Mr Prince, as you know, lay out what is to be done. MR BEIZER: Objection to the "as you know". No foundation. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, do you know what the contract says about the use of force? A. Well, I understand there's a use of force continuum. I couldn't quote it to you right now. If you have a copy of it, we'll be happy to read through it and analyse it line-by-line with you.

MS BURKE: Let me get that then. We'll just go off the record for a moment. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at -THE WITNESS: Time's flying. VIDEOGRAPHER: -- 9:27 a.m., as indicated on the video screen. (A short recess at 9:27 a.m.) (Resumed at 9:29 a.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record at 9:29 a.m. MS BURKE: Can you please mark this as Exhibit 4? (Exhibit 4 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, you've been handed a non-classified excerpted copy of the contract that is something that the United States released publicly. Please take a moment to review it and then I'd like you to answer the question about whether or not you provided the United States government with men who repeatedly used excessive force? MR BEIZER: Do you have a copy for counsel? MS BURKE: I'm sorry, I don't. I had not intended to introduce it. I had thought Mr Prince would come to the deposition familiar with the terms of the contract. THE WITNESS: Do you happen to know what page because it's going to be a while for me to find the page here? MS BURKE: Here, I'll take a look and see if I can locate it for you, Mr Prince. MR BEIZER: Can I see it after you're done? MS BURKE: Do you need me to find it for you, Mr Prince? (Same handed to counsel) THE WITNESS: I'm glad it's cold in here because I was sweating this morning, but it's actually much cooler this morning. MS BURKE: Mr Prince, you're still on the record so what you say she has to transcribe, so if you would please just simply remain silent, that would be of help. BY MS BURKE: Q. (After a pause) Mr Prince, while I'm locating the contract terms, what is it that you recall about the contract provisions on the use of force? A. The Department, the Department of State or the US government, whatever entity you're working for, it provides a use of force continuum as part of their rules of engagement. Q. Explain for the jury, if you would, what you mean by a use of force continuum? MR BEIZER: Objection to the "for the jury". BY MS BURKE: Q. You understand, Mr Prince, that this videotape can be played to the jury? A. I guess that's possible. Q. And so can you explain, please, for the jury in layman's terms what you mean by "use of force continuum"? A. Well, as part of these guard services there's certainly firearms that are issued, and so it's, as I understand it, it's the progression of force as to when the, you know, legal force can be used. Q. And what is it that has to be done before legal force can be used? A. Why don't we wait 'til you get the contract out and we'll review it? Q. I'm asking for your knowledge, separate from the contract, Mr Prince? A. I'm asking for the contract. Q. You don't have any knowledge? You're in this business and you don't have any knowledge as to what can be done before deadly force is used? A. I don't know all the exact parameters and it's been a while since I've done that so... Q. When you say "the exact parameters", what's your general understanding as to what has to be done before deadly use of force may be used? A. Why don't we have a look at the contract? Q. But, first, I want to find out what you have in your mind without being refreshed by the contract terms, Mr Prince. What do you know right as you sit here today without having the contract in front of you? A. There's various, you know. Whatever the threat is, it has to be something that endangers the mission or the life. There is actually different rules of engagement for a DoD versus Department of State versus some other government entity so... Q. Do you recall for the State Department what has to happen before deadly force may be used? A. I don't. Q. Have you looked at this issue with respect to your -- the men serving on a WPPS in the past? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. (To the witness) You may answer. THE WITNESS: Have we looked at it?

BY MS BURKE: Q. Yes. A. Of course. Q. The question I originally asked you was what your defence was going to be about whether or not you provided the US with men who repeatedly used excessive force? Do you recall that question? A. I do now. Q. And you said, well, that you couldn't really tell me what your defence was until you had seen the contract term on the use of deadly force,is that right? A. Well, no. I think that my question to you was: How do you define "excessive force"? Q. And I responded to you that the way we're going to define it is as the contract defines it. Do you recall that line of questioning? A. Yes, I think so. Q. Now, and I have the contract reference to the use of deadly force, but before I provide it to you let me ask, without seeing this contract are you able to tell me what your defence to the allegation is that you knowingly provided, to the United States, men who had repeatedly breached the contract terms on the use of deadly force? A. I have confidence that the team provided people that were in accordance with the contract, with the screening, the vetting, the standards laid out by the various government contracting entities. Q. And what's the source of your confidence, Mr Prince? A. The management team and the policies and procedures put in place to do the vetting and the training and the qualifications. Q. So it's not that you've looked into the issue at all? It's just that you know who the management team was and you know what the policies and procedures are? A. I've met with customers plenty of times. I've gone and seen the people overseas. I've gone to see the government chain of command. Those kind of people. Q. And so one of the reasons for your confidence is that the government hasn't complained to you? A. I'm not sure. You know, we set out to put the people out there to do a job and they're given, as I recall, the guys were given the use of force continuum on a nearly daily basis prior to their missions. Q. When you say "nearly daily basis prior to their missions", are you saying that your management team ensured that everyone who was serving on a WPPS contract was briefed daily on the parameters of the use of force? A. I don't know if it was daily, but it was on a regular basis. Q. Just going back to something. You had said previously that you were confident because of the management team and the policies and procedures, and then, when I asked whether that was all, you referenced meetings with the customers. When I asked whether the fact that the meetings with the customers went well was one of the sources of your confidence, you said you weren't sure. Would you site to the United States reaction to your company's provision of services as one of the factors in your confidence or not? A. Well, I would certainly expect that, if the customers were not happy with us, they would be reporting that on a regular basis. Q. But my question is a slightly different one, Mr Prince. I'm trying to get, essentially, a laundry list of why it is you're confident that your companies did not provide to the United States government men who repeatedly used excessive force. I understand one factor is that you had confidence in your management team, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And a second factor is you had confidence that you had implemented the policies and procedures that were required by the contract, correct? A. Yes. Q. Is there a third factor? A. Well, between our procedures and the government procedures that's, you know, picking the qualified people with the right experience, the right training, vetting backgrounds, and you send them out to abide the customer's rules or use of force continuum. That's what the contract says. Q. I understand that's A. We are there to do what the contract says. Q. So those are the two factors that give you confidence that you can defend yourself against the allegation you provided men who used excessive force? A. That to my knowledge. I'm sure there's plenty of other people that are even smarter, much smarter than me in the company, that were responsible for making sure those procedures were in place. Q. Who is that?

A. A long list of people. Q. Go ahead and give it to me, Mr Prince? A. I'm sure you'll talk to people like Danielle Esposito. Q. She's no longer with the company? A. I'm not sure what her status is. Q. You referenced your confidence in your management team as one of the reasons you thought you were going to be able to defend yourself against the charge of -- the excessive force charge. Who do you put in that category of management team, and we're talking here of the time frame '03 forward? A. Well MR BEIZER: Objection to the time frame of '03 forward. The complaint -THE WITNESS: Yes, I can't list for you the entire man -MR BEIZER: Excuse me, sir. The complaint with respect to these charges begins in 2005. (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure who the management team was in '05. BY MS BURKE: Q. Who was the management team in '03? A. I'm not sure who that would have been either. Q. You don't know who your management team was in 2003? A. How do you define "management team"? Q. You used the phrase, Mr Prince. I didn't. How did you mean it? A. The people in charge of doing security operations or the people in charge of doing -- doing what? What do you want to know? Q. Mr Prince, I'm trying to do is understand your testimony. You testified that you were confident you're going to be able to defend yourself because you had such trust in your management team. Now I'm trying to understand who those people are. When you used the phrase "management team" in your past testimony, who were you referring to? A. Let's see, who was there in '05? Well, I know Gary Jackson was. Tying it down to '05, I'm not sure Q. I'm not tying it down to '05, Mr Prince. I'm asking you to define for me who was on the management team that you had such confidence in that you are sure you're going to be able to defend yourself against the charge that your men used excessive force? Who is that management team that you were referring to? The one that you have confidence in? A. Gary Jackson, Danielle. I'm not sure who was running the State Department programmes back in '05 because they rotated to various other positions. Q. So when you referred to having confidence that you had not been providing the United States with men who used excessive force, you were referring to your confidence in Gary Redacted Page 34 THE WITNESS: It takes a good size team, so I'm not sure who was in a WPPS role versus a government training role, so I'm not sure whose exactly roles or responsibilities were what, pertaining to your issue. BY MS BURKE: Q. And just so you understand, Mr Prince, and I want to make sure the record is clear, what I'm trying to get at is the sources of your own confidence in your defence. And I take you haven't had any investigation of the allegations undertaken, correct? You haven't looked into the allegations at all? A. I'm not sure what investigations the company has done pertaining to these. Q. But you -A. There's lots of scurrilous accusations get thrown at the company from disgruntled employees. Q. So your view is that these are scurrolous allegations that needn't bother to be looked into with any real care, right? A. We investigate, you know, if it's a hot line call or if it's a -- any kind of fraudulent claim, yes, we investigate it and the government auditors audit us all the time. Q. So what have you done to investigate the allegations in the lawsuit? A. I'm not sure what procedures were done. Q. But you, as you sit here today, you don't have any information whatsoever that's come out of any investigation that's been done? A. I recall there was a DHS -- I think an IG report. Q. Mr Prince, that's obviously the government investigating. What I'm asking you is about you or people under your control investigating. I take it from your testimony you have not had any investigation done into the allegations?

A. There have been so many investigations thrown at the team over the last three years that I'm not sure -- I'm very confident Hurricane Katrina-related contracts were audited, CPA contracts and WPPS contracts have all been audited repeatedly. Q. But just to be clear, Mr Prince, that investigation is being done by the United States government not by you, right? A. Well, we're fully cooperating and we did all the internal audits and accountants as well. Q. And you say you're fully cooperating with a litany of pending government investigations? MR BEIZER: Objection. Mischaracterises the testimony. (To the witness) You may answer. THE WITNESS: So far as I know, we're fully cooperating. BY MS BURKE: Q. And how many investigations are you cooperating with? A. I don't know. Q. Is it more than twenty? A. Oh, I don't know. I don't know if it's that many. Q. Is it more than ten? A. I don't know the exact number. Q. Is it more than two? A. I would say it's more than two. Q. Would you say it's more than ten? A. Could be. Q. Who knows, Mr Prince? Who would you direct me to in your company as knowledgeable about all these government investigations? A. Fred Roitz, Danielle Esposito, and certainly the general counsel, Christian Bonat. Q. Christian Bonat? A. Mmmm. Q. B-o -A. -- n-a-t. Q. And how long has Christian Bonat been your general counsel? A. About a year. MR BEIZER: Objection. Mischaracterises. Objection to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I don't know. I think it's been about a year. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, I'm going to hand you what we've marked as Exhibit 4 and direct you to page 73 of 187 and ask you whether paragraph 17, the use of deadly force, is the contract provision you were referring to previously? MR BEIZER: May I see that, counsel, before you show it to the witness? MS BURKE: Sure. THE WITNESS: Sure. MS BURKE: And, Rick, we can have a copy made on the break. I had not intended to introduce this one. Let's just introduce the one page as the exhibit then, Mr Beizer, if you're uncomfortable with having the whole contract in front of him. MR BEIZER: It's Mr Beizer. MS BURKE: Mr Beizer, excuse me. MR BEIZER: And I'm not uncomfortable about it, the whole thing, except to the extent that you've characterised it as part of the contract from the notation R in the number there? MS BURKE: Well, what I'm referring to is simply that the first page refers to -- that the document was provided pursuant to a FOIA request. It is in no way the full contract. It's an unclassified version that was produced publicly but, given that this deposition is not under seal, I thought it was important to use nonclassified information at this point. MR BEIZER: Okay. Again, may I see the rest of it? MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you just the two so we don't use up a lot of tape time with having you look at the whole thing, so we'll exhibit just those two pages. And I would just simply ask that you provide them to the witness promptly, or go off the record if you'd like to take longer. THE WITNESS: Is that the contract or is that an RFP? BY MS BURKE: Q. I'm sorry, Mr Prince, you actually are not allowed to ask questions. A. Well, you're asking me to read it like it's the contract. I'm asking you if it's the contract. I didn't take a copy of this with me.

Q. Actually, it's -- what I was trying to do, Mr Prince, is you had previously said that you were unable to recall at all the use of force continuum, and so I was providing you one page that refers to the use of deadly force. I'm making no representations on the record that this is the entire contract. I was providing it to be helpful to you because you seem to lack recall on that contract provision. If you still want to see it, that's great. If not, it's not a problem, we can move on. MR BEIZER: Objection as to whether or not this is part of the contract. (To the witness) But you can take a look at the document and see if it helps refresh your recollection. BY MS BURKE: Q. Would you like to see the document, Mr Prince? A. Sure. (Same handed to the witness) Q. Mr Prince, does that refresh your recall on the continuum of force that's permitted under the State Department's contract? A. You know, this is, I think, a general guideline. This is not the detailed use of force continuum that the guys would be provided. Q. I had previously asked whether you had investigated at all the allegations of the excessive use of force and you referred to government investigations, and I want to make sure the record is clear that neither you nor anyone under your control has initiated an investigation into the allegations that your company provided men who repeatedly used excessive force? MR BEIZER: Objection. Compound. (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: Any time there is any kind of escalation of force there's an immediate after-action review or debrief. As I recall, that would have been company procedure. BY MS BURKE: Q. And was it company procedure to preserve those after-action reports? A. I don't know. Q. Did you take any steps to ensure that they were retained once lawsuits had been filed alleging the use of excessive force? A. You know, the folks are used to having the document-hold procedures and all that, so I would imagine that was in effect. Q. But you didn't do anything to make sure that happened? A. I've not been the CEO for quite a while. Q. But when you were the CEO -- when did you stop being the CEO? A. I think it's about a year now. Q. So during your tenure as the CEO what steps did you take to make sure that the documents relating to the use of excessive force were not destroyed? A. I was -- I would imagine the general counsel. Q. I don't want your imagination, sir. I'd like to know what you actually did. What you recall doing? A. I recall seeing numerous e-mails from general counsel. That would be the e-mail blast on the document-hold procedure so... Q. Do you recall seeing blue bags of documents in the facilities? A. No. Q. Did you ever take any steps to assure yourselves that documents were not being destroyed? A. My office was a hundred and -- well, 232 miles by road from the facility down in North Carolina, so I was not there on a -- you know, maybe a twice-a-month basis. Q. So you went down to -- you're referring to Moyock, I assume? A. Yes. Q. So you went to Moyock approximately twice a month when you were the CEO of the companies? A. Two or three times a month, yes. Q. And during the -- and I take it that you also conducted business regarding the companies even when you were in your offices in McLean? A. I would say, yes. Q. And so my question is what steps did you take to make sure the documents weren't being destroyed by the companies that were under your control? A. Again, that's the primary responsibility of the general counsel. Q. And so you put your faith in the general counsel to handle that issue, right? A. You delegate the authority and responsibility and expect people to do their jobs. Q. And so is that a "yes" to my question? A. Mmmm. Q. You can't say "Mmmm". You have to actually say "yes". A. Yes.

Q. And the general counsel that you were relying on at the time was Andrew Howell? A. I think so. Q. How long was Andrew Howell your general counsel? A. I don't know. Q. Was anyone other than Andrew Howell your general counsel? A. I think he was the first in-house counsel. Before that we had various outside guys. Q. Did you have any of the outside -A. And there was David Hammond was our acting general counsel. Q. Hammond? A. Hammond. Q. And, I'm sorry, I want to make sure I get the sequence right, Mr Prince. David Hammond was acting general counsel before or after Andrew Howell became in-house general counsel? A. Howell, Hammond then Bonat. Q. Before Howell -- Howell joined in '05, is that right? A. I don't know. Q. You don't recall but you knew at the time? A. I would have known he was in-house counsel. I don't know what that day or year was. Q. And prior to Howell serving as the in-house general counsel, you said you relied on outside guys. Was there some outside lawyer that played the role of day-to-day general counsel for you? A. I had a general counsel up north and he filled in some of those gaps. Q. What was the name? A. Steve Capace, C-a-p-a-c-e. Q. And when you say up north, you're meaning in your McLean offices? A. Right. Q. Do you recall when Mr Capace began working for you? A. I think it would have been 2000 some time. Q. How did you meet Mr Capace? A. The -- my wife then at the time was friends with his wife. Q. Stacy? His wife was named Stacy? A. Yes. Q. And was this Joan or Joanna? A. Joan. Q. Mr Capace is no longer with you as counsel? A. No. Q. And when did he leave? A. I'm not sure. Q. Now you know that the government has accused Andrew Howell of falsifying documents, right? A. I'm not sure of the exact charges against Andy. Q. Have you read the indictment? A. A long time ago. Q. I will represent for the record that they have, in fact, accused Mr Howell of falsifying documents. Do you have any information one way or the other as to whether that's an accurate accusation? MR BEIZER: Objection. Ms Burke, do you have a proffer as to the relevance of what Mr Howell is charged with and how it relates to anything in the lawsuit that your clients have brought accusing Mr Prince and others -MS BURKE: Mr Prince has testified that he delegated the responsibility to ensure that documents were not destroyed to Mr Howell, and therefore I am going to be exploring Mr Prince's view of Mr Howell and why he relied on him. MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer anything with respect to Mr Howell's alleged involvement in the matter in which he stands indicted. (To the witness) But you can answer questions other than that. MS BURKE: I'm not sure I'm understanding the scope. Well, we'll go through it. I'll need you to just instruct him on each question. MR BEIZER: Sure. MS BURKE: We need to make a record so that if we need to come back we can. MR BEIZER: Definitely. BY MS BURKE: Q. Now, Mr Prince, you testified that you didn't take any steps on your own but you relied on Andrew Howell to make sure that no documents were destroyed, correct?

A. Regarding which suit? Q. I'm not linking it to a specific suit, Mr Prince. I'm talking about the destruction of business records. You relied on Mr Howell to ensure that business records were not destroyed, correct? A. Well, there were Andy Howell, Bill Mathews, Gary. Q. Let me ask -A. Danielle. Q. Let me ask the question a slightly different way, Mr Prince. You appear to be confident that business records have not been destroyed by your companies? MR BEIZER: Is that a question? MS BURKE: It is a question. MR BEIZER: Repeat. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS BURKE: Q. Are you aware of any destruction of records? A. No. Q. Have you looked into that matter at all? A. No. Q. And instead you've -A. I haven't had any allegations made to me either so... Q. Well, actually, Mr Prince, that's not accurate. I mean, in other lawsuits you've been --you were alleged to have destroyed documents. Were you aware of that? A. No. Q. Do you read all the lawsuits that are brought against you? A. No. Q. How many lawsuits are currently pending against you, Mr Prince? A. I'm not sure. Q. Who would you direct me to for the answer to that question? A. Christian Bonat. Q. Do you intend to be a permanent resident of Abu Dhabi? A. I don't know. I've committed my kids to a year here. We'll see how it goes. Q. Why did you move here? A. Can we have a proffer as to why that's germane? Q. No, Mr Prince. Please answer the question. A. Why? Q. Yes, why did you move here? A. I like it here. I spend a lot of Redacted Pages 51, 52 A. How is this germane? Q. Mr Prince, you put in a declaration under oath about your kids going to school, so you injected this issue into the lawsuit. Now, are your kids going all to the same school and what grade -A. Yes, they are. Q. And what grades are they in? MR BEIZER: Objection. I'm going to -THE WITNESS: Why do I need to disclose the ages of my children for you to leak to the media, like you've done hundreds of other times, placing my family at risk? I will not tell you that. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, what school are they going to? MR BEIZER: Same objection. I'm going to instruct the witness now not to answer. MS BURKE: Are you going to provide evidence to me off the record to establish the school that his children are going to, Mr Beizer? MR BEIZER: I'm not going to tell you the name of the school. I'm going to tell you MS BURKE: But -MR BEIZER: If I may, Ms Burke? I'm going to tell you -- I'm going to give you the documents that demonstrate that Mr Prince's children are enrolled, as he said, at the school. That they came here to take tests on the 15th in advance of their enrollment. He's testified that they are enrolled. BY MS BURKE:

Q. My question is has school started or -A. Yes. MR BEIZER: He's answered that one as well. MS BURKE: I want to make sure because you're talking about taking tests. MR BEIZER: He answered previously that his children are enrolled. You asked what grades and he refused to answer, and I think that's appropriate. MS BURKE: Yes, I don't -- that's fine. Let's go off the record. I want to see the evidence on this point. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 3 minutes past 10 a.m., as indicated on the video screen. (A short recess at 10:03 a.m.) (Resumed at 10:07 a.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record at 7 minutes past 10 a.m., as indicated on the video screen. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, have you moved the headquarters of your companies to Abu Dhabi? A. Well, no. I'm selling off the US operation and I do not have a headquarters that I've moved. Q. And you're selling off only the US operation, though? A. Selling off everything. Q. You're trying to sell all of your businesses? A. I have a contract manufacturing business in the States that will stay. I'll keep. Q. I'm sorry, a contract manufacturing? A. Yes, not defence related. Q. That's a different company? A. Correct. Q. What's the name of that company? A. Prince Manufacturing. Q. What does it manufacture? A. Pieces and parts for the hvac, industrial power, semi-automotive. Hvac, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, industrial power. That kind of stuff. Q. Is that located in Michigan? A. No. Q. Where is that located? A. The plants are in Midwest North Carolina, Mexico. Q. Do you wholly own that? A. Employees own some too. Q. What percentage do you own? A. I would say more than 90 per cent. Q. And no present plans to sell that operation? A. No. Q. Now, you quit the Naval Academy? A. I resigned after a year-and-a-half. Q. Why? A. I wanted to seek education somewhere else. Q. That's the only reason? A. I liked the Navy. The Academy didn't -- you know, I was not getting the education I was seeking there so I left. Q. Have you read a book about you by Suzanne Simons? A. I've heard of it, yes. Q. Have you read it? A. I've read most of it, I think. Q. She portrayed your departure from the Academy as linked in some way to being tardy one day. Was that an accurate portrayal? A. You know, I think the story she's recalling is I'd gone on a -- there was a federal holiday, so there was a long weekend, and it allowed me to take a long weekend with my parents, and we went to a ranch-like facility. And I went out running. Came back. A shower handle broke in my hand -- it was a little porcelain one -- and it severed the inside of my thumb, it cut the nerve in a tendon. That happened on Saturday. Sunday, I -- Sunday night we flew back to Michigan. On Monday my dad had called ahead and got a hand surgery scheduled because literally the nerve and the tendon were severed, and he called -Q. Mr Prince, I'm sorry to interrupt. I don't need the story. I just need to know whether you agree with her portrayal of it as accurate. Perhaps you misunderstood and want -A. I don't remember how she portrayed it.

Q. And that's fine. If you don't remember how she portrayed it, that's fine. I was really asking you whether you were comfortable with her portrayal? A. I don't know what the portrayal was, so I was giving you the story. Q. Okay, well then we'll move on. Have you ever been trained as a law enforcement officer? A. Trained as a law enforcement officer? No. Q. But you did obtain law enforcement credentials? A. I did. Q. Tell me how you got those, Mr Prince? A. It was an observe function from Chesapeake, I think. Virginia. Q. So some -A. Chesapeake. Chesapeake Virginia, I think. I think it was Chesapeake. I'm not sure. Q. And so a sheriff in Chesapeake gave you law enforcement credentials? A. They were not -- they had no arrest authority. Q. No arrest authority? A. I don't believe they did. Q. And you used them to go to the head of the line at airports? A. No. Q. You never did that? A. No. Q. Did they get taken away from you? A. No. I don't remember. Q. Do you still have them? A. I think they're in my household goods. I'm not sure. There's boxes of stuff. Q. So your understanding is that you're still a deputised law enforcement official? A. No, there's an expiration date on it. Q. And what was the expiration date? A. I don't remember, but it's a few years past. Q. And it's your testimony that they were never revoked from you because of complaints? A. (No response) Q. I had heard that they had been taken away from you because people complained about your use of them? A. No. Q. That's not accurate? A. No, that's not accurate. Q. Okay. And who was it that gave them to you? The name of the person? A. I don't remember the sheriff's name. Q. How did you -- did you call up the sheriff and ask him for these credentials? A. I'm not sure how that happened. Q. Why did you want them? A. I don't know. We had done a lot of things for the law enforcement, we'd supported it, and it was a -you know, there's a lot of auxiliary law enforcement credentials that are issued to people. Q. But why did you want them? A. It's not something I really pursued. Q. Then how did you end up getting them? A. They said, "Hey, would you like to do this?" And it was a nice gift or thank you or whatever for the work we'd done for the law enforcement. Q. And you don't remember who it is that's giving you this thank you gift? A. No. Q. And do you recall what work it was that you had done that prompted the thank you gift? A. It probably was training. I mean, I know we provided free training to a lot of law enforcement departments from the Hampton Roads area. South East of Virginia, Northeast, North Carolina, all those areas. I would imagine that's what it was for. Q. Did you get more than one set of law enforcement credentials as a thank you? A. I think there was one from Kertak earlier and then Chesapeake. Q. Did you ever display them in any way? A. You mean wear them openly? No. Q. Did you ever use them at all? A. I don't recall. Q. You don't recall one way or the other whether you used them?

A. No. The only thing I recall is, when you put it in the x-ray machine going through airports, they always ask if you're carrying a weapon, and I said "no". Q. Were you permitted to carry a weapon by virtue of these law enforcement credentials? A. I don't know. Q. You collect weaponry? A. How do you -- how do you define that? Q. Do you collect sniper rifles? A. I have hunting rifles with scopes. If you define that as a sniper rifle, maybe that's a sniper rifle but... Q. Did you go to sniper school? A. As a SEAL, I did. Q. How do you define sniper rifles? I don't know guns, Mr Prince, and you do. Do you have what you would call sniper rifles? A. I have a few, sure. Q. Would you say you're a collector? A. Not nearly like I used to be. Q. You own an operational Gatling gun, is that right? A. I have an antique Gatling gun from 1901. Q. And it works? A. I've never fired it. It's alleged to have gone around the world with the Great White Fleet with "Teddy" Roosevelt so... Q. And it's of some value? Over $100,000 value? A. I don't know what the value is. Q. It was a Christmas gift to you? A. Christmas or birthday. Q. Are you a member of Opus Dei? A. No. Q. Are you a member of the Order of Malta? A. I am an inactive member. Q. Inactive? A. Yes. Q. What is the Order of Malta? A. It's a charitable organisation, and all I've ever done with them is wash dishes and serve meals to homeless people at the Sisters of Charity house in Anacostia, Washington, DC. Q. Did you hire anybody for your executive team that was also a member of the Order of Malta? A. I think Joe Schmitz was. Q. Is that how you met him? A. No. I think I met him at a -- I don't know where I met him. Q. And you hired him to do what for you? A. He was general counsel for me for a while. Q. Now, you had previously given me the list of general counsels and did not mention him. Was that just an oversight? A. General counsel. He was general counsel to Prince Group up north. Q. Okay. Let me get that clear, then. So the list that you gave me was -- do you call that down south? A. Yes. Q. So the list you gave me -A. And so I could also add Joe Schmitz, the guy that would have been charged with maintaining document holds, the provision, and all the rest. Q. That was going to be my question. Can you give me the names of all of the general counsels of your McLean office? A. Steve Capace, Joe Schmitz, and then it's been some outside lawyers. Q. Which ones? A. Well, David Hammond has helped, and then there's various lawyers representing the company or me in these various suits and allegations and everything else. Q. No, but what I'm interested in is just the lawyers that played the role of general counsel? A day-to-day role as opposed to -A. Capace and Schmitz were the only ones that were full in there. Q. In terms of reporting structure, did the general counsels in the Moyock operations report up north into the general counsel up north? A. I'm not sure how the reporting structure was. It depended on what the area of concern was.

Q. Would it be fair to say it was a fairly informal structure that was fluid? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague as to "fair". THE WITNESS: A fast-rolling, fast-moving business, things were always fluid, I guess. BY MS BURKE: Q. Have you ever testified before a grand jury? A. I don't think so. Q. You don't think so or no you have not? A. I don't believe I have. Q. Have you ever reviewed written transcripts of grand jury testimony by others in your organisation? A. No. Q. Have you ever discussed with anyone their testimony before going into a grand jury? A. No. Q. Have you had any communications from DOJ indicating that you're a suspect in any investigation? A. Not me individually, no. Q. Have you had any communications from DOJ indicating that you're a target in any investigation? A. No. Q. Have you had any communications with DOJ about whether or not you would be indicted for anything? A. Whether I would be indicted? No. Q. Have you attempted to reach a global settlement with DOJ on all of the legal matters confronting your companies? A. As I -MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer the question. MS BURKE: Grounds? MR BEIZER: On the grounds that it's -- it seeks information that is privileged or may be privileged. (To the witness) So to the extent -MS BURKE: But -MR BEIZER: If I may. (To the witness) To the extent that the answer would not involve any privileged communication that you had about the subject-matter of Ms Burke's question, you can answer it. To the extent that it does, I instruct you not to answer. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, what I -- what I want to do is ask you only about discussions you've had with DOJ attorneys. I'm not interested in any discussions you had with your own attorneys about trying to get a global settlement. What I want to ask you is whether you've had meetings or telephonic discussions with DOJ officials trying to get yourself a global settlement? MR BEIZER: And that's Mr Prince, as opposed to people acting on his behalf? MS BURKE: No, and people acting on his behalf. That's not privileged because it's with DOJ. MR BEIZER: I understand. (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: I would imagine that the companies' attorneys have been talking to DOJ about all those kind of matters. BY MS BURKE: Q. When you say you would imagine, I really am asking for your knowledge, Mr Prince. Do you know that you were having people try to get a global settlement of all your matters with the Department of Justice? MR BEIZER: Again, I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer because that's asking about his communications with counsel. MS BURKE: No. BY MS BURKE: Q. I'm asking whether you sent people over to DOJ to meet with them to try to get a global settlement? Did you do that, Mr Prince? MR BEIZER: I think -THE WITNESS: Again, I'd have to be communicating with the lawyers so... MR BEIZER: And I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer. BY MS BURKE: Q. I don't want your communications with your lawyers. What I'm asking is whether there were -whether there were actions and discussions with a third party, namely, with the Department of Justice on your behalf? That's not a privileged communication because it's with other people. MR BEIZER: To the extent, however, he would have learned about it from communications with counsel, either at his behest going over there or returning and telling them about that, that I believe is in the scope of the privilege, and so I'm going to instruct him not to answer. You may disagree. MS BURKE: I disagree.

BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, but will you provide an answer to the question asked? A. I will defer to my counsel. Q. You're following your counsel's instruction? A. Yes. Q. How subpoenas have been served on you personally? A. That I don't know. Q. And how many on your companies? A. A lot. Q. More than twenty? A. Probably. Q. And can you tell me the topics of the subpoenas to the extent that you recall them and how you think of them? MR BEIZER: Objection. Compound. Let's try one at a time. THE WITNESS: Yes. Civil suits. Violation. Export violations. I don't know if it was either the FBI's Nisour Square investigation. I don't know if those were subpoenas or whether they just sent document requests. I'm not sure of the verbiage, but we certainly provided lots of trees worth of paper. BY MS BURKE: Q. Any other topics other than export violations and Nisour Square? MR BEIZER: And civil suits, he said. THE WITNESS: Civil suits, commerce, ATF. You know, all regarding rolled into the DOJ investigations and it's all kinds of -- all kinds of looking. BY MS BURKE: Q. And that looking it still going on? A. It's pretty much winding down. Q. Who told you that? MR BEIZER: Again, to the extent that it -BY MS BURKE: Q. Did anyone other than your counsel tell you it was winding down? A. I guess I can only track that by the -MR BEIZER: And, again, I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer because by answering he's clearly revealing whether or not it was counsel. Let me try that again. MS BURKE: Yes. MR BEIZER: (To the witness) To the exent that your answer would not reveal what you and your counsel discussed about the "winding down" of the investigations, you can answer the question. In other words, not saying whether you learned anything from counsel or not, but outside of any discussions you may have had with counsel on the subject. THE WITNESS: The legal bills seem to be less. BY MS BURKE: Q. You've written a book? A. I have not written a book. I've put some thoughts together, assembled some chapters, and we are looking for a publisher so... Q. Is it called Chicken Soup for the Mercenary Soul? A. No. Q. What's it called? A. I don't have a title yet but that's-- that's the first time I've ever heard those words. MR BEIZER: Something you may want to consider? THE WITNESS: No, that's definitely not. BY MS BURKE: Q. You've never described it that way, kind of comparing it -A. Not ever even remotely that way. I don't know who your sources are but they ought to wake up. That's not it. Q. Has the State Department asked you not to publish the book? A. No. Q. Have you run it by them? A. It's not to that point yet. Q. You don't have a publisher yet? A. No. Q. Have you approached publishers?

A. Approached some agents. Q. How long is it? A. I don't know. Q. What's it about? A. Our experience in building the business and operating it and where the private sector can help in national security matters in some, you know, cost-saving proposals for the defence department going forward. Q. Do you talk about Nisour Square at all in it? A. That chapter is not written yet. Q. Do you intend to write that? A. Some day. Q. Now, you were initially married to Redacted Pages 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 A. Chris Burgess. Q. And you're the sole owner of that company? A. Yes. Q. You're trying to sell that company as well? A. Yes. Q. Are any of Greystone's assets in the United States? A. Yes. Q. Most of them? A. Mmmm. Q. You can't say Mmmm. You have to -A. Yes. Q. And have you made any effort to move any of the assets of Greystone outside of the United States? A. No. Q. You have a company called Damocles? A. I think that was dissolved a while ago. Q. When was that dissolved? A. I would guess a year or two ago. Q. Why was it dissolved? A. I don't know. Q. But it's your company? A. Yes. Q. You wholly-owned it? A. Yes. Q. Why -A. There's companies that get started sometimes that you have on the shelf and you might not do something with them, so you clean up the org chart to make it simpler and manageable. Q. Why did you start Damocles in the first place? A. I'm not sure. I don't know. Q. Who would know that? A. Probably Christian Bonat. Q. Your lawyer would know but you don't know? A. Correct. Q. Christian Bonat wasn't with you when Damocles began though? A. I don't know. I don't know when Damocles started. Q. But you know that it was dissolved a year or two ago? A. I don't know. I would guestimate. Q. What did it do? A. I'm not sure what it did. Q. Did you get a million dollar bonus from Damocles one year? A. I don't think so. Q. Did you ever get any bonuses through the vehicle Damocles? A. I don't believe so. Q. Did you ever pay any other people bonuses through the vehicle of Damocles, sir? A. I don't know.

Q. Who would know the answer to that? A. Probably someone from accounting or from legal. Q. I need a name, Mr Prince, because I need to depose people, so I need names of people that know things. Who would you direct me to to provide these answers? A. Why don't you talk to Christian Bonat? Q. And he's permitted to testify on these matters despite the fact that he's your counsel? You're putting him forward to testify? I don't want to waste my time, sir. I don't want to get there and have him say, "Well, this is all privileged". I need to talk to people who have knowledge about these things. A. Yes, he would be the guy that knows. Q. Is he the only guy that knows? A. Gary Jackson and Bill Mathews. They may know. Q. Anybody else? A. No, not that I can think of. Q. You talked about cleaning up the org chart and closing down companies. What is the current org chart? How many companies do you have? A. I don't know. Q. Except, excuse me, setting aside the manufacturing facilities that you testified about earlier? A. The aviation business was sold off. That was Presidential Airways. There was the US Training Center, Greystone. TIS, that was shut down. Q. TIS? A. Total Intelligence Solutions. Q. Okay. A. That was -- I don't know if it's been dissolved yet, but there's no employees. There's no business activity there, at least. Q. Anything else? A. That's all I can think of. Q. What about Paravant? A. I think that was shut down a while back as well. MR BEIZER: I'm sorry, could you say that again? MS BURKE: What about Paravant? MR BEIZER: How do you spell that? MS BURKE: P-a-r-a-v-a-n-t-e. BY MS BURKE: Q. What about Terrorism Research? A. That would have been shut down with TIS. Q. Was Terrorism Research part of TIS? A. Yes. Q. And so that's no longer an operational company? A. Correct. Q. But there are still offices? A. No. Q. There is still at least a fax machine? A. No. The offices were vacated and occupied by someone else. Done. Q. But one of your other fax machines in the Prince Group then uses the label Terrorism Research? A. That could have been just something that nobody changed the little banner that's stuck in the fax machine. Q. So there's -- but there's no ongoing operations of any sort? A. None. Q. Tell me about the offices in McLean. You still have offices there? A. No. Q. You've let go of all that space? A. Yes. Q. When did you do that? A. The Arlington office shifted in July, I think. Q. When you say "shifted", shifted to somebody else? A. Yes. Q. Who did it shift to? A. I don't know. Some IT company. Somebody that wanted to sub-let the space. Q. Do you have any relationship with a company called Blackburn Technologies?

A. None. Q. Is that run by Cofer Black? A. I don't think he runs it. I think he works there. Q. What about Constellation Consulting? Do you have any relationship with Constellation Consulting? A. No. Q. That's run by Ric Prado? A. I don't know. Could be. Q. Do you keep in touch with Ric Prado? A. I talk to him, yes, once in a while. Q. And you keep in touch with Cofer Black? A. Sometimes. Q. Would you consider those two men as part of the management team you talked about previously? A. No. Q. What about the Falcoln group? A. I never heard of that. Q. You never had a company by the name of Falcoln Group? A. That name is news to me. Q. So that's testimony that you never had a company by that name, correct? A. Yes. I don't believe I have ever had or been part of a company called the Falcoln Group. Q. Have you had a company called Salamis? A. That might be a Greystone subsidiary but I'm not sure. Q. Can you name for me all the Greystone subsidiaries? A. I think Salamis is where they owned a couple of the aircraft. Q. Can you name for me all of the Greystone subsidiaries? A. I don't know that it has any others. It might but I don't know. Q. Who would know the answer to that, sir? A. Chris Burgess. Q. Does Greystone have a general counsel? A. No. Q. Does Chris Burgess rely on the general counsel of Xe? A. Since they all roll up under the same registration for compliance matters, they utilise that compliance department. So, yes, I think they do. I think -- well, he uses outside lawyers for some stuff, and some stuff he pays a fee to Xe. Q. Who runs the compliance department? A. Well, I think Fred Roitz is listed as the chief compliance officer. I think. I'm not sure. And Karen Jones is probably the senior most focused on compliance. Q. Fred Roitz office is where? A. Moyock. Q. And how long has Mr Roitz worked for you? A. Five years. That's an estimate. Q. How did you meet him? A. I don't know. Q. And he's your chief compliance officer? A. Well, he does contracts and he was made chief compliance officer. Q. When was he made chief compliance officer? A. I estimate a year-and-a-half ago. That's a guestimate. Q. And you picked him to be your chief compliance officer? A. Yes. That was a -- I think that was a joint decision between outside counsels, the outside compliance counsels and Gary and yes I think that's it. I'm not sure. Q. Mr Prince, I want to make sure I'm understanding your answer. You and Gary Jackson and outside lawyers made the decision to select of Fred Roitz as the chief compliance officer? A. I think -- well, there is a, as part of the wranglings with the DDTC there was an export compliance committee and they wanted one person in the company that could be the focal point, so they certainly weighed into that. Q. So this was something that you did at government request? A. As part of the ongoing proceedings with them, yes. Q. Prior to that, had you had anyone in charge of compliance? A. I think that responsibility fell with the general counsel.

Q. And when you say you think that it fell to general counsel, I just want to be clear. You're the person that makes the decisions on how management is structured, right? A. That would have been one of my, I guess, final decisions, yes. There was a compliance person before Karen. I'm not sure what that person's name was. Q. Was Karen's name previously Schiltz? A. I don't know. Q. But you've always known her as Karen Jones? A. I think so, yes. Q. What did Carol Confers do for you, sir? A. She was the controller? Q. For all your companies? A. Well, she was with us from -- boy, 1998 or 9. Q. To the present? A. No. No, she retired a few years ago. Q. When did she retire? A. I don't know. Q. Who took her place? A. As the company grew we built a bigger finance department so.... Q. Is she going to be the most knowledgeable person about the company's financial dealings in the early days of the company? A. I don't know. Q. Who else would it be? A. Whoever else took her place. I'm trying to think who that was. Mike Taylor is the current CFO. Q. But for the period preceding Mike Taylor coming on as the CFO, would you say that Carol Confers was the most knowledgeable person about the money flows amongst all your various companies? A. Probably so. Could be. Q. Mr Prince, how did you run your companies? Did you get a daily report of any sort from your management team? A. It depends what I was doing at the time. If I was travelling or not. But I would generally be in touch with somebody from the organisation once a day during the work week. Q. Did it tend to be Gary Jackson for the most part that briefed you on the goings on of your companies? A. Gary or Bill or one of the training people or the programme manager if I had a specific programme, if I had a question, or Fred or Mike. Q. Fred Roitz, Mike Taylor? A. Yes. Q. So Fred Roitz, Mike Taylor, Gary Jackson or Bill Mathews would regularly brief you and then, as needed, you would pull in other people? A. It might not be all of them every day, but I used to call the people that would call more often. Q. Other than those four men, is there anyone else you'd put in that category as to someone who would brief you very frequently? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague on "very frequently". (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: No, leave it at that. BY MS BURKE: Q. There's nobody else? A. I don't think so, no. Q. What about a company called Al-Zalama? A. I'm not sure what that is. Q. You're not familiar with that as an offshore company that you own? A. No. It might have been something that Greystone was trying to do as a locally-owned or a local Iraqi company. Q. So this was a company that Greystone owned? A. Yes. I don't know if they do yet or not, but now that you say the name it brings it back to memory. Q. And you directed me to Chris Burgess for the names of all the Greystone subsidiaries, correct? You don't know those as you sit here today? A. No. Q. And who would you direct me to for the names of all the companies you've had ownership in over the past ten years? Who's the most knowledgeable about that? A. I'd say Christian Bonat would have that list complete. Q. Mr Prince, can you direct me to a non-lawyer? I prefer not to depose lawyers.

A. No. Q. He's the only one in the company that has that knowledge? A. I think so. Q. And you yourself don't have that knowledge? You don't know what companies you own? A. I don't have a list, no. Q. And you can't remember without a list everything you own? A. No. I mean, you know, if owning a company is paying the hundred dollar registration fee and setting it up, yes, I don't know how many of those companies are there, no. So talk to someone that has a list and I'd say Christian Bonat would probably have that list. Q. Why did you need all these shell companies? MR BEIZER: Objection to the characterisation. (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: At various points in the business, if you own an asset it makes sense to own that business with an individual company, or own that asset. An aeroplane, a helicopter, whatever. BY MS BURKE: Q. Were you the person that had to give approval before -- before a new company was registered? A. No. Q. Who had the -- who had the ability to start new companies in your name? A. Well, it was -MR BEIZER: Objection to the characterisation. (To the witness) Again, you can answer. THE WITNESS: Again, I don't think it started in my name if it's a company that's starting a subsidiary company. BY MS BURKE: Q. But it's something that's wholly-owned by you, right, Mr Prince? A. Well, it's wholly-owned by a company that I own. Q. That you own, okay. And I'm trying to get at whether or not people had to get your permission to create new corporate forms, and I take it the answer is, no, they didn't have to get your permission? A. Well, they would certainly get my permission if they needed to go buy helicopters or assets, so I don't believe they would go to these entities -- [difficult to hear as someone coughed] -- unless they had direction. Q. So you gave permission for the creation of every company that was formed that you wholly-owned? A. I can't say that. I don't know that I gave permission for every company that was ever formed. Q. But you never delegated to somebody else the authority to start up new companies? A. I don't recall. I don't know. Q. You don't know one way or the other? A. I don't. Q. How many federal firearms licenses are in the name of the companies? A. I've no idea. Q. How many are in your name? A. I don't think any. Q. You have no more federal firearm licenses? A. I don't think I ever had one. Q. You never had any federal firearms licenses? A. I believe the company did. Q. But I'm talking about you? A. But since I own the company -- I don't think that -- I don't recall if I ever had a license in my name. I'm not sure but that's... I remember I had to give fingerprints at some point early on, but I don't think the license was in my name. Q. Who would know that for sure? A. Probably our ATF guy. Q. Who's your ATF guy? A. I don't know his name. He's only been there nine months or so. Q. And when you call him your ATF guy? A. He's the guy that deals with all the firearms licenses and numbers and inventory and all that. Q. That's someone other than your armourer? A. Yes, correct. Q. Who are the armourers now at the team house in Moyock? A. You mean at the facility? Q. You tell me. What are the names that you -- there is a place where weapons are stored in Moyock, correct?

A. The main armoury, yes. Q. And that's called the main armoury? A. I think so, yes. Q. And who are your armourers? Who are the people that are in charge of that facility now? A. The guy I know there now, his name is Bill. Q. What's his last name? A. I don't know. Q. Have all the other armourers been fired? A. No, there's a few there, but I don't recognise their names. I don't remember their names. Q. Do you still go there to take out weapons? A. I might go down and go shooting with my boys, but I generally take our own weapons. Q. Now, in the past when you've gone and taken weapons from that facility, you didn't log them in, correct? A. Well, you know, if I go shooting with the boys there's generally a training guy that comes, and it's logged out to them like any other training class would be. Q. What about weapons you took back up to your home in McLean, though? Those weren't logged out, were they? A. Well, my personally-owned weapons were never part of the companies' inventory. Q. But I'm talking about when you took company weapons up to McLean. You didn't log those out, did you? A. I don't know. I don't know that I ever took company weapons up. Q. Are you testifying you never did? A. I don't know that I did. Q. Is that a, "No, I never did" or a, "No, I can't remember one way or the other"? A. I don't remember one way or the other. Q. But whatever you did you don't remember ever logging them in, right? You never had to fill out any kind of log right when you were in the facility? MR BEIZER: Asked and answered. Objection. (To the witness) You can answer again. THE WITNESS: I don't remember if I ever would have taken company weapons up north as I had my own firearms, so I don't remember going through any log-in or log-out procedures to do that. BY MS BURKE: Q. How many homes do you own? A. That I own? Three. Q. Where are they located? A. How do you define a home? Q. How many properties do you own that you can reside in? A. Four. One is completely unoccupied. Well, actually -- yes, four currently. Two are for sale. Q. The two that are for sale are located where? A. In the McLean area and in Norfolk. Q. And the other two, where are they located? A. In Virginia. Q. In Northern Virginia? A. Mmmm. Q. I'm sorry, you to -A. Yes. Q. Are the other two in Northern Virginia for sale? A. Not presently. Q. Do you have plans to put them for sale? A. No. Q. At present do you intend to continue to come back to the United States? A. Absolutely. Q. How frequently do you intend to come back to the United States? A. Once a month. Every other month. Q. So are you planning to come back to the US in September? A. No. Q. In October? A. End of October. Q. That's your next planned trip, is the end of October? A. Yes.

Q. And what is -- what about the properties that you own abroad? How many properties do you own outside of the United States, and I'm including "owned" meaning owned by your company as well? A. Well, the company has a lease on some land on the northwest side of Kabul airport, but you can't build there. Q. How about in the Green Zone? Do you still have the villa in the Green Zone? A. No. Q. When did you get rid of villa in the Green Zone? A. Years ago. Q. And that was leased? A. Yes, you can't own it any more. Q. Who did you lease it from? A. I don't know. Q. Who would know? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know who would know? A. Whoever the in-country management was would have been paying the rent. That's the other thing. Almost every property there in Baghdad or in the Green Zone, it's disputed as to who the owner was. Q. But the property that you were renting, were you paying rent to the Iraqi government? A. I don't know. I don't know who owned... Redacted Pages 103, 104, 105 A. Well, even if you have cash in a bank, if you have any kind of working loan with them or a term loan or anything else like that, there's all kinds of over-watch from their loan officers as to where that money can go. Q. And just so that I'm understanding. There is certainly oversight on loan proceeds, but you're not saying that the bankers control your own personal assets, are you? A. No, only if there's a personal guarantee on something. Q. On a what? There's a personal guarantee on a loan? A. On an asset, yes. Q. When you began what is now called Xe Services you had a substantial amount of your own money, correct? A. What's substantial -MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: How do you define what's substantial? BY MS BURKE: Q. Well, let me ask you how much you had. When you started -- what year did you start Blackwater? Redacted Pages 107, 108 BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, you understand you're still under oath? A. Yes. Q. Who did you decide the payment level for in terms of salary? A. State the question again? Q. I take it you personally decided how much to pay the top executives? A. Certainly for the present position and then, in consultation with the President, for all the others. Q. When you say all the others, all the way down to the lowest level employee in the company? A. No, I'm sorry. For the top, say, fifteen or so people. That's an estimate. Q. And the President, meaning you decide how much to pay Gary Jackson? A. Yes. Q. And then after Gary Jackson, Joe Yorio took the position of President? A. Yes. Q. How much did you pay Gary Jackson per year? MR BEIZER: Beginning when? MS BURKE: Beginning with his beginning with the company. Mr Jackson's beginning with the company. THE WITNESS: Oh. BY MS BURKE: Q. Just a range is fine?

A. I don't remember the exact number but it was probably, I would guestimate at 75 thousand a year. Q. Is what you began Mr Jackson at? A. Something like that. No, all out with the bonus, a little over a hundred. MS BURKE: I'm sorry, we've got to take just a brief break as the coffee is here. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 11:21. (A short recess at 11:21 a.m.) (Resumed at 11:22 a.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record 11:22 a.m. BY MS BURKE: Q. Do you recall the salary that Mr Jackson was making yearly on his last year of employment with you? A. No. Q. Was it greater than 75 thousand? A. Yes. Q. Substantially greater? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: What's "substantially"? BY MS BURKE: Q. Was he making, like, half a million dollars a year? Was he making a million dollars a year? Approximately how much money was the man making when he worked for you at the end? A. I would say his base estimate, guestimate, in the 300, 350 range. Q. What was the largest bonus you ever gave Mr Jackson? A. I don't know but it was probably, base and bonus all up, probably right on a million dollars. Q. Including the bonus? A. Base and bonus. Q. So did you ever give him a million dollar bonus? A. I don't know. I don't remember. Q. You don't remember whether or not you gave him a million dollars? Redacted Page 112 ...guaranteed bonus was a couple of hundred grand. I think. I'm not sure. Q. What's the term of his employment contract? How long? A. I don't know that it has an expiration date. Q. But is it, like, for a year? Is the contract term for a year and then it's renewed every year? A. No. It's an employment agreement, so you have the comp and the insurances and the severance agreements and all those things. Q. But it doesn't speak to term? It doesn't speak to length at all? A. I don't know. I don't think so. I'm not sure. Q. And records, such as Mr Yorio's employment contract, had those been kept in McLean when you had offices there? A. They'd probably have been kept in Moyock. Q. Is there any paper now in McLean? A. Well, it's part of the document hold stuff, yes. There is a bunch files that are kept. I think it's kept at one of those portable rent-a-space places. Q. Is there rent-a-space down in Elizabeth as well? Is there a storage container with all of the documents? A. I don't know if they're there or if in the logistics warehouse. I'm not sure where the storage part would be. Q. Is the logistics warehouse on the Moyock grounds? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned that you personally were involved in setting compensation for Jackson, and then for fifteen others of the top -- approximately fifteen others of the top management, correct? A. Yes. Q. And does that remain true today, to date? A. No, that's all. Comp for the others is done by Yorio, and his hasn't been changed or adjusted really within what was contracted when he hired on. Q. So right now you only personally set Yorio's and then he handles everything else? A. Yes. Q. And that's a change because you used to be much more personally involved in running your businesses? A. Correct. Q. And that change coincided immediately with Yorio coming on board or did it take a transition period?

A. No, I resigned as CEO. Q. And the date that you resigned as CEO you stopped actively managing the companies? A. Yes, and I think that was in March. Q. Of 2009? A. I think so. Q. And you sent out a letter? A. Yes. I talked to the employees as well. Q. What prompted you to do that, Mr Prince? What prompted you to resign from actively managing your companies? A. The -- between the thrashing we were receiving in the press and from various regulators, I figured it was -- a lot of the attacks upon me were coming in at the company and vice versa, so I figured let outside professional management team run the business and I will look to do other things. Q. And would you say there's been a substantial change in the way the business is run as a result of your departure? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: I don't know. I mean, it's a different market environment as well. You know, there's the Iraq efforts for the United States are winding down significantly. Afghanistan is, kind of, at a status quo, and there's you know, there's a lot of talk about cutting the defence budget and reducing the use of contractors so that, of course, that causes a company to be run differently. BY MS BURKE: Q. Is there any increased focus on compliance now as compared to when you were in charge? A. As part of the process improvements, any company overgrows and the administrator gets smarter on the places where he'd made mistakes so... Q. And would you characterise as the places where you've made mistakes? A. We focused too much on serving the customer. We ran very hard to serve their needs. Q. So it didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's? A. You know, we had men in danger and people doing a mission, and you do all you can to support them, to keep people alive. Q. But I assume that's the philosophy of the company, even under Mr Yorio, right? A. You know, as I -- the country was at war and we ran the business to serve the customer. I would say now I would see the business as being run to fulfill just the line verse any letter of the contract and the customer doesn't get any more. Q. So in the past you went over and above for the customer? A. I'd say that was a bit of an approach, yes, we ran very hard to serve them. Q. Were the companies run in a way that relegated record-keeping to a lower status? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: No. I don't know about that. BY MS BURKE: Q. Was the record-keeping sloppy? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: I don't know that it was sloppy. No. Running an aviation business is all about records, and keeping 60-some aircraft moving and flying and maintained that's all about record-keeping. BY MS BURKE: Q. What about the WPPS part of the business? Were all those records required by the customer kept properly as well? MR BEIZER: Objection. (To the witness) If you know. THE WITNESS: I don't know. MS BURKE: What was the grounds for that objection, counsel? MR BEIZER: Objection. No foundation. MS BURKE: That's fine. I would just ask you not to coach the witness on the record, sir. BY MS BURKE: Q. Now, you had placed the companies for sale previously, and Cerebus(sic) was looking into buying it? A. Cerberus. Q. Cerberus. And Cerberus is Cerberus Capital? A. Mmmm. Yes. Q. And what year was Cerberus Capital considering buying your companies? A. I think that was in '08. Q. And did you provide them documents? Did you and others under your direction provide them documents to conduct due diligence?

A. They -- they had not really got to the point of full due diligence. Q. Did they do any preliminary due diligence? A. Probably just -- I think there was a 1-page business summary financials. That's all very just top line stuff. Q. Did anyone visit Moyock on their behalf? A. They did. Q. Who came to Moyock? A. Steve Feinberg, and I think his DO guy was George Kolitagez, and I don't know any of the other guys. Q. But others came with him? A. I would presume so. Q. Was it a whole team of people? A. A couple of people, yes. Q. How long did they stay in Moyock? A. I don't know. Q. Were you there? A. I was there for part of it. I don't know if they stayed longer than me or not. Q. How long were you there on that particular occasion? A. A day. Q. And why did the deal fall apart? MR BEIZER: Objection. No foundation. THE WITNESS: I would suspect it was because, you know, they also owned a big stake in -- well, they own Chrysler and they own Mobis and they own GMAC, all of which were sailing into stormy waters because of the financial crisis of '08. BY MS BURKE: Q. Is that what they told you as the reason why they didn't want to buy your companies? A. Yes, they were worried about taking on another deal while they had to, you know, spend I guess what turned out to be a year-and-a-half trying to negotiate that process. Q. Now, you did sell Presidential to WoodDale? A. AAR. Q. To AAR? A. Yes. Q. Does the term WoodDale mean anything to you? A. No. Q. What does AAR stand for? A. I don't know but it's a publicly traded aviation company in Illinois. Q. And I take it they did due diligence before they bought Presidential? A. Yes. Q. How many people were at Moyock for how long? MR BEIZER: Objection. Compound. THE WITNESS: I have no idea. BY MS BURKE: Q. Were you there for any of the due diligence? A. No. Q. Who handled the due diligence for you? A. Primarily Mike Taylor, and Steve Phillips was the CFO of Presidential Airways. Q. How much money did you get for Presidential? A. The sale price was 200 or 205. Q. Million? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall which one it was? A. I don't remember. It had to do with what the Escrows were at the closing so... Q. Did you transfer the liabilities along with the assets of the company? A. It was a stock sale. Q. Meaning that you transferred the liabilities along with the assets of the company? A. Yes, that's what a stock sale would entail. Q. Now, you are currently trying to sell all your businesses? MR BEIZER: Objection. Asked and answered. THE WITNESS: No, I'm trying to sell the company known as Xe Services.

BY MS BURKE: Q. And Greystone? A. And Greystone. Q. Will you have any companies remaining in the security business if you sell those two? A. No. Q. So you're trying to sell all your security businesses? A. I would say all the US government contracting businesses. Q. Do you have companies that are contracting with foreign governments? A. No. Q. Have you done any work for foreign governments? A. Of course the company has. Q. Pardon? A. Of course the company has. Q. When you say "of course the company has", which company? MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer this again, unless there's a proffer as to how this could lead to admissible evidence in a False Claims Act case on the WPPS contract and Katrina. MS BURKE: Source of revenue for his companies? THE WITNESS: What does that have to do with... MR BEIZER: I deal with this part. THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer. BY MS BURKE: Q. Do you receive any money from foreign governments? A. No. Q. You've never been paid at all for any work you've done for foreign governments? A. Well -MR BEIZER: Again -- excuse me. Again, I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer on this line of questioning. The same reason. MS BURKE: He's provided an answer of "no", so that's going to stand as his testimony unless he clarifies. THE WITNESS: Do I? Have I received? No. The company receives payment, the company that's for sale. BY MS BURKE: Q. Right. Let me make sure I'm understanding your testimony, Mr Prince. The company that's for sale, Xe Services and Greystone, that company has received payments from foreign governments, right? A. Yes. Q. Which foreign governments? MR BEIZER: Again, I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer at this point. BY MS BURKE: Q. So you're taking your counsel's instruction on this issue? A. Yes. Q. So you're willing to testify that you've received money from foreign governments but you're not willing to testify as to which foreign governments? A. I -MR BEIZER: Again, I -- excuse me. (Counsel and the witness spoke at the same time) MS BURKE: Let the witness speak, counsel. MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer this question for the same reason. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, when you're pointing at your counsel you're saying -- you need to say it verbally? A. I'm abiding by my counsel's advice. Q. And you realise that there's a risk that you may have to come back in order to answer questions if the Judge does not agree with your counsel? A. Sure. Q. The current sale efforts, you're using BlackArch to assist you? A. Yes. Q. Are you using BlackRock at all? A. That name is not familiar. Q. You've never used that investment management company? A. No. And BlackArch are the same guys that handled the Presidential sale. Q. And that's Tim Whitmire?

A. That name is not familiar. Q. What name is familiar to you, sir? A. Gordie Bap. Q. Gordie? A. Bap. Q. B-a-p? A. Yes. Q. And what is Gordie Bap doing for you? A. He's the investment banker going through the sales process and doing it like any other corporate finance-type transaction. Q. It may be, sir, that we play your video, and not everybody on a jury is actually familiar with corporate transactions. And so, although it may seem rudimentary to you, I just ask you, for these kind of questions, just give it in lay person's terms. Does he help you assess the value of -- does he help you figure out the sales price for the company? A. Well, in a corporate finance-type transaction the investment banker would help prepare a sales memorandum, a book as it's called, and then there's, kind of, of a -- they go out and contact various strategic buyers or financial buyers. Those that have interest sign a non-disclosure agreement. The book gets sent to them. They come back and go through a valuation process. And then they submit bids if they're interested. And then they have to do a due diligence process. And then you go through a purchase agreement, and then you sell it or not. Q. And the due diligence part of that process, that's designed to figure out whether there's any liabilities that aren't being disclosed? MR BEIZER: Objection. No foundation. THE WITNESS: Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. BY MS BURKE: Q. But is the due diligence done by the buyer to try to protect themselves? A. Of course. Q. And have you gotten any proposals -- excuse me. Have you gotten any bids on your companies? A. I'm not sure of the exact status of the bids in receipt but that process is ongoing. Gordie calls me about once a week or so to give me an update. Q. And what's the asking price for the companies? A. You don't really give an asking price. You don't -- you're kind of negotiating against yourself then. Q. And the deal that you are hoping to enter into, would you be transferring the liabilities as well as the assets? A. A stock sale or asset sale are both on the table. Q. And both include transferring the liabilities as well as the assets? A. An asset sale would entail that the buyer does not pick any of the liabilities. A stock sale does. Q. And so you are contemplating selling -- you're at least considering selling the assets but keeping the liabilities for yourself? A. Yes. That's up to what the buyers are interested in. Q. But in terms of what deal you're willing to engage in, you're willing to engage in a deal in which you would retain the liabilities but sell the assets? A. You know, I can't speak to any more detail as to what -- you know, what we're willing to do. They have to come back with what the final offer is and the Escrows and all those things. Q. And I'm not asking you to provide detail. What I'm asking is about your own personal willingness. Are you willing to sell the assets and retain the liabilities for yourself? A. I guess, yes. Q. And once you have sold the companies, what's your personal ability to pay for all the liabilities? Have you analysed that issue? A. Well, certainly there is Escrows that were held in the Presidential sale to cover any of those funds, but I'm sure there's enough to cover. Q. It's a slightly different question. When you say you're sure there's enough to cover, have you done an analysis of all of your potential liabilities and then the personal funds that you would have available were you to no longer own these companies? Have you undertaken that analysis? A. I haven't, but I'd imagine the finance guys have. Q. When you say "the finance guys", you're talking about your own finance people, correct? A. Yes. Q. And who are A. Mike Taylor.

Q. Mike Taylor. And so Mike Taylor is going to be the most knowledgeable on this issue? A. I would say, yes. Q. And Mike Taylor is privy to all your personal financial assets? A. No. No, he's privy to what the companies' are. Q. And when you say "he's privy to what the companies' are", he has an understanding of all the revenue that's been generated by the companies? A. He has a CFO and treasury role. Q. But he does not have an ability to gain information about your personal wealth? A. No. Q. Is your personal wealth a factor in your confidence that you would have enough money to cover the liabilities were you to sell the assets without selling the liabilities? A. Well, that's why people form companies, because it's a limited liability company then. Q. But you understand, Mr Prince, that in this lawsuit you're individually a defendant as well, correct? A. I understand that. Q. Has that been any type of writings given to you that portray the assets of the company being retained sufficient to cover all the liabilities? A. No. Q. So you've not done any report or any memo of any sort? A. I've not seen that analysis, no. Q. So you don't know whether or not it's been done? A. I don't know. Q. So it could be the case then, Mr Prince, that you could sell the companies, judgment could be issued against them and there would be no money to collect on? MR BEIZER: Objection. BY MS BURKE: Q. Is that correct? MR BEIZER: Objection. THE WITNESS: I'm no -MR BEIZER: Excuse me. THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. BY MS BURKE: Q. Go ahead. A. I'm no expert in those kind of proceedings. I would imagine I'd have to do a bankruptcy law and I, fortunately, have not much familiarity with that. BY MS BURKE: Q. But you can foresee a circumstance with the path that you're going on where bankruptcy could be an option for your companies? A. I would say that that would be my last consideration. Q. But it's something that's on the table? A. No. No, the company is doing all right now. Q. It's doing all right now but, if you sell all the assets, you may not have enough money to pay all the liabilities, right? MR BEIZER: Objection. Again vague. Calls for speculation. BY MS BURKE: Q. Is that right, Mr Prince? A. You know, who can tell what the liabilities of a company would be? Q. Pardon? A. Who can tell what the liabilities of a company could be? Q. Yes, but it's something that's routinely studied and analysed, and it doesn't appear that you've done that, right? A. Well, it's certainly something for the prospective buyers, the owners of the assets, and that's all part of that due diligence process so... Q. It's not only part of the due diligence if they're going to be buying the liabilities too, right? A. That would be up for you to talk to the buyers about. Q. But you've already indicated you're willing to enter a sale where you keep the liabilities, correct? A. That would be my last choice. I'd prefer to do a stock deal and sell the whole entity. Q. It may be your last choice but you're willing to do it, right? A. We'll see what things come out in the next few weeks.

Q. When you say "the next few weeks", have you been approached with bids? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: We're in the -- I would say we're in at least the third quarter of the game, of the basket ball game. BY MS BURKE: Q. With whom? A. If you characterise the sale process, I'd say we're in the third quarter? Q. With whom? A. With the prospective buyers. Q. Yes, who are the prospective buyers? A. I'm under a confidentiality agreement. I cannot disclose that. Q. How many different buyers? A. Well, the books went out to probably 20-plus prospective buyers. Q. Yes, but how many are actually -A. Again -Q. -- in active discussions with you? A. This is all sealed under a confidentiality agreement. Q. I know, but you need to put it on the record here. MR BEIZER: I'm going to -THE WITNESS: No, I don't. BY MS BURKE: Q. You actually do. It's information that's likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence in this lawsuit so you have to provide it. Now, I understand your concern and, because this is something that could clearly impact a business, an ongoing business transaction, for this portion of the deposition we will agree and we will seal it beginning now, okay? So we'll put it under seal. MR BEIZER: I'm going to still instruct the witness not to answer based on the -- I don't know what the effective of these confidentiality agreements are. THE WITNESS: And you know what? MR BEIZER: And I don't know whether that seal will cover it, Ms Burke, so I instruct the witness not to answer. MS BURKE: And you've made no effort, counsel, to look into this issue before today? MR BEIZER: I'm instructing the witness not to answer. MS BURKE: But I'd like your representation for the record. Have you looked into this issue as to whether - Mr Prince's obligations under these confidential agreements? Have you looked into that? MR BEIZER: I'm not going to answer that question. Proceed with your next question, counsel. BY MS BURKE: Q. Who are the prospective buyers, Mr Prince? MR BEIZER: Again, instruct the witness not to answer. That's been asked and answered and the same instruction. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, I need to build the record properly. So you're simply -A. I'm deferring to my counsel's wise advice. Q. You're following his instruction? A. Yes, I am. Q. Okay. And is there more than one active participant in the discussions? MR BEIZER: Same instruction. THE WITNESS: Same answer. BY MS BURKE: Q. I'm sorry, you have to say? A. I'm deferring to my counsel's advice. Q. Thank you. Okay. And there's no reason -- none of that will be under seal. There's no reason to seal any of that separately from whatever we do with the whole transcript. I understand from the New York Times that you are in discussions of a potential settlement with the State Department for $42 million? A. I think that is -- I think that was signed in the last couple of weeks. Q. Who signed it? A. One of the senior executives of the company. Q. Who? Which one? A. I think Vick Esposito did. Q. Why was it Esposito doing the signing on that? What was his title or function for you?

A. He's the chief operating officer. Q. And this was for which companies? A. Everything. Q. What were the terms of the settlement? A. They're long. Q. Did you settle anything having to do with Iraq or Afghanistan? A. It's globally. Q. So it includes Iraq and Afghanistan? A. Yes. Q. And it includes conduct that occurred under the auspices of the WPPS contract? A. You know, it regards export matters. Q. When you say it regards export matters, it's a settlement about smuggling weapons into Iraq? A. I don't know that it would be called smuggling weapons. Q. Does it have to do with importing weapons into Iraq? A. It has to do with the documentation of weapons -- I recall, I think it's like this. There was US-made weapons legally purchased in the United States, shipped to Iraq for the use of Americans by US personnel on a government contract, and there was a glitch in the paperwork filing in the State Department. Q. When you say a glitch in the paperwork filing, you're paying because you did not properly document the flow of weaponry, correct? A. There was a couple of shipments that did not have the right paperwork. Q. And you're paying 42 million dollars as a result? MR BEIZER: Objection. Objection. Misleading and mischaracterising the testimony. THE WITNESS: There's a list of their administrative export violations that added up to that number. BY MS BURKE: Q. When you say added up to that number, how much was each violation worth? A. I don't know. I don't know how they assessed each violation. Q. Is there a list attached to the settlement that says the location of each of the violations? A. I think so. Q. Who would know that for sure? A. The State Department. Q. Did you read the whole thing, Mr Prince? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: I read -BY MS BURKE: Q. Did you read the whole settlement document? A. Not the whole document. Q. What parts did you read? A. I read the drafts of it, probably a few months ago. Q. When did you begin the discussions with the State Department to resolve these issues? MR BEIZER: Objection. THE WITNESS: I don't know. It was -MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: A long time ago. BY MS BURKE: Q. A long time ago meaning? A. More than a year-and-a-half ago. Q. And who at the State Department negotiated on the State Department's side? A. I don't know. Someone from the DDTC, Directorate of Defence Trade Controls. Q. And who was your negotiators? A. I would say our -- the lead counsel was Gavin Trip McIntosh. Q. What firm is he with? A. They're out of Colorado. Out of Denver. Q. Do you know the name of the firm? A. I don't. Q. Too many lawyers? A. Holland & Hart is a guestimate. I think. I'm not sure on that one. Q. In the course of the settlement of these export violations, did you and your companies provide documents to the government? A. Certainly.

Q. And who is the most knowledgeable that's still in your employ about what was provided to the government? And I don't want a lawyer, please. A. Probably Fred Roitz or Karen Jones. Q. On your side, were Fred Roitz on your side, who was the most closely associated with this settlement negotiation, other than the lawyers? Who were the business people that were involved in it? A. Well, certainly Joe Yorio, Vick Esposito, Fred Roitz, Karen Jones. Q. Anybody else? A. I'm sure there's a parcel of lawyers on the people involved as well but... Q. But those are who you talked to? A. Yes. Q. Did anyone analyse whether the settlement touched on matters that had been alleged in the false claims lawsuit that brings us here today? MR BEIZER: I'm sorry, could you repeat that question? BY MS BURKE: Q. Did anyone analyse whether the settlement touched on matters that had been alleged in the False Claims Act lawsuit that brings us here today? A. I don't know. Q. You didn't? A. I don't know. I didn't, yes. Q. Mr Prince, do you know the status of the Waggoner sexual harassment case? Has that one been resolved? A. No. I have not idea what you're talking about. Q. Okay. Are you aware that a woman, Heather Wagner, sued the companies? A. No. Q. That's not one that's on your radar screen? A. No. Q. What about the Presidential Airlines' litigation? Now, that's litigation that was on your radar screen? A. Settled. Q. When did that settle? A. Some months before the sale. Q. Is the settlement amount on the public record? A. No, that's sealed. Q. And how about the wrongful death cases going on in North Carolina? Those are still going on, correct? A. I think so, yes. Q. And the case involving the men who were killed in Falluja, the Nordan case, what's the status of that case, sir? A. That was sent to arbitration years ago by the Federal Judge and the plaintiffs never showed up, so it's, kind of -- I think it's just, kind of, withering on the line. Q. That's interesting. Do you have insurance coverage that would cover any recovery in the current lawsuit? A. I don't know. I don't know what the insurance would cover. Q. You haven't asked anyone to undertake an insurance analysis? A. I'm sure our risk manager has. Q. Who is your current risk manager? A. Robert Poole. Q. How long has he been your risk manager, Mr Prince? A. Probably a year-and-a-half. Q. Who was the risk manager before that? A. I don't know. Can't think of his name. Q. Did you have one? A. We did. Q. You just can't remember his name? A. Yes. I can picture his face but not his name. Q. Did you sue a lawyer named James Theuer? A. Who? Q. James Theuer, T-h-e-u-e-r. A. Did we sue a lawyer? Q. Yes. A. I don't know.

MR BEIZER: What's the name again? MS BURKE: Theuer, T-h-e-u-e-r. BY MS BURKE: Q. Have you requested indemnification from the US government on any of the lawsuits that have been brought against you and your companies? A. There might have been that in the Presidential Airways' case, but I'm not sure. That's something that was discussed at one point. Q. But you don't know whether a request was made to the government? A. I don't know. Q. Who would know the answer to that? A non-lawyer if possible, please, sir? A. It's going to be a lawyer. I mean, you could also have asked that. Probably Joe Schmitz. Q. Now, why did Joe Schmitz leave your employ? A. He went on to do other things. Q. Did you fire him? A. We had a mutually-agreed departure. Q. Did you fire him? A. No, he wasn't fired. The legal focus was shifting from having someone at Prince Group run it all, to letting it be managed closer to the business, the Xe or Blackwater business, and let their legal department run it. Q. And you had brought Schmitz in to handle to Falluja and the Presidential lawsuits? A. That's, kind of, what I'd heard over the legal issues, yes. Q. Now, did you pay Donald Balls' legal fuse? A. Who's that? Q. He's one of the shooters in the Nisour Square. A. I think, as part of the ongoing deal, yes. I think we did provide legal defence for all the guys. Q. Did you provide the legal defence for Jeremy Ridgeway? MR BEIZER: Objection. I'm going to ask where is this going, for a proffer as to how payment of legal fees in an unrelated case has anything to do with the case that's at issue here, the Civil False Claims Act filed by the -MS BURKE: Rick, it's not an unrelated case. The False Claims Act talks about providing worthless services and use of excessive force, and Nisour is but one example of that, so there's a linkage here. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince -MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer to the extent as to whether or not the company is paying legal fees for these people. MS BURKE: He's already answered, Rick. MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct him not to answer. MS BURKE: But we know on the record that he's paying legal fees for all of the men. I did a follow-up question as to whether he's paying the fees for Jeremy Ridgeway. MR BEIZER: And I'm going to instruct him not to answer. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, did you pay Mr Ridgeway's legal fees? MR BEIZER: Same instruction. THE WITNESS: I would say, in general, we paid the legal fees for the accused. I'm not sure which individuals we did. BY MS BURKE: Q. Were there any that you excluded from that? A. I don't know. Q. Who would know the answer to that? A. Probably the individual accusing the Nisour Square shooters. Q. Did you pay any compensation other than legal fees during the pendency of the proceedings? Did you keep the men in your employ? MR BEIZER: Again, I instruct the witness not to answer. THE WITNESS: I defer to my counsel. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, did you employ Mr Ball, Mr Hart, Mr Liberty and Mr Slatten? What date did you stop their employment? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know whether they still work for you?

A. I don't know. Q. Are you paying legal fees for Mr Cannon and Mr Drotleff? MR BEIZER: Same instruction. THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY MS BURKE: Q. You don't know whether you are or not? A. No. Q. Do you recognise those names, sir? A. Those names are not as familiar. Q. So you don't know who those two men are? A. I don't know. Q. Are you paying Gary Jackson's legal fees? MR BEIZER: Again, instruct the witness not to answer. MS BURKE: On the grounds? MR BEIZER: The same grounds, unless you can proffer as to how payment of Gary Jackson's legal fees, presumably in connection with the expert control case -MS BURKE: How about any case, Rick? He's his top management. MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer as to whether or not, unless you can proffer as to how payment of Mr Jackson's legal fees could lead to admissible evidence in this False Claims Act case. MS BURKE: Rick, you understand that Mr Jackson is one of the people accused of being engaged in the fraud that's at issue in this case. He's likely to be called as a witness here. Clearly we are entitled to explore bias. MR BEIZER: I understand that Mr Jackson is likely to be called as a witness here. MS BURKE: If not named as a defendant. MR BEIZER: I understand. MS BURKE: And the relationship between the two men and the financial relationship between the two men is clearly relevant. MR BEIZER: Let me consider that one. If you can, can you move on? Maybe we can -MS BURKE: Well, I've got a whole sequence with the others who are in similar situations, so I'd ask that you consider it. And I mean, you know, obviously none of us -- well, at least speaking for myself -- don't want to repeat the trip so, to the extent that we can get the testimony MR BEIZER: Well, again, why don't you give me the names, let me think about it, and then I'll come back? But right now, though, I'm hard pressed to see whether paying legal fees for Mr Jackson or anybody else has anything to do with whether or not the company, knowingly, falsified the document. MS BURKE: But discovery is broader than that, and I have to ask you to make you know, to make the call here, sir, because this is a very straightforward matter. Mr Prince and his colleagues are accused of engaging in fraudulent activity. Obviously the relationship between Mr Prince and the other persons accused of fraud is of import to the case. Whether or not there's a financial money flow from Mr Prince to those other people is clearly relevant, and I'm very confident that the court will see it that way. And, you know, certainly you are free to fight about relevance and keep it out of the record later if need be, but at this juncture I really think you've stepped beyond the line here, sir. MR BEIZER: Perhaps so. That is why I say if you give me some time to think about it and -MS BURKE: Well let's go off the record and give you the time you need to think it through. MR BEIZER: Can you tell me who the other people are so we can do it all at once? MS BURKE: Gary Jackson, Ana Bundy, Andrew Howell, Bill Mathews, and Ron Slezak. MR BEIZER: The last name, I'm sorry? THE WITNESS: Slezak. MS BURKE: Slezak. MR BEIZER: Okay, can we take a break? MS BURKE: Take a break, sure. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 4 minutes past 12 p.m., as indicated on the video screen. (A short recess at 12:04 p.m.) (Resumed at 12:08 p.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 8 minutes past 12 p.m. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, you understand you're still under oath? A. Yes, I do. Q. Are you paying Mr Jackson's legal fees? A. The company is.

Q. And when you say the company, meaning Xe Services? A. Xe Services, yes. Q. And are you paying Ana Bundy's legal fees? A. I think so. I'm not sure. Q. But you're sure of Mr Jackson's? A. Yes. Q. But you're not sure of Ms Bundy's? A. He has thanked me for paying those legal services. I know we are. I would presume we are for Ana Bundy as well. Q. And what about for Mr Howell? Are you paying Mr Howell's legal fees? A. Yes. Q. And are you paying Mr Mathews' legal fees? A. Yes. Q. And are you paying Mr Slezak's legal fees? A. Yes, I think so. Q. And are you currently paying Mr Jackson any money other than covering his legal fees? A. The senior executives had employment agreements with a severance provision so... Q. So you're paying him severance? A. There is a severance, yes. Q. How long will you be paying him? A. I'm not sure what the terms of it were but it was in lieu of any stock options or founder equity or anything else. They had, kind of, an ongoing severance deal instead. Q. So Mr Jackson has no ownership interest, correct? A. None. Q. And you retained all the ownership of all the companies for yourself? A. Correct. Q. And now Ms Ana Bundy, is she also receiving payments under the severance agreement? Under her severance agreement? A. I don't know. Q. Who would you direct me to to answer that question? A. Mike Taylor. Q. And what about Mr Howell? Is he receiving payments? A. I think so. I'm not sure. You should ask Mike Taylor. Q. How about Mr Mathews? Is it the same for Mr Mathews? A. Yes, I think so. Q. And how about Mr Slezak? He was not an executive, correct? A. I'm not sure. Q. You're not sure whether he was an executive? A. No, he was not an executive. I'm not sure if he has any kind of an employment agreement. Q. And so you're not sure whether or not you're continuing to pay Mr Slezak? A. Correct. Q. And Mr Taylor would be the one to answer that question? A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether -- did you personally negotiate the agreement with Mr Jackson? A. It was something put in place for a number of the senior executives, so it was a, kind, of a blanket employment agreement so... Q. But were you the guy that came up with what it should be? A. It wasn't just me. It wasn't just Gary. It was a few of us, but I'm not sure who was present in the room at the time. Q. So there was some type of meeting or collective discussion about "Well, what's a fair agreement?" A. I guess something like that, sure. Q. And when did that discussion occur? A. Years ago. Q. When you say years ago, did it pre-date -- did it pre-date the Falluja incident? A. No, not back that far. Q. Did it pre-date the Nisour Square shooting? A. I'm not sure. I don't know the exact timing. Q. What prompted that, Mr Prince? What prompted you to sit around with your top management team and talk about severance?

A. Well, it wasn't just severance. It was employment agreement. It was -- because we also discussed private equity. Do we do actual equity? Phantom equity? Employment agreement with ongoing payments? There was a lot of standard company executive compensation kind of discussions. Q. Did you get any kind of outside consultant help on, you know, executive comp? A. Yes. I think there was a couple of, you know, lawyers that did executive comp, and those kind of guys that were talked to in that process. Q. And were you the moving force behind this or was your executive team the moving force behind having these discussions? A. I don't know. I'd say that was a shared -- shared impetus. Q. Everyone agreed that compensation needed to be addressed? A. Well, with any leadership team or management team, compensation is always one of those issues that has to be addressed, sure. Q. But some sort of change needed to be made, right? A. I don't know. The company was -- it's just one of those things we had never put in place, so it was one of those things it was time to do. Q. For Mr Jackson, do you recall how far out into the future you're going to be paying him? A. I don't know. MR BEIZER: Objection. Asked and answered. BY MS BURKE: Q. How much are you paying him every year now? A. I'm not sure what the number is. Q. Do you trust Gary Jackson? A. I do. Q. And you continue to have full confidence in him to date? A. I never -- he's never done anything that I've seen illicit or against me or against the interests of the company or the customers that we serve. Q. And what about Ana Bundy? Do you trust Ana Bundy? A. Again, I know of nothing that she did against me or the company or the customers. I didn't know her as well. It's not someone I talked to very often at all so... Q. So you don't have the same personal connection on which to base your trust? A. Correct. Q. What about Andy Howell? Do you have trust in Andy Howell? A. I do. Again, he hasn't done, that I've seen, against me or the company or against the US government. Q. And do you have a personal relationship with Mr Howell akin to that with Mr Jackson? A. No, not like it was with Gary. Q. Would you say Gary was your close -- was the executive most close to you? A. He was the President of the company. Q. And you -A. That's how the org chart looks as well. Q. And you spoke to him the most frequently? A. Correct. Q. Did you ever take any steps to investigate Mr Jackson's conduct in any way? A. To my knowledge, there was no allegations brought against him in the hot line or anything else like that. Q. So is that a, no, you never took any steps to investigate him at all? A. No, I don't remember doing anything like that. Q. And when you say "allegations on the hot line", where are the hot line allegations maintained? Where are those records maintained? A. Well, I think when Joe Schmitz was there they would come into his office. He used to be the Pentagon Inspector General, so he's used to the hot line stuff. And now I believe there is a -- I don't know how the hot line comes in now, but there's some mechanism that does other services for hot lines for companies. Q. Mr Prince, did any of your other executives or persons outside the company advise you to stop trusting Mr Jackson so much? A. No. Q. No-one has ever given you advice that perhaps you're overly relying on Mr Jackson? A. I don't recall doing that. I don't recall receiving that kind of information. Q. Now, you currently use Mark Corallo, Media Strategies, as your public relations guy? A. We used him for a while. That contract with him has lapsed, so I guess there's no official media spokesman or paid outside service.

Q. Do you recall how much you paid Mr Corallo? A. No. Q. Did you use Paul Behrends of the Alexander Group before Mr Corallo? A. He's with Crowell & Moring. Q. Paul Behrends? A. Mmmm. Q. He's with Crowell & Moring now? A. Yes, and has been for years. Q. Did he have the Alexander Group? A. He worked there as a -- not as a partner, for a couple of years, and then he went to Crowell. Q. Did you use the Alexander Group when he was there? A. I used Paul Behrends when he was at the Alexander Group, yes. Q. What does Mr Behrends do for you? A. He was doing government relations. Q. And is he still doing that for you? A. No. Q. Did you fire him? A. No. We just didn't -- we didn't renew the contract when it came to an end. Q. When you say you didn't renew the contract, which contract? You mean his contract? A. Yes. Q. And who else have you used for government relations work, other than Paul Behrends and Crowell & Moring? A. A couple of other firms. I can't remember their names because I didn't have much interaction with them. Q. Are you using Stu Eizenstat over at Covington & Burling? A. That's who's doing it now, yes. I've never met him. Q. What is he doing for you? A. Government relations. Q. What does that mean? Do lobbying for you? A. Interacts with policy makers, members of congress, their staffs, arranging meetings, answering questions, clarifying reality. Q. Now Senator Frist was a frequent visitor down at Moyock? A. I think he visited once. Q. Just once? A. Twice max. Once I'm sure of. Q. And his son has been an intern there several times? A. His son interned for us for one summer, I believe. Q. Not two? A. He may have done one in Moyock, and then I think he worked or deployed for the company maybe to Afghanistan. I'm not sure. I'm not sure where he went. Q. What's the son's name? Is that Jonathan? A. Yes. Q. Does Jonathan Frist work for you now? A. No. Q. And when you say he deployed for the company, when did you hire him? A. I don't know. Q. And what was he hired to do? A. I don't know. Q. You say he was deployed to Afghanistan? A. I think so. I'm not sure. Q. Who should I go to for answers to these questions? A. I would say Vick Esposito probably. Q. What role does Vick Esposito have vis-`-vis WPPS in Afghanistan? A. Well, Vick's the chief operating officer of the company. Q. And he has been since you stepped down in '09? Did he get elevated at that time? A. He's been doing that for the last five months. Q. And prior to that who had been your chief operating officer? A. Danielle. Q. And she's now home with the new baby?

A. Yes. Q. So Victor took her job? A. Correct. Q. Was that in anticipation of her taking time off to be with the baby? A. She's -- I guess it's her business. I don't know if she plans to come back to work or not. Q. But the transition from Danielle to Vick had to do with the baby, or the pregnancy? I mean, you didn't fire Danielle Morrison? A. Oh, not at all. Q. That's what I was trying to understand, the sequence of events there. And they weren't job-sharing in any way? A. I don't think so, no. Q. And so that was -- but the transition from Danielle to Vick was a voluntary one on Danielle's part? A. Yes. Q. Was it she that suggested that you put her husband in the spot? A. No. Q. Did you come to that on your own or did somebody suggest that to you? A. I came to that decision on my own. Q. Now, who -- who have been your personal assistants since you began the security company? A. Peter Millian. Q. How long was he your personal assistant? A. From '97 or so until '09, spring. Q. And did you fire him? A. Yes. Q. Why did you fire him? A. It appears he was embezzling money from me. Q. When you say "it appears", you're not certain? A. Oh, he did. Q. How much money did he take from you? A. I'm not sure. That audit is ongoing. Q. Who is doing that audit? A. How is that remotely germane? I'm just curious. Q. I'm sorry, Mr Prince. You actually don't get to ask me the questions today. Who is doing the audit for you? A. Our accounting firm. Q. Who is your outside accounting firm? A. BDO Seidman. Q. And then who was your personal assistant after Peter? A. I guess it would be Stacy DeLook. Q. And is she your personal assistant now? A. She's -- you know, now that I'm here and she's back in the United States, so she's helping with winding down things. Q. Is she your personal assistant now? A. I guess I'd say for now I don't have a personal assistant. Q. Miss DeLook was also the company's spokes person for a while right? A. Yes. Q. I want to ask you a bit about some outside contractors. Have you used a gentleman named Sargon Hendrichs? A. Yes. He's -- I think his firm did some construction for us in Afghanistan. Construction and camp support, catering. Logistics kind of stuff. Q. How much money did you give him? A. No idea. Q. Would Mr Taylor know the answer to that? A. Probably so, yes. Q. And how did you come to find -- is it Hendrichs? A. Saigon Hendrich, I think. I'm not sure how the last name is pronounced. Q. How did you find him? A. After we'd been on the ground in Afghanistan for a while and there was other task orders and work that came up, and our guys over there, through local knowledge, saw that they were doing good work and they employed all Afghans, and so we tried them.

Q. Do you recall the name of this company? A. I think it's ACCL. Q. What about a man -- excuse me. What about a man named George Nadar? What did he do for you? A. He was a -- kind of a business development consultant that we retained in Iraq for a while. Q. To try to get you more business? A. Yes. Q. And what sort of business was he trying to get you? A. We were looking for work with the Iraqi government. Q. And you got some, didn't you? A. Not really. Q. You didn't get any work at all from the Iraqi government? A. There was nothing ever paid for by the Iraqi government. Q. Did you enter into any contract with the Iraqi government? A. I don't think so. I'm not sure but I don't think so. Q. You're not sure? A. I'm not sure. Q. Who should I go to for an answer to that? A. Ask Christian Bonat. Q. He wasn't a business man at that time with you, though, right? He's someone who's come in later as the lawyer? A. No, but I presume, if there is a contract that we had with the Iraqi government, it would probably be in one of those file. Q. Do you recall somebody on the ground there that might be closer to the actual work done by George Nadar, other than Christian Bonat? A. No, I'm not sure who that would be. Q. There's nobody in your leadership team that worked with George Nadar at all? A. No. George pretty much worked on his own. Q. Did you ever hear of the name Jeff Coonjohn? MR BEIZER: I'm sorry, could you spell that name? MS BURKE: C-o-o-n-j-o-h-n. THE WITNESS: I've never heard that name. BY MS BURKE: Q. You've never heard the name Jeff Coonjohn? A. No. Q. What about the name Lawrence Peters? Have you heard that name? A. I think Lawrence Peters ran the private security association of Iraq or something like that. Q. Did you work with him at all? A. I met him a couple of times. That's all. Q. Were you a member of that group? A. I think we were. I'm not sure. Q. Who would you go to, who would you direct me to for an accurate -A. You'd ask Vick or Danielle. Q. How about a man named Howard Lowry, L-o-w-r-y, Iraqi logistics? A. A guy I met once, and I think I met him in Iraq. I met him at some events in the States and then I met him twice. We never did any business. Q. Did you talk about doing business with him? A. He had some ideas. Never never consummated. Q. Now, did you take on sub-contracts for other defence contractors? A. Sure. I mean the Falluja work. The work that resulted in our guys being ambushed and murdered by Iraqi insurgents in Falluja was a subcontract to -- it was some catering contractor. PWC, I think, out of Kuwait. Q. And how about subbing to Olive Group? Did you do any subcontracting to Olive Group? A. I don't remember -MR BEIZER: Can you repeat? THE WITNESS: Let me just back up. I'm not sure that the Falluja work was a sub to the Kuwaiti company, but it was a sub. BY MS BURKE: Q. To Regency? A. Yes, Regency to --

Q. So PLEC to KBR? A. I don't think it was KBR, because it was not necessarily a law encap programme. It was something directly 80 second. I don't understand the intricacies of that. Q. Okay. A. That being said, what was the next company. Q. Olive? A. I don't think we ever did any work for Olive. Q. Olive Group. What about for Halliburton? A. Well, I think we might have done some. I think. I'm guessing. There might have been some logistics moves from the Green Zone out to the airport in Baghdad. That's the extent of that work. Q. And what about for KBR? A. Well Halliburton is KBR. Q. They split. But, as far as you're concerned, they are the same company? A. There was only one of those entities that we knew of in Iraq. Q. And how about Raytheon? A. I think as a sub under the war fighter contract. Q. When you say as a sub under the war fighter contract, you sub to them? A. Yes. Q. And they had the war fighter contract? A. They owned the war fighter contract. Q. And is that a DoD contract? A. Yes. Q. And that's in Afghanistan? A. It's global. Q. That's global, okay. And what did you do for them as a sub? A. The company did training support. Q. This is when it was called Blackwater or was it called Xe by then? A. I think that entity that did that training was Paravant. Q. So that was relatively recent? A. Within the last couple of years. Q. Can you tell me how you got the WPPS contract? A. WPPS II was an opening competitive bid, and we submitted, and we were down-selected, and then we bid some of the task quarters, and some of them we won and some of them we did not. Q. Who in your executive team was most responsible for the contract bidding process on WPPS II? A. I would say that would have been Fred Roitz, Danielle, in the finance team. I'm not sure who that was then. Q. Okay. Did you have or do you have any law enforcement personnel on your staff in any of your companies? A. Of course. Q. Active law enforcement or credential law enforcement? A. I don't know. Some of the instructors could certainly be reserve or auxiliary guys that do work for one of the Hampton Road's area departments. Q. Were you able to access the Virginia state police database on a routine basis? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know whether that was done at your company? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know whether background checks were run on the men and women you were hiring? MR BEIZER: Can we narrow that question to your hiring in general, everybody? MS BURKE: Mmmm. MR BEIZER: Okay. THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know. It was in the weeds in that process. BY MS BURKE: Q. What topics would you consider as uniquely within your own expertise? What did you actually handle yourself? There a few different -- the reason I ask, sir, is because for a few different things you refer to it -you know, it wasn't weeds, and I'm trying to get a sense as to how you managed your companies. I take it you picked your executive management, Gary Jackson and the others, right? A. Yes. Q. And Mr Jackson would brief you daily about what was going on in the company? A. Sometimes daily, sometimes not.

Q. But he kept you informed about what was going on? A. We communicated often. Q. And you trust him? A. Yes. Q. And you don't think he was withholding any information from you? A. None that I know of. Q. And in any of those discussions that you had with Mr Jackson, did it ever come up whether or not you were doing background checks on people? A. I understand that was a -- some kind of background check was part of the process for screening people. Q. Did you have any sense as to how that was getting accomplished? How much it cost? Where it was done? Who was doing it? Whether it was being done properly? A. No. I don't know. Q. You never asked? You never cared? MR BEIZER: Objection. Compound. THE WITNESS: I didn't understand how the process worked. BY MS BURKE: Q. So you don't know, as you sit here today, whether those background checks were ever done? A. I certainly didn't do them myself and there is thousands of them that would have been done so... Redacted Pages 178. 179. 180 .....projection screen, like most other board rooms in America do. Q. Right. And that's it? There's no room that has the ability to watch through satellite links of what's going on elsewhere? A. Presidential Airways had a video screen in their ops room where they could track the aircraft that were flying around. Something called a blue sky tracker. I dare say that would be the closest to an in-ops room that the company had, and that was purely for flight crew scheduling and safety and whatever. Q. Never used for anything else? A. No, not that I know of. Q. And you would know, wouldn't you? A. I think so. Q. Were telephone calls recorded? A. I don't think so. Q. Not at all? A. Not by anyone that I knew of or had given direction to. Q. And, as you sit here today, are you aware that there were any audio recordings made of any of the business done on the premises of Moyock? A. No, not that I know of. Redacted Page 182 A. I think there was one device found. Q. And who had put it there? A. I don't know. Q. Did you look into that? A. How do you prove -- how do you even find what the source of it was? I don't know. Q. Did you -A. It was found. It was removed and that's it. Q. Did you bring it to the government? A. It was in a public space, not in any kind of skiff or classified facility. Q. So the answer is, no, you didn't bring it to the attention of the government? A. No, I don't think so. Maybe they did. Q. When you say "they", who would the they be? A. The management team of the company. Q. So Mr Gary Jackson? A. I guess, yes. I'm not sure if he was there when it was found so I'm not -- I don't remember the exact timing of it. Q. But you were -- were you physically in Moyock when it was found? A. No.

Q. Where were you when it was found? A. Up in Northern Virginia. Q. Who told you about it? A. I don't remember. Q. What year was this? A. I just said I don't remember the exact year. Q. Do you remember whether it was after the Falluja incident? A. It would have been post-2004 at least. Q. And was it after the Nisour incident? A. I don't know. Q. So it might have been pre or post? You just can't say with any -A. Pre or post. Q. Okay. And you don't remember who found the bug? A. I don't. Q. And the company didn't do anything to try to figure out who had placed the bug? A. I think they put some locks on the doors to make it a more controlled access. I think there was remedial action taken. Q. Who had suggested that? A. I don't know. Q. Why didn't it get reported into the government? A. I don't know. Q. Did you think it might be a government bug? A. No idea. Q. I know you have no idea, but did you think that it might be a government bug? A. No. Q. At the time you didn't speculate that perhaps you were being -A. No. Q. -- surveilled by the US government? A. I would presume that the government -- I mean, why would the government need to do that? The company wasn't under investigation for anything criminal at that point. Q. So this pre-dated any of the criminal investigations? A. I think so, yes. Q. What's the date that you put as the start of the criminal investigations? When did they become apparent to you? Redacted Pages 186, 187, 188 A. I don't believe -- yes. I don't believe he's ever done anything to me personally or to the company that would have indicated fraud or criminal activity. Q. Did you terminate him? A. He resigned from the company after he realised he couldn't, with the scrutiny that was on him, he couldn't continue to effect his role at the company so he opted to exercise his employment package. Q. When you say with the scrutiny, meaning the external scrutiny or your scrutiny? A. The external scrutiny. Q. Do you consider him a close friend? A. Well, we were closer years ago, but I haven't been in as close a touch lately. Q. How about Gary Jackson? How often do you talk to Gary Jackson now? A. Probably once a month. Q. Would you consider him still a close friend? A. Yes. Well, you know, not as close as he used to be. I used to talk to him a lot, and now, you know, he's gone a different path. Q. What is Mr Jackson doing now? Redacted Page 190 VIDEOGRAPHER: Do I go off the record? MS BURKE: Yes. VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of tape 2, volume 1 in the video deposition of Mr Erik Prince. Going off the record at 12:49 p.m., as indicated on the video screen. (A short recess at 12:49 p.m.)

Volume II (Resumed at 1:32 p.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning of tape 3, volume 1 in the video deposition of Mr Erik Prince. We're on the record 1:34 p.m., as indicated on the video screen. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, you understand you're still under oath? A. Yes. Q. Who did you build houses for? A. Say again? Q. Who did you build houses for? Did you provide houses to some of your top management? A. I don't think so. Q. Raven Construction, is that your company? A. Raven was, kind of, a separate licensed construction entity that looked for work around. I think it built a church out in town and they built some -- I think they did some work on a shopping or a strip mall, but I don't believe there was any work done gratus for any employees. Q. Was there any work done by Raven for any of the employees at all, whether gratus or not? A. I think Gary had them work on his house but not -- it certainly wasn't gratus. They bid it like any other bidder or builder would. And I don't know of any others. Q. They didn't work on anyone else's house that was employed by you? A. Maybe they did. I don't know. Q. Who ran that company for you? A. I think that was Jim Diehart. Q. And he's also the fellow that did manufacturing the grizzlies for you? A. Well, he was the original guy that did some of the target stuff, and then he stayed more on the construction side. Q. And does he still work for you? A. He still works for Xe, yes. Q. And is there still a company called Raven? A. No. Q. When did you shut Raven down? A. A few years ago. Q. And, to the best of your knowledge, the only executive that had their house worked on by Raven was Gary Jackson? MR BEIZER: Objection. Asked and (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: As far as I know. I think they did some work on Gary's house but I'm not sure. BY MS BURKE: Q. And you think that he paid for that but you're not sure? MR BEIZER: Again, same objection. THE WITNESS: It was never anything gratus or even discounted. BY MS BURKE: Q. What does Jim do for you now? A. What's that? Q. What does Jim Diehart do for you now? A. I think he does our overall facility supervision. Q. For Moyock? A. Yes. (Exhibits 2 and 3 marked for identification) Q. We have marked as Exhibit 2 the declaration of Melan Davis and, as number 3, the declaration of Brad Davis. Have you read those before, Mr Prince? MR BEIZER: I instruct the witness not to answer to the extent the answer would reveal anything that he read at the direction of or in the presence of counsel and discussed with counsel. Otherwise he may answer. MS BURKE: And you know we have a disagreement on this issue. I think I'm entitled to know whether he's read these documents or not, without enquiring into the setting in which he read them. I'm simply asking "Have you read them?"

MR BEIZER: I appreciate that we have a disagreement. Which one was 2 and which one was 3? Do you have an Exhibit 2? THE WITNESS: Exhibit 2 is Melan Davis. BY MS BURKE: Q. Are you going to answer the question, sir? THE WITNESS: Counsel? MR BEIZER: To the extent you can answer the question without revealing whether or not you've discussed it, read it in the presence of counsel, you can answer the question. THE WITNESS: I've read it before one time. BY MS BURKE: Q. So you have read those declarations? A. Yes. Q. When did you read them? MR BEIZER: Again, the same instruction. BY MS BURKE: Q. And I don't want to know whether you read them yesterday. When did you read them the first time that was outside the presence of counsel? MR BEIZER: If, in fact, you've read them in the presence of counsel. MS BURKE: He testified that he's read them. MR BEIZER: Yes, but your question implied that he read them in the presence of counsel as well, and I was just clarifying that we're not saying whether he did or he didn't. BY MS BURKE: Q. Did you read them when they were first sent to you, sir? A. No. Q. Did you read them in the last three months? A. Perhaps. Q. Did you read them before it became clear that you were going to continue as an individual defendant or after? A. I guess I read it afterwards. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you what we'll mark as Exhibit 5. (Exhibit 5 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, I want you to take a look at this and let me know whether that is a publication that your company put out? MR BEIZER: May I see it? THE WITNESS: Of course. (Witness reviewed the document) BY MS BURKE: Q. Go ahead, Mr Prince. A. What's that? Q. Is that a publication that your company put up? A. Yes. MS BURKE: And I'm going to hand you what we will mark as Exhibit 6. (Exhibit 6 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, before I hand you Exhibit 6, what was the purpose of Exhibit 5? A. This was given to the personnel that deployed for the company and it was what was expected of them while they were overseas. Q. Did you review it in draft before it became final? A. I don't remember. I don't think so. Q. And you don't think so because you're relying on your knowledge of your normal business practices and it's not the type of thing you would normally review? A. I don't remember reading it in a -- you know, pages format. I remember seeing it like that. Q. I'm going to hand you a disc and ask whether you recognise this case and the disc? (Same handed to witness) A. Well, the jacket looks familiar. I don't know if the disc is valid or not. Q. When you say "valid or not", you don't know what's on the disc because we don't have it up on a computer? A. Yes, and I don't know if someone -- anybody can print off a label and put it on a disc so... Q. In terms of the jacket, did you prepare -- did your company prepare a disc that looked like this? A. The marketing group could have easily put out discs in jackets like that for trade shows or whatever.

Q. Do you know whether or not they did? In the legal process we have to do what's called authentication. We have to make sure things are real. And so I'm trying to authenticate this disc. And I'm happy to show you the actual footage on the disc but, before we go to that trouble, you know, are you -were you familiar with the CDs that your company was putting out for marketing? Like, could you tell me whether or not it's real even if you saw it? A. I couldn't tell you whether it was real because they put out a lot of them, but it's certainly possible. Q. Okay. Who is going to be the person most knowledgeable about the marketing discs that Blackwater USA put together? A. Carla Mane. Q. Carla? A. Mane. Q. M-a-n-e? A. I think so. Q. When did she join the company? A. I don't remember. Q. She's been with you for a while? A. She was. She's no longer with the company any more I don't think. Q. Where is she now? A. I don't know what she's doing. (Interruption by room service) MS BURKE: Take a break. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 1:42. (A short recess at 1:42 p.m.) (Resumed at 1:46 p.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record 1:46 p.m. MS BURKE: Mr Prince, excuse the interruption. I'm going to hand you four pages and ask if you recognise the content on this. I believe it was in a different format. (Exhibit 7 marked for identification) (Witness reviewed the document) MR BEIZER: Since there is no courtesy copy, may I see it after you've done looking at it before you answer just so I know what it's about? MS BURKE: And we'll attempt again to make courtesy copies at the business centre. I went down on the lunch hour. They just are having trouble with their machine and I didn't want to hold us up. MR BEIZER: Stuff happens. THE WITNESS: What was the question? BY MS BURKE: Q. What is Exhibit 7? A. It appears to be random photocopies. Q. So the content of that has no meaning to you, sir? A. Well, the first two pages appear to be some kind of a PSD, personal security detail-type list, some kind of excerpt from it. Q. It looks like an excerpt of a list you're familiar with? A. It looks like an excerpt of some generic personal security detail list. Redacted Pages 206, 207, 208 A. I don't know. Could be. Q. Who else could it be, Mr Prince? A. I don't know. Q. Who had hiring authority in your companies? A. It depended on what area the company it was in. Q. Well, how about the -A. I mean, Jim Diehart hired for the facilities guys. Q. Who had your permission to hire someone to serve as the project manager for your Iraq operations? MR BEIZER: Objection. No foundation. MS BURKE: Wait a minute. (To the court reporter) Can you read that question back, please? COURT REPORTER: "Q. Who had your permission to hire someone to serve as the project manager for your Iraq operations?" MS BURKE: Your objection, sir? MR BEIZER: No foundation. MS BURKE: I'm not sure I'm following you. I'm asking him who has authority.

MR BEIZER: No, you asked who had your permission to hiring. It wasn't established that he gave permission to hire several people. At least that's my understanding of the record. BY MS BURKE: Q. Okay, let's make sure the record is clear, Mr Prince. You've already testified you hired top management, correct? A. I did. Q. And then you delegated down to others permission to hire their under links, correct? A. As is the normal course of the business, yes. Q. So my question is who in the chain of command had your delegated permission to hire someone to play the role as project manager for Iraq? A. I would say it was someone below Gary Jackson. Q. And when you say someone below Gary Jackson, who are you talking about? A. I don't know. I don't know who it would have been at that period of time. Q. Well, what was the title that you have in mind or the function that you have in mind as to who was vested with that authority to hire project managers? A. Somebody focused on the security side of the business or the ops side or the foreign ops. I don't know. Q. The security side, the ops side or the foreign ops. Can you please describe for me what you put in each of those buckets? First, on the security side. What goes into -- what type of work are you using with that term. A. Static or mobile security. Q. For WPPS or for all contracts? A. For any and all contracts. Q. And then you say the ops side. What do you mean by that? A. That could be the state side. People that are putting the resumis, the people, the logistics, the travel together to do it, and then on the foreign ops side there could be some kind of in-country management. Q. Okay, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding that last category. Foreign ops is basically that what you may refer to as, like, back office function but situated in a foreign country? A. I don't know that it's back office. It could be -- it could be very much the in-country logistics people, ops people that serve the needs of the customer. Q. So, for example, recruiting. Recruiting is something you would put in ops if they're recruiting in the United States, and you would put it in foreign ops if they're recruiting abroad? A. No, not necessarily. Q. I'm just trying to understand how you're using these phrases. If somebody is -A. There is some hiring could have been done or some decisions made by the in-country managers. If there is a sub-contractor or you needed a guy to bring you diesel fuel to keep the generator running, that decision could be made by the in-country management. If it's other people, that would often be done by the programme manager of a certain programme or of the ops people. Q. And the decision to hire a programme manager who is going to be based in Iraq, would that be ops? A. I don't know. I don't know where that decision tree was at that period in time. Q. Well, where do you think it was? A. I don't know. Q. But I'm trying to understand, Mr Prince. These are your companies. You don't know who or where -A. You're trying to ask me about a specific hiring situation at a -Q. A process. A. -- at some unknown time of year, some unknown year and month. I'm sorry, I don't know. Q. Do you have -- have you taken any look at how the recruiting in your company was done? A. Well, you know, you're asking: Have I ever taken a look at anything over the course of the -Q. Yes. A. Yes. Over 13 years? Sure. Q. Okay. And so describe for me how Blackwater recruited people to deploy? A. Depending on what the contract was? Q. Yes, WPPS. How did you recruit people for WPPS? A. They're in the contract -- it's about a thousand page contract approximately -- put out by the State Department that gives the criteria of the kind of people to do the work. Q. I understand that. My question is how did you recruit to that contract term? A. And then there's qualification standards. You put out e-mail blasts or recruiting fares or job fares or whatever, and you get people that submit their resumis. You go through them and you submit those, as I remember, submit those resumis to the State Department, and they accept or don't accept. And then, from there, they go into a security finance process and a psychoval and all those pieces. Psych; psychological.

Q. And does the recruiting for the project management follow the same course as the recruiting for the operators that you've just described? A. I'm not sure. I think there is even more State Department input on those kind of things, on those activities. Q. Who did you deal with -- did you ever have any personal dealings with anyone at the State Department regarding the WPPS contract? A. I went in for a couple of meetings regarding the PR policies, media policies. (Witness's microphone fell off) MS BURKE: We'd better wait until you get that back on, sir. THE WITNESS: I'm keeping it pointed at me so... VIDEOGRAPHER: We can hear okay. (Microphone adjusted) THE WITNESS: I went to the State Department a couple of times over the amount of press attention we were receiving. That's all. BY MS BURKE: Q. And on those two occasions who did you meet with? A. I don't know. Q. Who did you meet with on the first occasion? A. Maybe it was two. Maybe it was four. It was a few times. Q. Let's take them first by time. Were these meetings all subsequent to the Nisour Square shootings? A. No. Some of them may have been before. Q. So let's focus first on those meetings that were pre-Nisour Square shooting. Do you recall the State Department person or persons that you met with? A. There was a guy named Paul. Q. Do you recall the last name? A. Paul Isaacs. Q. Isaacs? A. Yes. Christine. Anyway, the management of the State Department for the high threat protection office. Q. Christine? A. I think it was Christine. Q. Do you recall her last name? A. No. Q. So you met with these two people on one occasion? A. And a few others. Q. Who were the few others? A. I don't know. Q. Who came with you to the meeting? A. It could be the programme management of the company. I mean the company's programme management folks. Sometimes Gary Jackson. Yes, that's pretty much it. Q. Did you ever meet with the State Department when Gary Jackson wasn't with you? A. I don't know. Q. This first meeting where you met with Paul Isaacs and Christine and some others, what was the topic of the meeting, topic of discussion at the meeting? A. I don't remember. Q. What precipitated the meeting? A. Well some of them, they just wanted to meet me, so they wanted the meet the leadership and management and ownership even of their various members. Q. So they asked you to come in? A. Mmmm. Q. I'm sorry you have to -A. Yes. Q. And then the next meeting that you had with the State Department, who did you meet with at the State Department? A. It could have been the same people. It could have been different people. It was, you know, a mix of overseers and contract folks. Q. Who else do you recall meeting with at the State Department? A. I don't remember. Q. Are those the only two names you remember from the State Department? A. Yes.

Q. So those are the -- this is one of your major customers and those are the only two names you remember? A. Yes. Q. Are you familiar with the name Paul Desilotes? A. He must have worked there if you're bringing it up. Q. My question is whether you're familiar with it, though? A. Sure the name rings a bell. Q. Do you recognise it? Had I asked it in a different context, would you have recognised it as a State Department name? A. I would have recognised it as a guy that works for the government. Whether he worked for DoD or who, I'm not sure. Q. Do you know Jamie Steve Rogers? A. Steve Rogers. I think he was a contracts guy. Q. When you say a contracts guy, meaning a State Department employee that handled contracts? A. Correct. Q. Did you ever meet with him? A. He could have been present at one of those meetings too. Q. What about David Satterfield? A. I don't remember him. Q. Margaret Scobe? A. I don't remember her. Q. John Frese? A. Oh wait. Back up. Satterfield. He might have been -- well, they were people at the Embassy. I think Satterfield was. The US Embassy, Baghdad. John Frese was the RSO. Q. Regional security officer? A. Yes. Q. And John Frese was the RSO in Baghdad? A. That's the only place I met him, so yes. Q. And did you meet him -- you met him there -A. Yes. Q. -- at Baghdad? A. On occasion. Q. And just to be clear, when I was asking you about meetings with the State Department I actually meant to include any part of the State Department. So did you have, in addition to the two to four meetings you had with the State Department, does that include the meetings you had in Baghdad? A. No, there'd be more because if I visited -- you know, when I visited the guys in Iraq, I would stop through and, you know, check the RSO. Q. So you would repeatedly call on the RSO in Baghdad? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: Generally, whenever I would visit the country, I would stop in and see the RSO. BY MS BURKE: Q. And how often did you visit Iraq, Mr Prince? A. I don't remember. A lot. Q. A lot meaning once a month, twice a month, once every other month? Can you give a little more? A. Maybe three times a year, four times a year, something like that. Q. Did you bring Mr Jackson with you on every trip you made to Baghdad? A. No, no. In fact, I don't think we ever travelled overseas together. Q. Was that by design? A. I think so, yes. I mean, in my absence he would be able to continue on if I was taken out. Q. What did you -- did you have a particular pattern to your trips to Baghdad? Would you hold a meeting with all the people? We know you always went to see the RSO, correct? A. Sure. I'd join in an all-hands meeting with -Q. That's the word I was looking for. A. -- people that were present, talk to them, take questions, encourage them, thank them for their service. Q. Did you ever go out on any operations? A. No. That wouldn't have been permitted. I had not gone through the WPPS qualification training, so I would not have done one of their movements. Q. Now, you have -- in the Vanity Fair article you talked about working for the CIA as well, correct? A. Well, the Vanity Fair article may speak to that, yes.

Q. My question was, I thought you said that in the Vanity Fair article. Am I mistaken? A. As the New York Times has disclosed repeatedly, there was various classified programmes that I may or may not have been involved in, but a certain presence or participation had been leaked by someone in the US government. Q. Mr Prince, did you ever go out on operations in Baghdad that were not WPPS operations? MR BEIZER: Can I have a proffer as to where this is going and how this could lead to admissible evidence? This is about the WPPS contract. What has this got to do with it? MS BURKE: I'm trying to understand how Mr Prince ran his business, and I'm trying to assess the credibility of information I've been given about him going out on operations. His answer to this may reveal where that comes from. MR BEIZER: (To the witness) Go ahead and answer. THE WITNESS: I might have ridden a company helicopter to another one of the cities where there were other company personnel present to drop in and visit them due to the nature of driving on the roads would have been much more dangerous. I don't think that's considered an operation. That's a logistics move. BY MS BURKE: Q. So you rode in helicopters on occasion? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever give your direct permission or input in any way on an operation? Excuse me, on a WPPS operation? A. No, I don't believe I did. Q. Do you recall being asked whether the men on the ground -- and let me back up. I say "men on the ground". Did you ever deploy females to Iraq in operational roles? A. The company may have deployed some females as a canine handler or as a medic, but I'm not sure of all the other rules they may or may not have had. I think there were some in those roles. Q. And so when I refer to men I'm encompassing those few women as well to the extent that that's relevant. Do you recall being asked by -- being asked by your men in the field about permission to use the company helicopters in the -- and I may mispronounce this -- the Najeff situation? A. That was during the CPA days. There was no State Department contract or anything then. That was all straight DoD. Q. Were you hired by DoD? A. Well, the company was hired by the CPA, which at that point was a DoD-only function. Q. So this is the precursor to WPPS? A. Correct. Q. And on that occasion did your men in the field call you directly to ask your permission to use the helicopters? A. Well, they asked for resupply because the facility was under attack, and they asked if we could -- and that was -- I think that was four or five days after the guys had been ambushed and murdered in Falluja, and so that was the first part of April '04, and the Mactartarsartus people attacked the CPA facility in Najeff. I think they initiated that day by grabbing an El Salvadorian soldier, stuffing a grenade in his mouth and blowing him up. We had eight guys there as a small PSD team for the senior CPA guy, and there was a lot of people with AKs, and I presume starting attacking the facility and shooting at it, and our guys went up to the roof with a few other after-duty US soldiers that were there and defended their position. And during the course of that there was a marine that was shot through. I think his name was Corporal Wanny Young. He needed evacuation, Medivac, and no military helicopters would come because they said it was too hot. And so between the guys doing resupply and this marine needing to get to the hospital, the guys called and asked if they could send helicopters down there. Q. And they called you personally? A. Well, they asked the -- you know, there was the ground side doing the PSD stuff, and then there was the air side. We had three helicopters in the country then contracted to do the CPA or the support for Ambassador Bremer, and they -- so they asked the in-country air guy, and he wasn't going to send the helicopters into an area where there was heavy fighting without permission because at that point we were self-insured, so any risk to not just the men but the helicopters, would have fallen back on the company, and they wanted approval from senior management, from the people that owned the helicopters. And so they called and said, "Yes, go support the guys". Q. And just, when you say "senior management", the people that own the helicopters, they wanted your okay before they proceeded, correct? A. Correct, and they got permission from the -- I think they actually, they got permission from Ambassador Bremer as well, so...

Q. Mr Prince, other than that particular occasion, do you recall being called to give your express approval on any other occasion? A. No, I don't remember. Q. And so that was somewhat aberrational? It was the only time you remember? A. Yes. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you -THE WITNESS: Incidentally, Corporal Young was awarded the Silver Star and there was no other -- well, there was one other casualty but he recovered as well, so the boys did well that day. The guy that we evacuated was awarded the Silver Star, but a marine got it for valour that day. BY MS BURKE: Q. You say -- you refer to "the boys". Who were the men that were involved in that mission? A. I don't remember. Q. Did you know at the time? A. No. Q. Does the name Ben Thomas mean anything to you? A. No. Q. You don't know Ben Thomas? A. No. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you a document, a photograph that we'll mark as Exhibit 8. (Exhibit 8 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, you've been handed a photograph marked as Exhibit 8. Is that you in the centre? A. That is me in the middle. Q. Do you recognise the two men on either side of you? A. No. Q. Do you know where this was taken? A. It looks likes it was in the hanger on Washington LZ. Q. Where is Washington LZ? A. It's right across the street from the US Embassy Baghdad, and it's where the helicopters that we flew to support the State Department mission were kept and maintained and kept out of the sand. It's where I'd typically do all-hands meetings because it was at least big enough that we could close the doors and have some level of quiet from the helicopters and all the rest of the noise. Q. Can you tell from the badges on the men whether these are your employees or State Department employees? A. I can't tell at all. Q. And you can't tell by -- you don't recognise them? A. No. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you what we'll mark as Exhibit 9. (Exhibit 9 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, on Exhibit 9 first do you recognise the equipment? Is that your helicopter? A. It would appear to be, yes. Q. And what about the gentleman in the photograph? Is that somebody you know? A. No. Q. What about the canisters that he has on his vest? Do you know what's in those canisters? A. Those would probably be signalling grenades, smoke grenades. Q. Was one -A. Or one might be a -- I think the bigger one, the green one, is probably a smoke, and the other one might be a thermite grenade. I'm not sure. They could be smokes, could be thermites. Q. And you permitted your men to carry the thermites and the smoke grenades, correct? A. Well, certainly if the helicopter went down or if there was a unit that was in attack, the smoke grenade was designed for signalling or for screening to break contact with the people that are attacking them, and the thermite grenade was to destroy any sensitive equipment so it wouldn't fall into the hands of the enemy, both of which don't blow up. Actually, the smoke grenade just makes a lot of smoke, and the thermite grenade just burns very hot straight down. They are non-frag producing. Q. Is that a "yes", sir? Is that a "yes" to my question? A. I don't know what the policy or procedure was for the guys carrying smokes or thermites or whatever. Q. My question was whether you permitted your guys to carry those grenades. Did you permit the men to carry smoke and thermite grenades? A. I say, again, I don't know what the company policy was.

Q. Setting aside the policy, though, did you give approval and permission for the men to be wearing that kind of gear? A. Well, the vest he's wearing looks like it was either government or company issued. Q. I'm sorry -A. The weapon was certainly government issued. The grenades are -- I don't know where they would have come from, and I don't know what the company policy was for the carriage of either smoke grenades, signalling grenades, thermite grenades or whatever. I don't know what the policy was. It has to do with whatever the arming agreement was with the State Department. Q. Okay. And so you did not -- you did not give blanket permission for the men to carry smoke and thermite grenades, correct? A. I say again I don't know what the company's policy was or the State Department's policy was for the carriage of that kind of material. Q. Okay. A. End of statement. Q. And that's what I'm just trying to make sure. The only thing that you ever did was to tell them to follow whatever was in the company policy? A. Or the State Department policy. Q. Okay. And, as you sit here today, you don't know whether the company policy or the State Department policy let them carry those kind of grenades? A. I don't know that, correct. Q. And you don't know where that equipment came from? A. Typically, the sensitive stuff was issued by the -- earlier by the military or then by the State Department. Q. Did you ever -- did you and your companies ever buy grenades? A. I don't know. Q. Who would know that? A. Well, I do know we bought signalling grenades. Not signalling. Practice grenades for doing the qualification courses as part of the stuff dictated by the State Department. Q. Okay, so you do know that grenades, signalling grenades were bought domestically for training in the A. No, no. Q. -- United States? A. Sorry, they were not signalling grenades. They were -- it's -- an M203 practice grenade is nothing but a metal slug that comes out with a big ball of orange talcum powder. Q. So it's like a fig grenade? A. Yes, you just see where it hits in a big poof of orange powder. Q. And so you know that your companies bought those practice grenades, correct? A. Well, I saw the guys training with them. I don't know who bought them, whether it was issued by the State Department or acquired by us. Q. If you're out there and you see this practice grenade being used in training and you want to find out, "Oh, did we buy that or did the State Department buy that?", who would you go to for the answer, back in the '04/'05 time frame? A. Probably someone in the procurement or logistics side of the house. Q. A name please? A. I don't know. Q. Can you give me any names on the logistics side of the house? A. No, I don't remember that. It's a long time ago. Q. Well, you're still running -- the companies are still being run now, right? They're still in existence? A. Correct. Q. Do you know who the current procurement people are? A. I know a guy named Todd Shaw runs procurement now. Q. Do you recall when he joined the companies? A. Within the last couple of years. Q. Now, if you are in Baghdad and you're at your all-hands meeting, you see the men wearing these grenades and you want to find out -A. They wouldn't come to those meetings all dressed up ready for -- ready for work. Q. When you went to Baghdad, did you ever see any of the men dressed as you see in picture Exhibit 9? A. Sure. I saw some of them with the ballistic vests and the mag pouches on them, sure. Q. Did you ever see any of your men carrying grenades? A. That's something I don't remember specifically, what their load-out was.

Q. When you say load-out, that is a reference to how they're equipped? A. Correct. Q. Now, had you been in Iraq and had you seen the men loaded out with grenades and you wanted to find out whether you bought them or whether the State Department bought them, who would you go to in Iraq to find out the answer to that question? A. That's unclear as well because the State Department or the company could have bought them in the States and shipped them out on the State Department's logistics' channel. Q. It's a slightly more simple question, though, Mr Prince. I'm just asking you to what human being would you go to find out the information on where those grenades came from? You said you don't know whether you bought them or not and I'm trying to figure out -A. So in my answer that is, if the in-country manager, if they arrive on a shipment, a logistics' shipment from the State Department, is it company stuff or is it State Department procured stuff? I don't know. Q. I know you don't know but who would you ask? If you're trying to trace down -A. The in-country manager. Q. Okay, and so you would ask the -A. The in-country manager -Q. -- in-country manager -A. -- or the logistics person back in... Redacted Page 236 BY MS BURKE: Q. Do you remember the name Danny Carroll? A. The name is familiar to me now, yes. Q. Did he hold that role? A. I don't know if he was the programme manager or the deputy, but I do remember he was part of it. Q. And what do you remember as his role? A. Liaising with the State Department, organising the WPPS in-country operations. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you a photograph marked as Exhibit 10 and another photograph marked as Exhibit 11. (Exhibits 10 and 11 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. I'm handing you a photograph marked as Exhibit 10. Do you recognise that man? A. No. Q. If you look down at the bottom here, can you identify what equipment he is loaded out with? A. Well, it looks like a Glock pistol. Q. I'm going to hand you what's marked as Exhibit 11. I believe one of the people is the same but there are two other men. Do you recognise either of the two men in that photo, or any of the three men in that photograph? A. No. Q. And in terms of the equipment, if I may point at something? (Indicating) MR BEIZER: I'm sorry, what were you pointing to? MS BURKE: I'm pointing to the... BY MS BURKE: Q. Would you explain to me what the gentleman in the middle is loaded out with, and particularly what the red rope is used for? A. It could be some kind of a safety strap. If he was serving as a door gunner on one of the helicopters, it would secure themselves to the helicopter. Q. Thank you. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you what we'll mark as Exhibit 12. (Exhibit 12 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, do you recognise that building? A. No. Q. So that's not a villa that you rented? A. I'm not familiar with that at all. Q. And, to the best of your knowledge, it's not a site where your men were? A. That's the first I've ever seen that picture. Q. Okay. Did you do a search, a personnel search, before you hired Mr Yorio? A. We use an executive search firm. Q. Which firm is that?

A. I can't remember. Q. How many people applied for the position? A. It was probably -- I think I got ten or twelve resumis. Q. And did you -- how many people did you personally interview for the job? A. Probably six. That's a guess. Q. Who participated with you in the selection process, if anyone? A. Gary interviewed some of them. I interviewed all of them with the headhunters. And then the final three or four candidates interviewed around with some of the other senior management that are down there. Q. Who? A. Mike, Fred. Q. Mike Taylor and Fred Roitz? A. Yes. Danielle. Q. Danielle Morrison/Esposito? A. (No response) Q. Anyone else? A. And I don't remember any of the others. They could have. I'm not sure. Q. Was it a group process to select Mr Yorio or is it something that you made the decision on your own? A. On that one I pretty much took the lead, but it was -- you know, it was, I'd say, overall a consensus decision. Q. How has Mr Yorio performed since you brought him on board? A. He's doing the job. Q. Do you trust him? A. In most areas. I haven't developed the long personal relationship with him that I have with the other guys. MS BURKE: I'm going to put on the record what we'll mark as Exhibit 13, and it's the United States indictment in the weapons case. MR BEIZER: In the weapons case? (Exhibit 13 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, I'm going to hand you what we've marked as Exhibit 13 but, first, I want to ask you,have you read the indictment of Gary Jackson, William Mathews, Andrew Howell, Ron Slezak and Ana Bundy? MR BEIZER: Same instruction not to answer to the extent the answer would reveal any reading in front of with, by with, or counsel. Other than that you can answer. THE WITNESS: I did. I read it when it came out. BY MS BURKE: Q. Was there anything in the indictment that you disagree with? A. Well, I believe they're innocent until proven guilty. Q. I recognise that's the legal standard, sir, but what I'm asking you is something slightly different. You were the owner of these companies where these acts are alleged to have occurred. When you read the indictment, did you believe that the acts had been described properly or did you disagree with the way the government had described the actions of your management team? A. Do I disagree with the indictments? Yes, and I believe they'll be found innocent. Q. And do you disagree with the factual information that is set forth in the indictment papers? A. Having read it four months ago, I don't know -- you know, the detail line-by-line. Q. I'm going to direct your attention to one particular -- one particular issue, and it involves Mr Andrew Howell and Ana Bundy. And I will give you this to read, but if you would read the obstruction of justice at page 15? There's four paragraphs that describe Mr Howell and Ms Bundy attempting to have Mr Yorio backdate a letter. (Same handed to the witness) A. Paragraph 4 you said? Q. It's those four paragraphs. It's page 15. It's under the heading Obstruction of Justice? A. (Witness reviewed the document) You want me to read from paragraph 4? Q. No. Paragraphs -- do you see the heading Obstruction of Justice? A. Right. Q. And then there's four statements of fact by the government 1, 2, 3, 4? A. Okay. Q. And those four paragraphs describe an incident in which Mr Howell and Ms Bundy brought Mr Yorio a letter to be backdated. MR BEIZER: And when you say "statements of fact", counsel, you mean allegations, right? MS BURKE: The government's statement of facts.

THE WITNESS: What they hope to prove to be facts. MS BURKE: Well, that's going to be my question to you, sir. MR BEIZER: You know -BY MS BURKE: Q. Have you had an opportunity to read those? A. So I read these four things and -Q. And my question is this. Have you spoken to Mr Yorio about the information that's in the indictment about Mr Howell and Ms Bundy approaching him to backdate a letter? A. No, I have not discussed that with Yorio. Q. Why not? A. I don't know. Q. As between Mr Yorio's version of events and Mr Howell and Ms Bundy's version of events, do you side with one or the other? A. Again, I don't know all the events that happened. This is the government's side of the case. I've never even heard Andy Howell's or Ana Bundy's side of things, so I'll say I don't know and I haven't delved into the issues since there are a whole lot of highly paid federal employees who are doing their best to dig into it themselves. Q. So you haven't looked into the -- you haven't looked into this obstruction of justice incident at all, personally? A. Well, it was not really my role to. Q. But what I'm trying to understand, sir, is, you have previously testified you have complete faith in Mr Howell and you've also testified you have faith in Mr Yorio. The two of them have conflicting views on what happened. And am I understanding your testimony correctly that you're standing on the side lines, you're not taking a position, you're not siding with either one, and you haven't informed yourself at all about the underlying facts? MR BEIZER: Objection. Compound. THE WITNESS: You know what? If there was a traffic accident outside and you asked five different people who were standing there watching the event happen, you would get five different versions of the same episode. So, like I said, I haven't dug into the who said, he said, what said. BY MS BURKE: Q. And just to carry your analogy further, though. This is a traffic accident that's happening in your company by people you employ and you haven't talked to any of them? A. Well, after this incident Andy Howell decided to leave the company. It was -- like Bill Mathews, the amount of scrutiny, it was time to make a change. Usually when -- you know, it's my understanding, as it was explained by various outside counsels, that when enough pressure is put on an organisation, the federal regulators expect the management team to be changed, so Andy then departed the company shortly after this happened. Q. Shortly after -A. Well, shortly after -Q. -- the indictment or shortly after the incident that's described in the indictment? A. Within some weeks or months after this happened. Q. After the incident happened? A. Yes. Q. So you were aware of the incident before the indictment came down? A. I was aware of other federal agents wanting to come to the facility for some auditor visit or something. Q. Let me just make sure I'm understanding, Mr Prince. Did Mr Yorio call you or contact you in any way and tell you that Mr Howell had just asked him to backdate a document and he had refused to do so? A. I remember Yorio calling and saying that there was some visit by the ATF, some kind of inspection, and there'd been some disagreement as to the outcome of that inspection with Andy. Q. Mr Yorio told you he was having a disagreement with Andy about what should be done? A. I think so. Q. And did Mr Yorio explain to you that Andy wanted him to phoney up the record? A. I don't remember any discussion like that. Q. What did Mr Yorio tell you it was that Andy Howell wanted him to do? A. I don't remember. Q. And did you encourage Mr Yorio to do what it was that Mr Howell wanted him to do? A. I didn't make a recommendation either way. Q. What did you tell Mr Yorio?

A. Comply with the law. Q. You used those words with him? A. I don't know. It was probably that sense of it. Q. Were you in -- were you in McLean when you got this call from Mr Yorio? A. I'm not sure. Q. Were you physically in the same room with him? A. No, I don't think I was on the compound at all. Q. So this was on the telephone? A. Probably a cell phone. Q. And you just don't remember where you were? A. No. Q. Was it just you and Mr Yorio on the phone? A. Again, I don't know. Q. And that was just -- how long ago did this happen? A. By the dates on there, it was March 26 of '09. Q. Did Mr Howell call you alerting you that he was having a disagreement with Mr Yorio? A. I don't remember. Q. You dealt a lot directly with Mr Howell and had done so for years, right? A. No, I actually dealt very little with him directly. Q. And then what was the basis of your trust in him? A. He was a good and decent family man. Oddly enough, he was an upper classman of mine at the Naval Academy. COURT REPORTER: You'll have to say that again. "Oddly enough he was"? THE WITNESS: Oddly enough he was an upper classman of mine at the Naval Academy. So my freshman year. He was in the same company so... It turns out when he was hired I found out who it was and then I recognised that he would have been a senior classmate of mine at the Academy so... BY MS BURKE: Q. What did you mean by describing him as a good and decent family man? A. He was a -- you know, he seemed -- I met his wife and family. He seemed to be a calm and steady unexcitable guy. Q. Other than talking to Mr Yorio, do you recall talking to anybody else about this conflict between Mr Yorio and Mr Howell? A. No. Q. You know that you did not? A. I don't know that I did not but I don't remember. Q. You don't remember one way or the other? A. No. Q. Do you remember Mr Yorio telling you that he was going to cooperate with the federal government and inform them about what Mr Howell had done? A. Yes, I would say that would be consistent with, you know, follow the law and cooperate with the feds. Q. And so now, Mr Prince, after you learned from Mr Yorio that, in his view, Mr Howell was trying to have him falsify a record, did you begin to have any concerns about whether Mr Howell had engaged in similar conduct in other matters? A. Again, not knowing the details of that incident, one blip like this may cause concern but certainly not a collapse of confidence. Q. So Mr Howell continues to retain your confidence, even today? A. He is innocent until proven guilty and I believe he will be found innocent. Q. That's a different question though, Mr Prince. What I'm asking is are you confident in Mr Howell? Are you personally confident that Mr Howell didn't falsify any documents while he was in your employ? A. I don't know that he did or didn't, but I am quite confident that would not be in keeping with what he had been doing as was his practice as a lawyer. Q. Mr Prince, you talked about not knowing the details. Was there any impediment to you finding out the details of this incident? Did anybody refuse to talk to you? A. Well, because of the nature of the federal interest in all this, I was advised by other counsel -- I asked them. I said, "Look, is this something that the rest of the company should be digging into?" And he said, no, because, you know, "Don't make it appear you're trying to affect any outcomes or influence anything", so I stayed away from them. MS BURKE: We're going to take a brief break. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 2:42 p.m. (A short recess at 2:42 p.m.) (Resumed at 2:51 p.m.)

VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 2:51 p.m. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, before the break we were talking about the indictment of your top management team on these weapons smuggling charges and you said that you had been advised by your lawyers not to talk to anyone directly? A. I don't think it was weapon smuggling charges, was it? Q. Well, whatever characterisation you want to use is fine, but the indictment that you have before you as Exhibit 13? A. Okay. Q. Other than -- other than stepping out of it personally, did you engage anyone to go and find out what had really happened? A. As part of the company's ongoing cooperation with the DoJ, Lee Rubin, who was the lead outside counsel, went and did a detailed investigation. Q. Did he give you a report on that investigation? A. I think so. Q. And was it a written report or an oral report? A. I think he gave me a verbal report. It was over the phone. Q. A verbal report. When did he give you that report? A. Some days or weeks after the event in question happened. Q. I'm sorry, just so the record is clear, when you say "the event in question happened", are you referring to -A. This would be the March 2009 claim of Andy Howell. Q. Okay. So you're not talking about the issuance of the indictment? You're talking about the incident itself? A. Correct. Q. What did Mr Rubin tell you he and his colleagues had found? MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer that question. MS BURKE: Grounds? MR BEIZER: Attorney/client privilege. MS BURKE: I think we have another disagreement. Do you want to confer? MR BEIZER: I do not want to confer. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, what did Mr Rubin tell you he had found out? MR BEIZER: Again, the same instruction. Instruct the witness not to answer. Same basis. THE WITNESS: I concur with him. BY MS BURKE: Q. It's not a question of you concurring. Are you going to follow his instruction? A. Of course. Q. Other than Mr Rubin's investigation, did you -- did you get information from anybody else that related to Mr Howell's attempt to backdate a letter? MR BEIZER: Alleged attempt to backdate a letter. Form of the question. THE WITNESS: Well, again, he was the lead outside counsel. It was his task to investigate it. And he is a very trusted and capable lawyer and he provided the information. BY MS BURKE: Q. And you're referring to Mr Rubin? A. Correct. Q. The agreements you have in place with Mr Jackson, Mr Howell, Ms Bundy and the others, in which you continue to pay for their legal fees and pay severance, does that require them to appear at depositions? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know what the terms of the agreement provide in terms of cooperation? A. I have no idea. Q. You've seen the agreements, you just don't remember? A. Multi-page agreements signed years ago. I don't, no. Q. Have you asked Mr Jackson whether he would be willing to sit for a deposition in this case pursuant to a notice? A. We've never discussed either of this together. Q. Did you ever -A. Although I will say that we discussed that he's met with his lawyer and he is very confident of his defence team and his exoneration.

MS BURKE: I'll strike that as non-responsive. BY MS BURKE: Q. There was no question pending, Mr Prince. A. Well, you said if I've ever discussed this with Mr Jackson, this legal case with Mr Jackson, and so I was Q. I asked whether you had talked to him about sitting for a deposition so... It's fine. You can add gratuitous commentary, but I have to move to strike it so that later it doesn't come into the court's proceeding. A. I think it was germane because you said deposition or case or whatever, so I -MR BEIZER: Whatever. BY MS BURKE: Q. Do you have the ability to require Mr Jackson to show up for a meeting? A. He is a free citizen. Q. I understand that but you have some kind of financial relationship with him, some kind of agreement with him. As you sit here today, do you understand yourself as free to require Mr Jackson to show up to a meeting as part of your agreement? A. I don't understand my ability to require him to show up anywhere. Q. You don't know the terms of the agreement on that? A. No. Q. And who maintains those contracts? Would those be something that we should get from Christian? A. Yes, I would say he probably has them. Q. Does he have such a contract with you as well, Christian? A. He has an employment agreement in place but he's not been on as long and, due to the nature of selling the business, it would be more of a completion bonus at the termination of a transaction. Q. Are there any others, besides those you've already testified about, who have this type of long-term severance arrangement? A. I think Mike Taylor, Fred Roitz, Chris Burgess, and there's one or two other guys that may have left the company voluntarily but... Q. Who are those? A. I think Jeff Gibson did, but I'm not sure. Q. He was head of international training? A. I think so. Q. Do you recall who else had that type of agreement? A. That's all I can think of right now. Q. And Mike Taylor, Fred Roitz and Chris Burgess are all still on board with you, correct? A. Yes. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you an excerpt from Miss Simon's book. (Same handed) MR BEIZER: What number is this? MS BURKE: I'm sorry, we'll mark this as Exhibit 14. (Exhibit 14 marked for identification) MR BEIZER: Counsel, do you know how many pages the whole book is? We've got a copy of double pages of 1 -MS BURKE: I can get the book if you would like. I have it in the other room. MR BEIZER: -- 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 pages, something like that. If you would, just so we -MS BURKE: Sure. MR BEIZER: -- have the context of it at all. MS BURKE: Yes, that's no problem. Give me a second. Do you need this before we begin the questioning or shall I just grab it at the next break? MR BEIZER: I don't know because I don't know what the questions are, so it's probably better to -MS BURKE: Okay, I'll go grab it. We're off the record. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 2:59 p.m. (A short recess at 2:59 p.m.) (Resumed at 3:01 p.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 3:01 p.m. MS BURKE: The book has 279 pages and I'll leave it here on the table if anyone wants to refer to the whole book. BY MS BURKE: Q. My question about what I gave you, she purports to reproduce an e-mail from a State Department person, and I wanted to know whether you know what State Department person wrote that e-mail? A. Well, having read ahead in our break here, I see that there's commentary from Steve Rogers, so I imagine that's who it was from. Q. Do you know that, though? I want to just pin down whether you actually know. First, did you provide a copy of this e-mail to Miss Simons?

A. No. Q. Did someone in your companies provide it? A. I don't know. Q. And I understand that you and your companies cooperated and provided Miss Simons access, some degree of access to your operations? A. Provided her some access under the premise that the book was going to be on the industry at large, and then it became more about the company, and then ultimately she wrote it about me so... Q. When -A. When we cooperated it was under the premise that it was on the industry at large. Q. So, in a sense, you feel that you were duped by Miss Simons? A. Well, she changed the focus of the book -Q. And had you known -A. -- mid-stream. Q. Sorry, go ahead? A. She changed the focus of the book mid-stream. Q. Did she alert you that she was changing the focus of the book? A. After the interviews were already done. Q. Had you known the focus of the book, would you have cooperated? A. No. Q. Did you or people in your employ provide her some amount of documentation? A. I don't know. Q. And who would -A. No-one would have been directed to, I don't think. Q. Were people directed not to? A. After we figured out -- well, after it became apparent that it was more about me, then definitely the phone calls weren't returned. Q. So at some point you gave a directive not to cooperate with Miss Simons? A. Yes. Q. And that was after she had already conducted extensive interviews of your employees? A. Say again one more time? Q. That was after she had already conducted extensive interviews of your employees? A. Interviews of a few employees and she came to Afghanistan and saw some of the operations there. Q. And she interviewed you as well? A. Yes. Q. Now, I did, as you did, and read that her next reference on the State Department on page 171 was to Steve Rogers, but I wanted to see whether you knew for certain whether Mr Rogers was the person that wrote this e-mail? A. No. Q. I thought perhaps you may have recall? A. I cannot, sitting here today, tell you that he wrote that e-mail. Q. Okay. Do you have recall that you saw that e-mail when whoever it was at the State Department wrote it to your company? A. No. Q. And poor questioning on my part. You don't recall one way or the other or you know for certain you did not see it? A. I don't recall one way or the other. Q. Did you review Miss Simons' book to ascertain whether the quotations she attributed to you were accurate? A. No, not at all. Q. I may ask you about some of them later, if time permits, but I take it at this point that they may or may not be. You haven't looked at them, correct? A. Correct. Q. The personnel in Moyock who were handling the WPPS operations, my understanding is that there was a Valerie Hoover involved in recruiting, is that correct? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know any of the personnel beyond the upper management? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. Do you know any? MS BURKE: Yes.

BY MS BURKE: Q. I mean, like, are there some people...... Redacted Page 264 ..... did you have org charts in your possession? A. I had them from time to time but I -- I didn't keep them on file. I pretty much -- I remember who was where. Q. Did you ever consider changing the status of the men from independent contractor to employee? MR BEIZER: I'm sorry, could you repeat that question? BY MS BURKE: Q. Did you ever consider changing the status of the men from independent contractors to employees? A. There are different business advantages to each one of those models and we explored what all those options were. Q. At present are they still independent contractors? A. I don't know. I don't know if they're ICEs or -- I think they're called casual employees. Q. You believe now they're called casual employees? A. No. I said that there's two approaches to doing that, as independent contractors or as casual employees. Q. And you don't currently know -A. I'm not sure what that status has switched to, or if it's switched at all. Q. And that's something Joe Yorio would know? A. Yes. Q. Where does the -- where do your companies buy the guns and ammunition? A. From where? Q. Yes. A. Well, generally from the -- you know, from the manufacturer or from one of their wholesale distributors. Q. Which manufacturers do you buy from? A. A lot of them. Q. What are the names of the wholesale distributors that you use? A. I don't know those names. Q. Do you know the name Lamos? A. No. I think they made some kind of ammunition a long time ago. Q. Did you ever buy any of that ammunition? A. I don't think so. Q. Do you know the kind of ammunition that they made? A. No. Q. Do you know whether your company bought white phosphorous? A. That would be surprising. No, I don't think so. Q. And who would know the answer to that? A. I don't even think we could store that on the property so... Q. So you're sure you didn't buy it? A. I'm not sure. I would doubt that a lot. Q. Did you ever make any efforts to ascertain whether the men deployed in-country were buying white phosphorous and other materials off the black market? A. That's not a tail I've ever heard. I would find it to be very surprising, and impractical as well. Q. But that wasn't my question, sir. A. What's your question? Q. My question is whether you had anyone make any efforts to find out whether the men deployed incountry were buying things off the black market? MR BEIZER: Buying things? MS BURKE: Yes. MR BEIZER: That was not the question. THE WITNESS: What things? BY MS BURKE: Q. White phosphorous, grenades, guns? Weaponry? A. I never had any knowledge of that. I mean, pretty much all our contracts required US weapons, and generally they were government furnished.

Q. I understand that, sir, but my question is whether or not you ever tried to figure out whether the men in-country were buying weaponry off the black market? A. I don't know if there was ever any investigations done for that or not. Q. And now you on occasion, on one occasion you went to Iraq because you were concerned that employees within your company were selling weapons out into the black market, right? A. Well, we did have one internal problem at the company. On an internal audit we found that two former marine and law enforcement officers, named Ken Cashwell and Max Ramo, had been stealing company weapons, selling them illegally, pocketing the money. So we turned that whole package over to ATF. They were prosecuted and convicted, and they've been spinning a lot of nonsense ever since, a lot of tell-tails trying to lighten their sentence. Q. And so it's your testimony that these two gentlemen have been lying about you and your company? A. Absolutely. They were stealing from us. We caught them. And now they're lying trying to lighten the load. Q. When did you -- but those men were not in Iraq when they were selling the weapons, were they? A. They were working in the armoury. Q. In the United States? A. Correct. Q. What I'm asking you about is a situation that came to your attention in Iraq that -- there's a team house in Iraq, correct? A. It's alleged to have come to my attention. I don't know that anything has. Q. Well, that's what I'm trying to find out from you, sir. A. Go ahead. Q. There's a team house in Iraq, right? A. There were lots of team houses. Q. Is there a place where your company stores weapons that's called a team house in Baghdad? A. No. We have no presence in Iraq. Q. In the past, sir, when you were operating in Iraq. You pulled out in '09, correct? A. Yes. Q. So prior to '09, when you lost your license and pulled out, was there a building that was commonly referred to as the team house? MR BEIZER: Objection. No foundation. (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: There were places where we had storage of equipment. Some of it would have been firearms. And, you know, we had armoured vehicles that we ran to and from the Embassy to the airport and we had a small maintenance shop there as well. BY MS BURKE: Q. And was that facility referred to as the team house? A. I knew of it as a team house. There could have been others as well. I don't know. Q. When you say "there could have been others as well", you mean there could have been other facilities owned by you that were referred to as a team house? A. Nothing was owned by us. You could only rent in Iraq. Q. Operated by you? A. Yes. I mean, that was the main one. That was the one I ever visited. Q. And were there other facilities that were commonly referred to as the team house, in Iraq, by your company? A. No. Q. So speaking about that team house, the one in Iraq, did you -- did you become concerned that there was -- the people working in the team house were selling weapons on the black market? A. Did I ever become personally concerned? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. So you never -- you never looked into that at all? A. Did I ever personally investigate it? No, I don't recall ever doing that. Q. And by "personally" meaning did you ever get anyone else to do it for you? I'm not expecting that you did it yourself. A. I think there were some media reports about alleged weapon smuggling or something and, of course, we did an investigation as part of the ongoing compliance programme for the Department State. Q. So the State Department asked you to look into -A. Sure. Q. -- the sale of weapons --

A. Respond -Q. -- on the black market? A. Responding to media reports. Not based on any facts. Just what the media were reporting. Q. Okay. I want to make sure the record is reading clearly, though, because I'm getting a bit confused. At some point you initiated an investigation that was precipitated by a request from the State Department? A. That's possible. At some point the company could have done that because, again, there was media reports. The State Department sees that and says, "Hey, tell us everything you know about that". So the company initiates an investigation. I don't remember personally giving direction for any such investigation. Q. That was going to be my question because "could have" is not -- I need to know whether it had happened or not. Do you know whether it happened or not? A. No. Well, do I know that the custody procedures of inventorying guns in Iraq was investigated and enhanced? Yes. Q. Okay. All right. And so there was some investigation initiated by the State Department? A. Well, it was -- it was initiated by the company at the request of the State Department. Q. Okay. And so what exactly did the State Department ask you to do? A. I don't know the details of that. Q. What you do recall is that there was some level of investigation undertaken and, as a result of that, the custody procedures for the weaponry were enhanced? A. Yes. I think there was more regular inventory reports sent back and there were some other changes made. I don't know the detail of those. Q. What type of record-keeping was kept on the use of ammunition in Iraq by your companies? A. I've no idea. Q. Who would know the answer to that? A. Probably someone that worked in finance because that would have been an expendable. Q. Other than financial tracking, was there any on-the-ground record-keeping in Iraq of the amount of ammunition that was used by the men? A. With the WPPS contracts there was regular in-country training that was required. Q. I'm not talking about -A. And so -Q. -- training, sir. A. So there would have been consumption of that ammunition for those training purposes. Q. My question, sir, is different though. I'm trying to understand what record-keeping was done on the ammunition. Was there a tracking of the amount of ammunition that was being used, regardless of for that purpose? A. As I recall, it was similar to what the military's tracking programme was for ammunition. Q. So there was tracking? A. I think so. I'm not sure. Q. And this is tracking by accounts and written documents? A. I don't know. Again, I don't know what the -Q. You don't know, okay. So who would you direct me to to get a full understanding of the tracking of the ammunition that was done, if any, in Iraq during the WPPS era? A. Someone in the logistics area. You could ask Todd Shaw. He'd probably send you in the right direction. Q. Was Todd Shaw in Iraq? A. No. Q. Can you give me the name of someone who was in Iraq that had first-hand knowledge of the tracking that I could speak to? A. Of the logistics function? No, I don't know who that would be. Q. You don't remember? A. I don't remember. Q. But you knew at the time, I take it? A. Not necessarily. I mean, did I know who was issuing stuff at a warehouse or keeping track of bottles of water? No, I didn't have that level of clarity. Q. I was talking about the ammunition, not water. A. It's a logistics function. Food, water, mo. Ammunition; mo. Food, water, mo. Q. Who do you view as most responsible for having overseen or supervised the billing of the United States government on WPPS? A. Who do I oversee as the most responsible? That would be a combination of the WPPS programme management team and the finance team.

Q. So please give me the names of the people that you put in that category? A. Fred Roitz, Mike Taylor, Vick or Danielle Esposito. You go with the contract. You figure out what is doable and what's -- you know, you submit the invoices. Q. How often was the company invoicing State Department on WPPS? A. I don't know. Probably monthly. I don't think it was quarterly. Q. You think it was monthly? A. That's a guess. Q. Who were the personnel responsible for oversight of billing Homeland Security on the Louisiana, the Katrina contracts? A. It would be like Shamus Flatly. He was the programme manager for that. Q. Is he still with you? A. No. Q. Anybody else? A. I don't know any of the other employees that were on that, and then there would certainly be people in finance. Q. People in finance meaning Fred Roitz? A. Well, if it was a contract issue, and Mike Taylor being the finance and the CFO. Q. So Mike Taylor? A. Sure. Q. Did you fire Shamus Flatly? A. No. Q. When did he leave? A. About a year -- about a year ago, a year and two months. Q. Do you know whether or not you ever had any performance problems with him? A. No, he was a fantastic guy. Q. Do you still keep in touch with him? A. Probably once a quarter. Q. Where does he live? A. I still think he's in Southern Virginia. Q. Why did he leave? A. He was going to focus on some naval aviation programme. That's his background. He's a pilot. His family is legendary in the naval aviation community. (Court reporter interruption) His father is the only one to have landed a C-130 on an aircraft carrier. That's impressive. MS BURKE: Move to strike. THE WITNESS: Come on, that's a cool story. MS BURKE: I know it is, sir, but I'm sorry, it's still not in response to a question, so it needs to be struck. THE WITNESS: It was her question. BY MS BURKE: Q. Did you ever write in and tell the company people not to bill for any of the operator's time? A. Not to bill? Q. Yes. For example, the Nisour Square shooting, did you bill the government for that? A. I don't know. Q. So you didn't write in and say, "Hey, guys, don't bill the government for the Nisour Square shooting"? A. I don't remember whether we billed for that day for those guys or not. Q. But do you remember whether you ever weighed in on that issue? Do you remember even thinking about that? A. I don't remember. Q. Did it ever cross your mind to not bill for it? A. No, I believe they were doing their job. Q. And you hold that view today? A. I believe they were doing their job. I think they abided the rule, the use of force continuum, and, you know, I don't think all the evidence has come out on their behalf yet either, so, in my mind, they are still innocent until proven guilty. Q. But setting aside the legal standard of being innocent until proven guilty, as you sit here today do you personally believe that the Nisour Square shooters were acting properly? A. Well, plenty of people would say that they were not. You know, I put that in context of what happened to the guys operating there in the previous week. I think September 16th was a Sunday. So the previous Sunday or Monday we had a helicopter shot down.

Q. Does that then -A. And then two days later an EFV goes off, takes the front end of the vehicle, puts two guys in the hospital. And then, two days after that, another one was ambushed, which injured some guys. And that day starts with a suicide car bomb that blows up a venue where they're protecting a State Department, an AID official. The Iraqi guards flee the facility and, you know, the support team is called to secure one of the intersections so that their team can move through the traffic circle quickly, and... Any innocent loss of life is always a tragedy. We've lost forty-one men doing the work for the US government between Iraq and Afghanistan and, you know, more than 40 thousand missions for the State Department and no-one under our care was ever killed or injured so... MS BURKE: Move to strike. (To the court reporter) Can you read the question back to the witness? THE WITNESS: I'll keep answering that way. COURT REPORTER: "Q. But setting aside the legal standard of being innocent until proven guilty, as you sit here today do you personally believe that the Nisour Square shooters were acting properly?" BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, could you answer that question, please? A. I wasn't there so I'm not going to second guess them. Q. Mr Ridgeway was there, correct? A. I don't know. Could be. Q. You know that Mr Ridgeway was one of the Nisour Square shooters? A. I recognise the name, yes. Q. And you know that Mr Ridgeway has put into evidence his view of what happened that day? A. Is he the guy that pled? Q. Yes, he is. A. Okay. Q. And you understand that Mr Ridgeway, who was one of the shooters, has said that he did not act properly, correct? A. Could be, yes. Q. And you don't have any reason to question his judgment, do you? A. No. I know that, when the juggernaut of the justice system is hanging over your head, that could have clouded his judgment as to whether accepting that plea was a good idea or not. That's all I'll say about his judgment. Q. So am I correct in understanding that your view that the other shooters at Nisour Square were acting properly is not influenced by Mr Ridgeway's factual proffer? A. I haven't looked into each detail of each shooter and what their claim is. In fact, I think it's even been impossible for the Justice Department to determine in most cases which rounds were fired where. So, again, I wasn't their tactical commander on the ground. I wasn't there. I'm not going to second guess them. Q. In the past, in interviews you gave on television, you said that you were welcoming the FBI investigation because you view the FBI as a mutual party. Did the fact that the FBI investigated and indicted your men change your view on the FBI being a mutual party? A. Well, one of my disappointments would be that -- I did read the ballistics reports and it seems they didn't go all the way to investigating the sources of all the spent bullets that they found in various vehicles in the intersection, including whether they were Bulgarian, Romanian, Chinese, AK-47 rounds, because our men wouldn't have been carrying anything like those rounds. So it would have been, I think, useful for the defence to have that complete ballistics report done. I don't know that it was... It seems the ballistics analysis was done to prove the guilt of the Americans, not to just try to identify what happened there. Q. So to make sure I'm understanding your testimony, you believe that the FBI was not impartial but was slanting their ballistics report? A. No. It's a very difficult place to even investigate. You know, if you watch CSI, or some news show, if there's an alleged crime, the crime scene is secure within minutes, and I don't think the FBI could go back there for days or weeks, so trying to stitch that back together is a very difficult nut for them to crack. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you what we'll mark as Exhibit 15. (Exhibit 15 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, I'm handing you Mr Ridgeway's factual proffer in support of his guilty plea. You don't have any information in your possession that contradicts what Mr Ridgeway has said, do you? A. Well, perhaps I should read it a minute. Q. Take all the time you need, sir. A. (Witness reviewed the document) Okay, I've read the statement.

Q. And you don't have any information in your possession that contradicts anything that Mr Ridgeway said in there, do you? A. Well, it's a factual proffer written by the Justice Department and -Q. I understand that, Mr Prince. What I'm asking you is whether you have in your possession any factual information that contradicts that? A. I do not have any factual facts that directly contradicts this statement, no. Q. Have you interviewed any eye-witnesses to the Nisour Square shooting? A. No. Q. Have you read any transcripts of the accounts of the Iraqis that were there that day? A. I read transcripts of the radio logs of the guys going back in -Q. Those aren't prepared by the Iraqi -- those are not the statements from the Iraqis, right? You're talking about what was provided at the talk? A. I remember reading radio transcripts from the talk about the guys calling in and talking about receiving incoming small arms fire. Q. Right. And what I'm asking is a different transcript. Have you ever read any transcripts of the interviews conducted by the FBI or others of the Iraqis that were in Nisour Square that day? A. No. Q. Did you ever ask the FBI for any of that information? A. That wasn't my place to do. Q. Now, you said that you read transcripts on the -- you read the logs on the calls. Are those documents something that were maintained in the normal course of business? A. I think that was something that the State Department maintained. It was a State Department TOC; Tactical Operations Centre. Q. Did the company, did your companies maintain the audio tapes of the men's conversations as they're out on missions? A. I don't know. I don't think so. Q. Did your company videotape any of the operations? A. We'd asked for video cameras from the State Department for the WPPS mission back in '05. Q. Who's "we"? Who asked? A. The company. The programme management people. Q. Who was the programme management at the time? A. I think -- I remember Danielle asking for it. Q. You remember Danielle asking the State Department, "Can we put videos on armoured vehicles?"? A. "Can we have cameras on the vehicles?" Q. Who did she ask that the State Department, do you know? A. The high protection people. Q. Is there a name that you put with that? A. No. Q. And your understanding from Miss Esposito is that the State Department said, "No, you cannot do it"? A. No. The request continually fell on dead ears, deaf ears. Q. Did they prohibit you from videotaping? A. Yes, they said they did not want us to put video cameras in. Q. Did you make steps to make sure that your men weren't using hand-held video cameras? A. Well, it was also a fireable offence if the men were using any -- I mean, the scope they had on their rifle or the sight they had, all those things were very explicit what was permitted. So I don't know if a video camera may or may not have been a firing offence, but we would have preferred it to avoid exactly the kind of significant disagreement on the facts that happened at Nisour Square. Q. At one time you reviewed all the incident reports that your company had in its files, correct? A. I don't know that I reviewed all of them. I reviewed many of them. Q. And did you ever form a belief that some of your men were using excessive force? A. Did I ever form a belief? Q. Yes. A. That's not something -- that was not my role or responsibility. Q. So the -A. The use of force continuum were that the use of force was reviewed. If there was an incident, it was reviewed by the State Department, the RSO. There would be calls made back to them while the vehicles were still on the way in, and the guys would be interviewed and de-briefed and each one of those would be, you know, post-evaluated by the government.

Q. And I guess the question is did you, in all cases, agree with the post-evaluation conclusion of the government, of the ones that you reviewed? A. Well, the ones I reviewed were months and months after the -- after the incident had happened, so I did this in preparation for Congressional testimony. So I didn't have the individual guys to talk to and debrief and get the operators' perspective. MS BURKE: We need to go off the record. THE WITNESS: Okay. VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of tape 3, volume 1 in the video deposition of Mr Prince. Going off the record at 3:38 p.m., as indicated on the video screen. (A short recess at 3:38 p.m.) (Resumed at 3:48 p.m.) VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning of tape 4 volume 1 in the video deposition of Mr Erik Prince. We're on the record now at 3:48 p.m., as indicated on the video screen. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, did you ever give $500,000 in cash to an Iraqi official? A. No, I don't recall ever doing that. Q. Did you ever distribute any amount of cash to Iraqi officials? Redacted Pages 291, 292 A. No. No, the regular auditors that prepare the audited statements. Q. And who are your accountants for that purpose, for preparing audited statements? A. BDO Seidman. Q. And that's for you personally as well as for your companies? A. Yes. Q. Who is the leader of that team that you use, your accounting team? A. I don't know. Q. Have you ever been interviewed by an agent from Commerce Department? A. I don't think so. Q. Have you ever been interviewed by the government at all in an investigatory capacity? A. No. For security clearance is all. Q. When did you begin drug testing the men that were being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know whether they ever were drug tested? A. I don't know that they were but I would presume that they were since that was the policy that the company put in place. Q. When did the policy get put in place? A. I don't know the exact start date. Q. Why did the policy get put in place? A. I think it was increasingly becoming required for various -- various amounts of the contracts we were participating in. Q. I'm sorry, in various what of the contracts? A. Contracts we were participating or pursuing. Q. Did you have a drug ring at your site in Moyock that got busted? A. Not to my knowledge, no. Q. You don't recall -- you don't recall a set of people involved in dealing marijuana from your premises? A. Not that I know of and, if we knew about it, we would have, you know, ended it that day. Q. And you don't recall that? You don't recall when it came to your attention that law enforcement was looking at your warehouse personnel? A. I remember law enforcement coming to the property to make an arrest some time for someone that was dealing out of their mobile home. Q. Is that the only occasion that you recall law enforcement coming to your premises on drug issues? A. Yes. Q. Now -A. Other than for extensive counter police training that we provided to hundreds of officers. Thousands. Q. But speaking of law enforcement coming in an investigatory capacity to the Moyock premises, my understanding is that there was a raid by ATF at one point? A. There was lots of audits. I don't know if you'd call it a raid or not. Q. Was there an unannounced inspection of the weapons by ATF? A. Sure, as there was. There was -- with all the licenses we had, that's the ATF's, I guess, it's their right. It's their premise. They can do that.

Q. And were you on the Moyock premises at the time of the raid? A. No, I don't believe so. Q. Were you aware that the ATF agents were held back at the front gate? A. I was not aware of that either. I guess if it was a raid they should have driven through. So I guess is it a raid or is it a visit? I don't know. Q. But do you have any knowledge about the visit that I'm talking about? A. There has been lots of visits by the ATF -Q. How many visits -- how many visits by the ATF to your facility? A. Oh, many over the years. I mean, we've been in business for customers since January of '98, so twelve years, and you'd think for firearms training that they'd visit it. Q. Did they visit more than two times per year? A. I have no idea. Q. You said a lot of times. How are you kept apprised of when ATF visits your facility? A. Sometimes I would hear about it. I don't know. It was just a regular audit. It was generally in the context of, "We've passed our audit again and this license has been added", or "This is how the scope of the armoury programme has to grow to accommodate the needs of the various US government customers we have coming through", because each time a license was added they'd have to come out for a visit. If you're going to store explosives on a property, you have to have the right stand-off for your storage. Q. Did you transport any explosives from the United States to foreign countries? A. I don't know. Q. Who knows the answer to that? A. Probably someone in the logistics department. Someone in the logistics department, probably. Todd Shaw. Q. Todd Shaw? You're directing me to talk to Todd Shaw for that? A. He would know the people that had been there in the department for that period of time. Q. I'm handing you again Exhibit 13, which is the indictment of your management team. (Same handed to the witness) Now, has there been -- you had mentioned that Mr Rubin had conducted an internal investigation into the allegations regarding Mr Howell. Did Mr Rubin also conduct an investigation into the veracity of the government's allegations in the indictment that you have before you as Exhibit 13? A. I don't know that Mr Rubin has, but I would imagine the defence counsel for each of the guys is doing a very deep dive on the government's allegations. Q. And obviously you understand those defence counsel are representing the individuals, correct? A. Right. Q. Have you commissioned any type of investigation so that you can be told what happened? A. In discussions with the Justice Department, Rubin said that these were individual charges and they were not directed at the company. Q. So is the answer to my question, no, you have not commissioned any type of investigation to find out what happened? A. I guess that would be correct then. Q. Do you have any sense as to the extent of use of steroids by the men you were deploying to Iraq and to Afghanistan? A. Say that again? Q. Do you have any sense as to the amount of steroids being used by the men you were deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan? A. No, other than that it was illegal and we tested for it and didn't tolerate it. Q. Now, you fired quite a few people for using steroids, correct? A. How do you define "quite a few people"? Q. Did you fire 120 people for using steroids? A. I don't know if it was that many. I mean, guys could get fired for everything from bad attitude to borrowing a guy's bike without his permission, to having some illegal or unauthorised scope or sight on his rifle to drug testing. Q. I understand that, Mr Prince, but my question is really specific to the use of steroids. As you sit here today, do you know how many people you've fired for using steroids? A. No. Q. Have you ever looked into that issue... Redacted Pages 300, 301

...were. A slightly different question. Do you know whether or not they even exist? A. I have no idea of the dispensation of those test results. Q. Do you know whether they were kept in the regular course of business? A. I don't know. Q. Who can answer that question? A. Someone from medical or the WPPS programme management side. And you've heard all those names before so... Q. How about medical, though? Who is in charge of medical now? A. Let's see. The former army doc. I just met him a few weeks ago. I don't remember his name. Q. So this is somebody new? A. Within the last couple of months. Q. And your former director of the medical department, Ken Boyce, is being sued along with your companies? A. I don't know. Q. You're not familiar with the Waggoner? The lawsuit brought by Heather Waggoner? A. That's the one you've mentioned before. I've no familiarity with that one. Q. Do you know who Pam Boyd is? A. She used to work in medical. Q. Was she the director of medical? A. I don't know. Q. Would you consider her part of your senior management? A. No. Q. Was there anyone from medical that you would consider part of your senior management? A. No. Medical was a small support function so... Q. Who did they have to go to get resources to do the drug testing? A. I don't know. Q. Why are you sure that the drug testing was done? A. State Department insisted on it. They might have even sent observers. I don't know. Q. Do you know when the State Department started to insist on it? A. I believe it was insisted on from the very beginning. It was probably -- I imagine as part of the statement of work from the -- you know, from the beginning. From the solicitation.... Redacted Page 304 ....into the narcotics issue in Burkina Faso? Your company's involvement in Burkina Faso and the diversion of narcotics, fentanyl lollypops? MR BEIZER: Can I have a proffer as to how this relates to the False Claims Act? MS BURKE: One of the issues in the False Claims Act is the laxity with which they dealt with substances that control the drugs and so forth, and so this is another example. MR BEIZER: Okay. Could you rephrase -- restate the question then, I'm sorry? MS BURKE: Sure. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, are you aware of an incident involving your company's personnel in Burkina Faso involving the diversion of narcotics? A. No, I'm not aware of that. I am aware we provided a bunch of extra medical training to a number of doctors from Burkina Faso. We flew them over to the States for, basically, trauma training because -- this was probably late spring of '07, no '08. We'd just put a couple of aircraft into Africa and we were supporting US special operations forces, and a storm came up, damaged the aircraft, a Tornado touched down. It flipped the tents that the SF guys were in and it killed one of them, put two broken limbs, a broken spine and pelvis. The other guy had all kinds of internal bleeding. That was the guy that really needed the Medivac. And we ended up flying another aircraft in long ways. It landed on a single set of headlights at night. And our medic -- our medic worked him. And the reason this ties back to medical is because our medic worked him for 36 hours, including doing an emergency splenectomy on him, and there wasn't any medical care really available in Burkina Faso. MS BURKE: Move to strike after his answer, no, he's not aware of the drug diversion. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, I understand why you want to say the other things that your company has done. And that's fine. It's just I have a limited amount of time. You'll have your chance to put on the affirmative story about your company at a later date. As you can tell, I'm quite conscious on time so I'm just trying to --

A. Hey. Q. -- you know. So please just answer the questions I ask and save the -A. You've had 5 hours going all over the map so... Q. Yes, and I still have more to go, and I'd just ask you not to put the speeches on at this point? A. It was in the context of why I was talking about medical support in Burkina Faso because it saved an American soldier's life. Q. But my brief question had to do with drug diversion in Burkina Faso, okay? That was the question, sir. And here is my next question. Do you admit that your companies hid weapons in pallets of dog food? A. I don't know that we hid weapons in pallets of dog food. I don't know that we'd ever send an entire pallet of dog food over. And certainly we -- I'm sure we -Q. Is that -A. Well, let me explain. I'm sure we shipped many pallets of stuff over to Iraq, some of which could have contained weapons, some of which could have contained dog food. Does it make sense to put the weapons boxes on the inside of the pallets so that the dog food is not apparently visible for a corrupt customs official to steel the weapons? Yes, I think that makes sense. So I don't know that we intentionally hid them or smuggled them in building a pallet, but it certainly could have been co-mingled. There's certainly no prohibitions to doing that. Q. Did any of your weapons get stolen by corrupt customs officials? A. Weapons were stolen by corrupt officials, by insurgents after an attack on the guys if there were dead bodies. Certainly the weapons belonging to our guys in Falluja were taken from the chartered Mi8 that were shot down. All those guys' weapons were taken. So we had weapons taken off of our dead and wounded many times. Q. So these weapons that go missing, what kind of paper trail is there on these weapons that go missing? A. I'm not familiar with what that paper trail is. I'm sure there is some kind of reporting procedure. Q. But you're not familiar with it? A. No. Q. Who at the company would you direct me to to understand how the loss of weapons was tracked? A. I think I referred to our ATF compliance guy, and I don't know his name. MS BURKE: Counsel, is that something that you can get for me? THE WITNESS. When you ask anybody else from the company, they'll probably know. BY MS BURKE: Q. Dave Jackson? Do you know Mr Dave Jackson? A. I know of him. Q. Do you know him? Would you know him by sight? A. I would recognise him if I saw him. Q. Did you ever go to his cubicle? A. It's entirely possible. I walked around and visited many of the boys. Q. Did you ever return any money to the government as on overpayment that had been self-identified by the company? A. I don't know. Q. Mike Taylor would know that? A. Probably, yes. Q. Is he the best one to go to on that? A. Yes. Q. What role did Rob Ricker play for you? Is that how you say it, Ricker? A. Richer. Q. Richer. A. After he retired from CIA, he came and ran TIS, which is a private sector open source intelligence business, primarily supporting commercial customers. Q. Did he have any involvement in WPPS or Homeloan Security contracts? A. No. Q. Did you ever give him a bonus? A. Well, DHS in the sense that TIS was then running some kind of a threat watch matrix, or something, and it was also a website for first responders to evaluate different equipment and tactics. That was the only tie to DHS for that. Q. Did he do that mirror image training? A. That was part of the TIS/TRC function, yes. Q. Mike Rush? I'm sorry, I skipped ahead. Did you ever give Mr Richer a bonus? A. I'm sure he received bonuses along the way.

Q. Did all of your top management receive a bonus along the way? A. I don't know that they all did, but they often did. Q. Was it a bonus of a regular part of their compensation package? A. Yes. Q. And what was the -- was there -- I know we had talked before that your executive compensation formula changed at a point in time that led to these severance agreements, right? A. Yes. Q. At that point in time, did the structure of ratio base to bonus change? A. I don't know. I don't remember the detail now for that. Q. And Mr Richer, did he get one of these severance agreements? A. No, I think he left before those were put in place. I think. I don't know. Q. When did he leave? A. I think he left in early '08, but that's a guess again. I'm not sure when what was. Q. Did you fire him? A. No. Redacted Pages 312, 313 ....raise with you on your phone calls with him who he was going to terminate? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: Could be by phone. Could be face-to-face. BY MS BURKE: Q. Let me ask it differently. You've testified about a course of dealing with Mr Jackson in which he kept you informed of the goings on in the company. Would terminations of middle management be the type of thing that he would bring to your attention before it happened? A. It could be before. It could be after. It depends what my schedule or his schedule are, the level of connectivity was. Q. What did Gary Clifton do for you? A. I think he worked in the training department. Q. Anything else? A. He was a trainer, yes. Q. Is that the only job he held with the companies? A. I think so. Q. Dana Clemons? Redacted Pages 315, 316 ....issues. Q. Did he get fired? A. I think he is not deployable because he's got to have surgery. Q. So did he get fired? A. I don't know if he got fired. I just read that he had to have surgery because he blew out a shoulder. He's a very big guy. Q. Is he back in the United States? A. I don't know. I don't know where he's getting the surgery done. Q. What has he done for the company? A. He's served in a logistics function. Q. Have you ever investigated his conduct in any way? A. I don't know if the company has. I haven't. And I don't know what his -- what that status is. Q. When you say you don't know if the company has, is it possible that there was an investigation done of company personnel that you weren't made aware of? A. There could be investigations into any number of disputes between employees that I'm not aware of, and there's a lot of people and a lot of moving parts so... Q. Has there been any investigation into the billing fraud that's alleged in the lawsuit that brings us here today? MR BEIZER: Objection. I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer to the extent it would reveal any conversations with counsel about that subject. (To the witness) But you can answer to the extent that it doesn't. THE WITNESS: I don't believe there is any billing fraud.

BY MS BURKE: Q. What's the basis for that confidence you have? A. Because the procedures are in place to account for the men and for their movements and the logistics, and there is no billing fraud. I don't you have a lot of basis for this case. Q. What information do you have to contradict Milan Davis's testimony that she travelled to Amman on phoneyed up documents? A. So you're saying Melan Davis committed fraud? Q. Yes. MR BEIZER: Again, I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer to the extent the answer would reveal communications with counsel on that topic. (To the witness) But you can answer anything else other than that. THE WITNESS: All I know about Melan Davis is what I read in her complaint so... BY MS BURKE: Q. And you see in her declaration that she said she travelled with Amman -- with a group of other people and created phoney documents in order to obscure the fact that there was no proper record-keeping from the State Department. As you sit here today, do you actually know any facts that contradict that account? A. All I would say is that fraud -- necessary for fraud is concealment, and I don't believe there was concealment of this kind of stuff from the government. Q. When you say "concealment of this kind of stuff", you think that the State Department was informed that there was an after-the-fact creation of records? A. I don't know about that. Q. And you certainly didn't tell the State Department about that? A. I had as few conversations with them as possible. Q. The company Carlson Wagonlit, are you familiar with that? A. It's a travel agency. Q. And does it have any corporate relationship with your companies? A. I don't know. Q. Did you ever buy that travel agency? A. That's a big company. Q. I know, sir. A. No. Q. You have a lot of money, my understanding is. A. Not much. No, not enough to do that. Q. So you don't own Carlson Wagonlit? A. No. Q. Are you aware that people in your employ were running off invoices as if they had come from Carlson Wagonlit when they had not? MR BEIZER: Objection. No foundation. THE WITNESS: I'm aware that we had our own travel agency. BY MS BURKE: Q. I understand that. But were you aware that the paperwork was made to look as if it was coming from Carlson Wagonlit rather than your own travel agency? MR BEIZER: Objection, again, to the -THE WITNESS: I have no idea as to the status of travel agent paperwork. BY MS BURKE: Q. So you don't know one way or the other, as you sit here today, whether the allegations made that the paperwork was phoneyed up to look like it was an outside party, you just don't have any facts that shed any light on the truth or the falsity of that allegation? A. Well, other than that I know we weren't flying our own people from New York or the United States to Jordan or to anywhere else, so there had to be a real plane ticket in there somewhere. Q. You understand, Mr Prince, that the issue is not the real plane ticket. The issue is what the document said about how much that plane ticket cost, right? A. I guess. I'm not sure of the intracacies of your claim. Q. But I just want to be clear for the record that, regardless of how you may show up at trial, whatever knowledge you may gain at that point, right now, as we sit here today, you don't really know any facts that can lead you one way or the other as to whether people in your employ were phoneying up documents to make it look as if Carlson Wagonlit had bought tickets rather than your own travel agency, correct?

MR BEIZER: Again, instruct the witness not to answer to the extent that the answer may reveal communications with counsel on this subject. (To the witness) To the extent that it does not, you may answer the question. THE WITNESS: I am no expert as to the travel habits of people in the company or the invoicing procedures. BY MS BURKE: Q. What role did Mike Garton play at your companies? A. I think he was in finance but I'm not sure. Q. Did you fire him? A. I don't know. Q. Gary Jackson would know the answer to that? A. I don't know who would know. I don't know. It might be Mike Taylor. Q. What about Patrick Martin? What role did he play at your companies? A. I think he's in a finance role as well. Q. Did he get fired? A. No. Q. Is he still with you? A. I think so. I think he works at Greystone. Q. He works with Chris Burgess? A. I think so. Q. Other than Chris Burgess, do you talk directly to anybody over there at Greystone? A. No. Q. What's Greystone's business? A. They do some aviation support, mostly pilots and mechanics, and they provide static guard services using third country nationals. Q. Anything else? A. A little bit of NGO PSD work, but very little now. Q. Is Carol Bruce the wife of a good friend of yours? A. Carol worked in travel and I think I met her husband one time, if that. So certainly not a close friend at all. Q. And is Carol still with the company? A. I think so. Q. What's she doing now? A. I think she's still in a travel capacity. Q. What about Jim Sierawski? Is he still with you? A. Sierawski. Q. Sierawski, excuse me. MR BEIZER: How do you spell that name? THE WITNESS: S-i-e-r-a-w-s-k-i. BY MS BURKE: Q. Does he still work for you, Mr Prince? A. He still works for the company, yes. Redacted Pages 325, 326 A. I think so. Q. What did he do for the company before he left? A. He did, I think, training and some PSD-type stuff. I think he worked more in the Greystone area. Q. What about Marty Strong? What did he do for the company? A. He did some WPPS work and he did some PR and external communications. Q. Steve Wells? A. He was in a training operations support kind of stuff. Q. Still with the company? A. No. Q. Fired? A. No. Q. Andy Walsh? A. He did -- I think he worked at the track. That was the last place I saw him. He did some kind of training role.

Q. A. Q. A.

Is he still with the company? I don't think so. Was he fired? No.

Redacted Pages 328 Q. And who -A. Been a complaint. He was warned. Complaint again and he was let go. Q. What steps did you take -- what steps did your company take to prevent sexual harassment overseas? Let me ask it differently. What steps did your companies take to enforce the anti-fraternization rule to stop the use of prostitutes in the man camp overseas? A. I don't know that there was prostitution going on anywhere, so I guess I dispute that claim the way you ask that question. Q. The question really goes to your company's activities. Did your company take any steps to prevent prostitution in the man camp? A. Yes. There was no -- no female visitors. I mean, there were some husband and wife couples deployed, but there was no external visitors, to my knowledge. There was a pretty strict badging policy. Q. And that was something that was closely enforced, the badging policy? A. I think so. I think that was even -- that was enforced by another -- actually another vendor's guards was responsible for that. Q. What vendor was responsible for that? A. I'm not sure. It wasn't our guys. Q. Do you know the company you hired to do that? A. No, no, no, no. There was that contract was managed by another vendor, not our company at all. Q. Okay. Do you recognise the name Nate Eggleston? A. No. Q. Do you recognise the name Steve Krosk? A. No. Q. Do you recognise -MR BEIZER: Excuse me, how do you spell that? MS BURKE: K-r-o-s-k. BY MS BURKE: Q. Do you recognise the name Scott Alexander? A. No. Q. Do you recall a man named Billy Connors who used to work for you? A. No. Q. Do you recognise the name Billy Connors as a State Department person? A. No. Q. The name has no meaning to you? A. No. Q. Mr Prince, who was responsible for getting Andrew Moonen out of the country after he killed the Iraqi? A. After that incident occurred, he was in -- Moonen was in the Air Force Security Police's custody and they did their investigation. And, after he was released from their investigation, we asked the RSO what the status or dispensation of that guy should be, and they said he should be fired and he should leave the country. So he was, at the direction of the State Department, provided a ticket, driven to the airport and put on an airplane out of there. Q. And the RSO, they gave you that guidance? What was his name? A. The RSO that was there at the time. Q. Is that -A. There's only one RSO, so... Q. Was that Ferris? A. There's no guy named Ferris. Q. Do you recall the name of the RSO? A. No. Q. Do you recall that there was more than one RSO in Baghdad that you dealt with over time? Frese. Excuse me. John Frese. Was it John Frese?

A. It could have been Frese. If he was the senior RSO. There's only one RSO. There's a bunch of deputies. They might come from the RSO office, but there is one RSO and it's his call to make. And, yes, they rotated that position once a year, or a year-and-a-half or something. Q. And that was going to be my question. Other than John Frese, do you know who the actual RSO was in Baghdad during the time that you did business there? A. I don't remember all the names. Q. Do you remember any of the names other than Frese? A. No. Q. Would you have remembered his name if I hadn't provided it to you? A. He was a -- yes, I probably would have remembered him, Frese, in Dutch.... Redacted Page 333 ....business. Q. When you say security consulting role, that's outside of WPPS? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Terry Buchanan? A. I think he worked in the training role. Q. Was he fired? A. I don't think so. Q. Jim Carey, C-a-r-e-y? A. I don't know him. Q. Rick Bulak, B-u-l-a-k? A. I don't know him. Q. Bill Kirkland? A. Bill Kirkland I think works in the armoury, yes. Q. Still does? A. I think so. Q. Carol Bruce? A. Carol Bruce? I don't know her. Q. Elizabeth Merritt? A. HR Director. Q. Still? A. Yes. Q. M-e-r-r-i-t-t? Is that right,.... Redacted Pages 335, 336, 337, ....company, yes. Q. When you say given to you by the company, the company bought an RV and gave it to you? A. The company had an RV and they gave it to me. Q. You say the company had an RV. Were these the trailers that were bought for the Homeland security contract? A. It was probably one of the vehicles bought under that effort. Needed something mobile. Q. And were these -- were these capitalised or expensed? A. I have no idea. Q. And who was -- who's the person I should ask that person to? A. Finance. Q. Taylor? A. Yes. Q. So how did this come about? You were, like, given the RV by Mr Jackson? He said "Merry Christmas"? A. It was at the Christmas party. Q. Do you still have the RV? A. No. Q. Was it something that the company had bought for the government contract? A. It was something that the company bought as part of the equipment they needed to conduct the operations down there. Needed office space, portable office space, I guess. Q. So isn't that then billed to the government as overhead?

A. I don't think that was part of the contract. There's lots of times we buy equipment to conduct our missions. Q. When you were given this as a gift, did you take any steps to make sure that it was something that had been purchased with company money as opposed to government money? A. There was no government money to buy it with. Q. Didn't you get paid from Homeland Security? A. No. We get paid to do work. Q. Did you get an overhead component on that Homeland Security contract? A. I don't know. Q. And is that a Mike Taylor question? A. Probably. Redacted Page 340 Q. Were you ever briefed by any of your employees on a sex club that was going on in your company? A. No. Q. No-one ever brought that to your personal attention? A. You know, I heard allegations of employees' activities on weekends, not on company time, not on company property. Q. And who did you hear those allegations from? A. Gary mentioned it to me that there was a problem, and just make sure it didn't affect the good order and discipline of the organisation during the work week. Q. What did Gary tell you? A. I don't remember all the detail. Q. Is it something that had begun to impact the work hours of people? A. I don't think so. Q. Other than Gary Jackson, did anyone else ever bring this to your attention as a concern? A. Maybe. I don't remember who. I mean, it didn't come up a lot. Q. But you cannot remember who brought it to your attention but you could still remember that somebody did. Do you have some kind of recall that someone other than Gary Jackson brought this to your attention? A. No. Q. So you remember that Gary Jackson did and you remember that nobody else did? A. Correct. Q. So if I speak to Gary Jackson and he recalls, then that's the sum total of what you know on that topic? A. Perhaps, yes. That's all I remember of it. Q. And this wasn't something -- I'm sorry, let me ask it a different way. Did Gary Jackson ask Joe Schmitz to look at this issue? A. Yes, that probably would have been a remedial process for Gary to do that; to have an outsider come in and interview people and check it out. Q. And did Schmitz prepare a report? A. I don't know. Q. Did you ever get briefed verbally or in writing by Schmitz? A. I don't remember. Q. What other -- what other internal investigations did Mr Schmitz conduct? A. I don't know. I mean, most of his time was spent on the Nordan case, which was the Falluja lawsuit, and Presidential Airways so... Q. Did you ever meet with Mr Schmitz without Mr Jackson present? A. Of course. His office was right next to mine. Q. Did Mr Schmitz brief you on things that were going on down south in Moyock? MR BEIZER: I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer. Mr Schmitz was counsel to the company, and that would be a privileged conversation. THE WITNESS: A privileged conversation. BY MS BURKE: Q. Was Mr Schmitz serving as counsel to the company his entire tenure there? A. Serving as my counsel. Q. Serving as your personal counsel? A. Yes. Q. Did he also serve as counsel to the companies?

A. He -- no, the company had a general counsel, but he served as, kind of, over our general counsel trying to manage the lawsuit process. Q. Now, was Gary Jackson free to commission Mr Schmitz to look into things that he was interested in having looked into, or did that have to come by you first? A. They had enough of a free flow of information. I'm sure that if Gary called and asked for help Joe would respond. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you what we'll mark as Exhibit 16. Actually, we're going to take a break. VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 4:48 p.m., as indicated on the video screen. (A short recess at 4:48 p.m.) (Resumed at 4:58 p.m.) (Exhibit 16 marked for identification) VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 4:58 p.m., as indicated on the video screen. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, you understand you're still under oath? A. Yes. MS BURKE: I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Exhibit 16 and ask you to take a look at that. THE WITNESS: You might want to put a paperclip or something on this. It's all loose. BY MS BURKE: Q. Have you had an opportunity to review that, sir? A. Yes, briefly. Q. And is there -- that document is the Department of Justice compilation of other bad acts bad acts by the Nisour Square shooters? A. Alleged bad acts. Q. And that was my question, Mr Prince. As you sit here today, do you actually have any information, any factual information that contradicts what the Department of Justice put in that document? A. The only thing I would add to it is perspective. When they talk about a bad act being considered throwing frozen oranges or frozen water bottles at unarmed civilians, vehicles, wagons, bicycles, allegedly without justification, that is certainly part of the use of force continuum that was still constantly shifting as a way to try to warn off incoming potential threat vehicles. Q. But do you have any information to contradict their finding that what those particular men were doing actually lacked justification, and was just mere harassment of the civilians? MR BEIZER: Objection to the word "finding". This is just an allegation. THE WITNESS: Yes, it's an allegation. These -BY MS BURKE: Q. But do you have anything to contradict it? A. Well, these prosecutors, sitting in the comfort of Washington DC or somewhere else, not when it's 125 degrees Farenheit in Baghdad and you're sitting on top of an armoured vehicle, and there's a car coming at you fast and you're not sure if it's somebody on their way back from a grocery store or it's a suicide bomber trying to kill you and your friends, throwing a water bottle, orange, or whatever you throw at them to try to warn them off is, I don't know, perspective from people that go to dangerous places. It's certainly preferred than having to open fire. Q. Mr Prince, one of the issues is whether or not there was gratuitous use of force and gratuitous use of mechanisms such as throwing the water bottles and the oranges and so forth. And the question to you is whether you have any knowledge as to whether any of your men engaged in such gratuitous use of force? MR BEIZER: Again, objection to the word "such". THE WITNESS: Yes, or what defines "gratuitous"? BY MS BURKE: Q. Unnecessary. A. When you have to do thousands of missions a year and the State Department makes you run the same routes every day to and from the Ministry where the bad guys can sit up and wait for you, and the bad guys know what your vehicles are because you've been running suburbans or some kind of big weight armoured vehicle, it's a very, very difficult spot to put people in fearing for their lives. Q. So from your testimony I take it it's a fair statement that you certainly never took any steps to try to learn whether or not your men were using excessive force? A. The State Department sets the rules of engagement. They enforce the rules of engagement. They understand far better than I do -- the RSO, when I say State Department. They certainly set those rules back in the States. The RSO that are personnel deployed for and become under their operational control, that RSO office sets the tempo of that use of force continuum because they understand from Fernantel and past attacks where the most likely places and the most likely methods are to be attacked. I can't second guess that from the comfort of my home back in Virginia.

Q. So when you have a decision by State Department agents made that your men use excessive force, you wouldn't second guess that, right? A. Well, we hire people to the contract with the right experience, the right background, the vetting, the psychological evaluations, the medical, dental and PT tests, and the training and the scenarios that they're put through, and we deploy them to the State Department. Q. I'm sorry, Mr Prince, I'm not sure you heard my question. My question was whether you are comfortable testifying that, if State Department agents found that your men had engaged in excessive force, then you would defer to that, is that correct? A. They are the customer. They get to decide that in the end. Q. All right. And so if the State Department personnel testify that the Nisour Square shooters used excessive force, you would defer to that judgment, and you would agree that they used excessive force? A. Again, they weren't -- they weren't there. They weren't within a few miles of there so... Q. So now I'm not understanding your testimony. Is it your testimony that no-one can ever judge who wasn't on site? A. I don't know. It depends on the experience level of the people involved. I would also say that State Department had a real hard time filling its deputy RSO billets and were sending a lot of guys that had -- that were right out of college with hardly any tactical or military law enforcement experience. Q. So am I to take it from that testimony that you're not comfortable putting the decision as to whether excessive force was used in the hands of the State Department? You would not necessarily agree that they were correct in making their judgment that your men used excessive force? A. Well, contractually they ultimately decide there that they're the vendor they hire or not. Q. And my question to you is whether or not you defer to that assessment. And, from your testimony previously, it sounds as if your own view is that no-one should be permitted to second guess the men who go and do this work in dangerous zones? MR BEIZER: Asked and answered. Objection. (To the witness) You can answer again. THE WITNESS: I said I'm not going to second guess from the comfort of my home back in Virginia. Decisions made as put second by people in dangerous places are easy to second guess from the comfort of your home, not even and they're even easier to second guess from the comfort of an air conditioned office in a Green Zone so... BY MS BURKE: Q. So, again, just to make o sure I'm understanding. So your view is that there is no permissible way in which to scrutinise -A. No. The State Department gets to decide who continues working for them or not, and they did that often. If they didn't like a guy because of his attitude or his demeanour with the protectees or whatever, they said, "Please send that guy home", so... Q. And you would agree with me that if you were providing men who were under the influence of steroids while they were on duty, that that was not providing the State Department what they had contracted for, right? A. We are providing people that were screened and approved to the State Department standards. Their biles were reviewed and approved by the State Department. Their training overseen. There were rules that were briefed to the men and routinely screened. Q. And just to make sure that -A. And if someone doesn't meet that standard, they're released. Fired. Simple. You know, two choices; window or aisle. Q. Yes, Mr Prince, but my question is slightly different. And that is just I want to make sure that you agree with the statement I'm making which is that, in those instances when your companies provided to the State Department someone whose judgment was altered by steroids, you would agree that that was a mistake and that the provision of that person was not of value to the State Department? A. How do you -- I mean, how does one verify whether steroids have any kind of effect on that person's demeanour? I don't know. That's a medical question. I'm certainly no medical expert. I don't know if steroids affected their demeanour other than their body mass. Q. So is it your position that providing the State Department with an armed man on steroids is providing the State Department with something of value? A. I didn't say that at all. Q. I'm trying to understand what your testimony is? A. You're saying that if you assume someone is on steroids that their mind altered or different. I don't know that to be the case. The State Department gets to set the rules and we enforce them. Q. And --

A. And as a company we didn't we didn't, you know, for any of the other contracts even, we screened for it and don't permit that activity. Q. And the State Department set the rule that they did not want people that were on steroids working for them, right? A. Yes. Q. And the State Department set the rule that they did not want people that were drinking working for them, right? A. Correct. Q. And the State Department set the rule that they did not want -A. Well, let me caveat that. State Department people drink all the time. Q. That's A. On a nightly and weekly basis. Q. It's not really a question of whether the State Department people are drinking, though. The question is what did the State Department want in the armed guards that they were hiring to protect them, right? A. Right. I just want to clarify that the State Department is not a dry organisation. And don't let them strike that from the record. Q. So you would agree with me then, Mr Prince, that to the extent that your companies provided men who were under the influence of steroids or alcohol, you were not providing the State Department what they had paid for, right? A. They -- we provided someone with the resumi background, with the credentials, the training, all the rest. If someone breaks the rules, they get fired. Q. I understand that, Mr Prince, and you've testified to that effect, but what I need is an answer to my particular question, which is whether or not you agree with me that, in those instances when somebody broke the rules and it was not known to you and you provided them to the State Department under the influence of alcohol, under the influence of steroids, you were providing the State Department with something they did not want and that was worthless? A. Under the influence of alcohol -MR BEIZER: Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion. (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: I can answer? MR BEIZER: You can answer. THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm very confident none of the guys were under the influence of alcohol. It's a pretty obvious state of mind if they're out doing a mission. They're not on duty 24 hours a day certainly. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, it's -- I'm not asking you -A. I'm not qualified to answer medically whether a guy that has taken steroids or tested, or took them two weeks ago, if any of it remains in his system and it pops in a drug test, that that guy is any less valuable as a guard or as a human being, so I'm not qualified to answer that. Q. So you draw a distinction between the alcohol use and the steroid use? A. Well, certainly most governments in the world permit people to drive vehicles but not under the influence of alcohol because it's directly -- and certainly the FAA has even tighter rules. Q. Mr Prince, I'm asking you, are you drawing a distinction between your view of the value of services provided to the State Department between providing men who are under the influence of alcohol versus men who were under the influence of steroids? A. I'm saying I'm not medically qualified to make that judgment whether that guy adds any less value or not. Q. So, therefore, you're drawing a distinguish between those under the influence of alcohol, that you are willing to admit that those people are -- providing them to the government is not of any value to the government, correct? A. Well, certainly if a guy was intoxicated to the point that he couldn't drive a vehicle, that would certainly -- you could make that case, but even if -Q. And you would agree with that? A. But even the FAA says if a guy had a drink 8 hours before, 8 hours and 1 minute from that time he could fly an aeroplane again so... Q. What I'm trying to get at is the difference in your testimony between the steroid use and the alcohol use. The State Department -A. I'm saying as a human being -Q. Let me finish, please. A. As a human -Q. Let me finish, please. The State Department had requested that you provide steroid-free men, correct?

A. That's part of the quote, part of the requirement, and we tested to the best of, you know, human possibility to do so. Q. And you would agree with me that, from the State Department's point of view, that's what they wanted, steroid-free men, right? MR BEIZER: Objection. Calls for speculation. (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: That, among many other attributes, was what their pursuit of the ideal person was. BY MS BURKE: Q. And your company signed a contract and promised to give them those ideal people, right? A. We signed a contract to do our best efforts. Q. Didn't you agree to provide them only people that had met the criteria they set forth? A. We employ human beings, not machines. Even a turbine engine has three -- three or four moving parts and turbine engines break. So, of course, you're saying, by your premise, that we would hire -- that there would be one thousand people free of human error, that would never make any mistakes and never have any need for really any of these controls because they would never make any mistakes. Q. No, Mr Prince. Just like a broken turbine engine, the question is whether you had to pay for it if it's broken. So am I correct, Mr Prince, that what you promised to bill the government for was providing these defect-free men, right? A. I don't know the details of what we promised to bill for. Q. Okay. You had talked about the fact that you're not comfortable testifying that somebody on steroids is necessarily showing poor judgment, right? You say you don't have medical background, you're not comfortable testifying to that? A. Correct. Q. But you know that the State Department had made their own judgment call that that's all they wanted, was people who weren't on steroids? A. Evidently so. Q. And did you have trouble finding people in this field that weren't on steroids? A. I can't speak to that as well. There was a lot of people that wanted to sign up to do the job and kept the pipeline full. There was a lot of people that wanted to do the job and there was a pipeline full of people to do it. Q. And is -- when you say "the pipeline full of people"? A. Yes, I would contrast that, you know, we kept the manning at about 99-plus per cent full, and Triple Canopy, our competitor that's taken over, is still running 35 to 40 per cent short on manning for the same job. Q. So they are having more difficulty than you had in providing men that met the criteria? A. Logistically, it's hard to do it with the training facility and the processing of all those things. Having it in one location helps a lot. Q. Could it be that they are holding themselves to a higher standard on compliance on the contract than you did? MR BEIZER: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: Well, actually, they had tried to hire every person that we had working there, and they have continued to try to hire them, and our guys really don't want to work for them so... BY MS BURKE: Q. What percentage of your people refused to work for Triple Canopy? A. No idea. Q. What was the basis for your statement that "a lot of our guys don't want to work for them" then? A. Because I've run into them. I run into them at an airport. I run into them somewhere else and they say, "Hey I really appreciated working for you and I wish I could again soon". Q. Okay, so you've some anecdotal -A. Anecdotal. Q. What type of documents did the State Department send the company when they were concerned about excessive use of force? A. Kind of documents? Q. Yes. A. It could be everything from -- well, it's not a document, but some kind of meeting with the RSO staff, or it could be an e-mail sent. I'm not really sure what that reporting procedure was, but I would -- you know, I would imagine there was regular meetings between the company's in-country staff and the RSO staff to coordinate those very issues. Q. Did you take any steps yourself to make sure that the men in-country were actually reporting all of the incidents of force, use of force?

A. Each of the guys are briefed individually, you know, together, and I don't know if there was other individual sign-ups or individual documentation. I don't know to that extent, but it's something to ask the in-country management or the WPPS programme managers. Q. Did the briefings, their frequency and their content change over the course of the WPPS contract? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know whether or not your men went on what are called fam runs, familiarisation runs? A. I would imagine they took an area familiarisation route for guys that were new into the country and would drive the routes that they needed to be familiar with. Q. So you're aware that that happened? A. That would be part of the in-country indoctrination for new guys coming in. You don't want somebody who's never been there before to get lost in Baghdad. It's a dangerous place to be lost. Q. And so that did, in fact, happen? I just want to pin that down. A. I don't know, but it would not be -- I don't know that to be a fact, but I would imagine.... Redacted Page 363 Q. Were you present when you heard the men referring to Iraqis as ragheads and towelheads? A. No. Q. You never heard that at all? A. No. Q. Anne Tyrell used to be your PR person? A. Yes. Q. And she's now working on a Congressional staff? A. I think she -- yes, that's who she went to. I don't know what she's doing now. Q. Who did she go work for? Whose staff? A. I don't know. Q. Did you know at the time? A. She told me the name. It's slipped the name. Q. Do you recall an instance when Bill Mathews sent around an e-mail encouraging political activity on the part of the employees? A. No. Q. Regarding a man running for Congress who had made some statements against the mercenary industry? A. I don't remember that. Q. Now, the Department of Justice has identified the following weaponry in the vehicles at Nisour Square; SR-25 sniper rifles, M4 assault rifles, M-240 machine guns, grenade launches and grenades. Do you have any information that contradicts that list? A. No. Q. Would you agree with me that Andrew Moonen's killing of the Iraqi guard was an excessive use of force? A. I don't know. I do know that the guard that he got into that altercation with was looking for the Vice President of Iraq, and I know for a fact that within the last six or eight months that there was a bunch of a guards from Adel Abdul-Mahdi's house that were caught right after they robbed the National Bank of Iraq. An armed midday robbery. So, with that perspective on it, yes, he probably put himself in a spot he shouldn't have been in, but, again, perspective on the guards -- the guards that would have been that guy's colleagues that was shot, did rob the National Bank of Iraq. Q. But wasn't Mr Moonen drunk when he shot him? A. I don't know. Q. You don't have information to that effect? A. I don't know that that was ever established. Q. The State Department didn't brief you on the state of intoxication of Mr Moonen? A. I think the investigation was done by the Air Force. Q. So didn't the Air Force brief you on Mr Moonen's intoxication when he shot that guard? A. I don't remember seeing a blood alcohol level. Q. Setting aside the blood alcohol level, though, weren't you briefed on the fact that he was intoxicated? A. I understand that he had had some alcohol. I don't know what his level was. Q. I'm asking a different question. Weren't you told by the government of the United States that their investigation had revealed that Mr Moonen was intoxicated when he killed that man? A. I don't remember that.

Q. You don't remember that? A. (No response) Q. Is that correct? A. I don't remember the claim being that he was intoxicated. That he'd been drinking, yes. Q. Are you testifying that his use of force was appropriate? And sorry, so the record is clear, are you testifying, Mr Prince, that Mr Moonen's use of force was an appropriate use of force. A. Was an appropriate use? Q. Yes. A. Again, I don't know. That's not up for me. I'm not the investigating officer. I'm not the -- I wasn't there. Q. But in your role as employer -A. He violated company policy and he was fired for it. Q. Okay. But -A. And that's all we can do as a company. Q. Well, you're sitting here today testifying as the owner of these companies. In your role as the owner of these companies, would you agree with me that Mr Moonen used an excessive use of force? MR BEIZER: Objection. Asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Yes, I already answered that question. BY MS BURKE: Q. But do you agree or disagree? MR BEIZER: Same objection. THE WITNESS: I'm not in a position to make a judgment on what his use of force was. BY MS BURKE: Q. Why not? A. I've not stood in the same spot. I don't know all the circumstances of the event. Q. Okay. So -- and just to make sure I'm clear then. From your perspective, neither you nor anyone in the companies can actually make any judgments on the appropriateness of the conduct of your employees in Iraq or in Afghanistan? That's beyond your -A. No. Q. -- ability? A. That's not true because -Q. Okay, well then let's focus on Mr Moonen. A. He violated company policy for having alcohol and a firearm, and he was fired for it. Q. Okay. And so then you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that his killing of that man was inappropriate? MR BEIZER: Again -- strike that. (To the witness) You can answer that. THE WITNESS: I don't know what that guard was trying to do on him. BY MS BURKE: Q. Okay. Do you know anything about the death of a man named Rob Richardson? A. Rob had worked for us for a number of years and he was deploying for some other company. And, as I recall, he was killed by an EFP, an Iranian explosive formed penetrator, that killed him and a couple of guys in the vehicle. Q. Had he quit your company? A. I think so. Or he had -- there was a gap in his contract or when we had worked for him so he signed on with another group to fill the gap. I don't know whether he was terminated or whatever but... Q. Did you have any performance issues with Mr Richardson? A. I don't know. I don't think so. Q. What do you know about the death of Jerry McCauley? MR BEIZER: I'm sorry? Jerry? THE WITNESS: Jerry McCauley. MS BURKE: McCauley. THE WITNESS: He was a long-time contractor for the company and he'd been working for a, like a human terrain mapping company, collecting local -- local information, I guess. BY MS BURKE: Q. In Iraq? A. In Iraq. And he was killed going to meet some Iraqis. He was gunned down in a drive-by shooting. Q. Was he working for you at the time? A. No. Q. Had he been terminated? A. No. I mean, the work went away as the Iraq presence drew down.

Q. Was there some issue that you were prohibited from going to Mr McCauley's funeral? A. No. I remember going to the reception. It was at the Little Creak Officers' Club. Q. Now, did you provide personnel for flights bringing foreign nationals from the US to other countries? A. Say that again? Q. Did you provide personnel for flights that brought foreign national prisoners from the US to other countries? A. From the US to other countries? Q. Yes. Prisoners? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know one or the other on that? A. No. Q. Is that something you would have known at one time? A. Not in the detailed activities of security functions, no. I didn't know everything that was going on all the time. Q. Is that something Gary Jackson would know about? MR BEIZER: Objection. Calls for speculation. (To the witness) You can answer. THE WITNESS: I don't know if Gary would or not. BY MS BURKE: Q. Well, Blackwater personnel wouldn't be staffing a flight from the United States bringing a foreign national prisoner from the US to some other country without the knowledge or permission of either you or Mr Jackson, would they? A. We work for many parts of the US government, and I don't know. It's not something Gary or I might have been briefed on. Q. So your employees may have done it without your knowledge? A. I don't know. MS BURKE: Okay. I'm going to hand you what we'll mark as Exhibit 17. I'm also going to hand you what we'll mark as Exhibit 18. (Exhibits 17 and 18 marked for identification) BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, Exhibit 17 is the indictment of the two men that you employed under the name of the company Paravant, correct? A. Okay. Q. Is that right? A. Yes, it must be. Q. And do you have any information that's known to you that contradicts what the Department of Justice has put in the indictment? A. No. Q. If you would look at Exhibit 18? Exhibit 18 is labelled United States Department of State Diplomatic Service Report of Investigation, and I'll represent to you that this is something that had been released pursuant to an FOIA, so it is a redacted version of the State Department document. And my question is whether your companies routinely received these reports of investigation that were done by the State Department? A. (Witness reviewed the document) Okay, what's your question? Q. My question is whether you routinely received diplomatic service report of investigations? A. Did I receive -MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. THE WITNESS: No, I didn't receive these at all. BY MS BURKE: Q. This form of document is not something that you ever got? A. No. Q. Did the State Department -- when the State Department communicated their concerns about your personnel, what was the format that that was done? A. It would have been, like I said, in a direct meeting format, by e-mail, or, if there was some official document, there would be a -- I don't know. There must be some kind of termination form, or something, that "We find this guy to be unfit for here, so please send him home". Q. And that's what I'm trying to get at is, in terms of the paper trail that exists, do you happen to know the form that they were done on? A. No. Q. Did you -- did those get sent to you as a matter of course? A. No.

Q. Who within your companies reviewed them? A. Somebody within the WPPS programme management office. Q. Did you ever do any type of annual or some frequency compliant audits where you went back and looked back at all of the conduct alleged to have been engaged in by your personnel? A. I don't believe I did at my level but the programme officers did. Q. And the findings from that, those compliance reviews, how were those findings transmitted to upper management, if they were? A. I don't know. Q. So you don't know -- you don't know whether the findings were transmitted to upper management? A. I don't know if they were. Q. What's polar quest? A. Polar quest? I don't know. Q. What's operation Chicago? A. No idea. Q. What's the Sahara project? A. No idea. Q. Were your personnel involved in a project involving running brothels in China? MR BEIZER: I'm going to -- can you give me a proffer as to the relevance as to a false claim on the WPPS contract and the Katrina contract with respect to running brothels in China, the allegation you just made? MS BURKE: Well, we're understanding it's the same people, the same men. MR BEIZER: Can you give me more details on that? MS BURKE: That's what I'm trying to find out. My understanding is some of the same personnel that were on WPPS were used in China for this project. BY MS BURKE: Q. Do you have any knowledge about it, Mr Prince? MR BEIZER: Excuse me. How does that relate to whether or not the company submitted and Mr Prince submitted false claims on the WPPS contract, and that people who were on WPPS somehow were involved in a brothel? I don't follow that. THE WITNESS: She's calling the whacky worldwide web and finding every crazy story she can. MR BEIZER: No, stop. I'm just asking Ms Burke I think a fair question. MS BURKE: You can instruct him. You can instruct him if you'd like. I'd just like an answer. If he doesn't now anything about it, he doesn't know anything about it. Do you want to instruct him? MR BEIZER: Yes, I think I do want to instruct him on this. This agreement is wide-ranging, as you know. It's near the end of the time. I'm going to instruct him on that. That's just way off the base for any judgment. BY MS BURKE: Q. Mr Prince, are you taking your counsel's instruction not to answer the question about running brothels in China? A. That would be correct. Q. The -- was there a subset of personnel that were considered the physically elite within your company that formed themselves into a separate entity called the Army of Blackwater? A. No. Q. Are you sure of that, Mr Prince? A. How did you characterise them? Q. Well, that there was a group of people that had -- and I shouldn't say just physically, but a group of people that had exceptional skills, either in marksmanship or other physical skills, that met, on work time, for training that were known colloquially within Blackwater as the Army of Blackwater? A. No. I would say that there's people that -- many of the staff would do adventure racing, and that would be open to anybody that wanted to come, and we'd pay for -- we typically paid an entrance fee and, you know, dragged their bikes down there for them. And that was open to tall people, fast people, slow people and fat people. It was nothing to do with the elite status because a lot of people would finish long after everyone else did, but it was a team building, fitness promoting, smoking quitting, you know, healthy lifestyle promotion. It's got a big lake on the property so people would swim. We've got great trails for mountain bikes. We can run. So there was -- it was certainly men and women and there was nothing about it like the Army of Blackwater. Q. This is something -- this is something slightly different and it's involving Brian Berry, Max Gramow, Ken Cashwell and Sonia Ellis as well as a few other people. Do you have any knowledge of this group? A. No. Q. Okay. Now, you had drug problems on your ship The McArthur, is that correct?

A. I don't know. Q. Did the people that ran the WPPS drug testing also run The McArthur drug testing? A. I don't know. Q. In terms of the structure of the company, how did The McArthur ship relate to Gary Jackson? Did he supervise that as well? A. I think that was under Greystone. Q. So that would be Chris Burgess's responsibility? A. I think so. Q. So this is something I need to ask Chris Burgess? A. Yes. Q. And was there any information-sharing between the Greystone side and the Blackwater side in terms of compliance issues, such as drug testing? A. Very different people you're employing in those, so I wouldn't anticipate it. I mean, licensed unionised merchant sailors versus independent contractors going for a State Department-Type mission. Q. And I meant it a bit more broadly, Mr Prince. I meant more between Blackwater as a company and Greystone as a company. Was there information-sharing between those two companies about their compliance mechanisms? A. I don't know to what extent there was pressure. I mean, Greystone certainly rolled up under the one DVTC registration for the company at large, so.... Q. I'm not sure I understand your answer. So, basically, there was one compliance programme for all of t? MR BEIZER: For export matters. BY MS BURKE: Q. But what about -- what about compliance for matters such as the drug testing? You wouldn't consider that an export matter, right? A. No, and I don't know what cross cooperation was. Q. Okay. And to get answers to those questions, Chris Burgess and Gary Jackson are the people to talk to? A. Probably Chris Burgess. Q. Okay. Did you ever look -- did you ever do anything to look into the allegation that your men were involved in what they refer to as night hunting of Iraqis? A. Night hunting. I've never heard that in my life. Q. You've never heard that allegation? A. No. Q. Now you have testified -A. In fact, if you're referring to WPPS guys, I would find it extremely unlikely as the State Department restricted their movements. They couldn't just leave the base of the compound unless they were on an official mission. Q. So if they were out at night or in their vehicles, they were not doing what they were supposed to be doing, right? A. Again, your claim is the first I've ever heard of that. Q. You don't read all the legal papers in your matters, do you, Mr Prince? A. I only read stuff that's remotely factual, not some of the crazy stuff you're throwing at us. Q. Do you view Brad Davis's declaration as crazy stuff? A. I need to read through it again and I'll tell you. Q. Okay. A. Where is it? Q. It's one of the first exhibits. I think it's number 3. (Witness reviewed the document) Mr Prince, you've had a chance to read Mr Davis's declaration? A. Yes. Q. And Mr Davis is a former marine who began to work for your companies? A. It appeared that way. Q. And he's sworn under oath to some instances when he was on the ground in Iraq formed the belief that some of his colleagues had engaged in excessive use of force? A. I guess he would characterise it as excessive. Q. And would you characterise Mr Davis's declaration as crazy stuff that we're throwing at you? A. I wasn't referring to that as much as the previous lawsuits you've thrown as us and some of the names you've called me in your filings so... Q. And would you take a look at Melan Davis's declaration? (Witness reviewed the document) Mr Prince, would you characterise Ms Davis's first-hand account of combat from yourself and others in your employee engaged in as crazy stuff?

A. I would characterise it as very incorrect and Brad's as well. Q. Pardon? A. And Brad's as well. Q. And you're characterising it as -- both of them as very incorrect because you're trusting your senior management team, right? A. The management team appears, the process is in place, they've let us conduct forty thousand missions in Iraq with no-one under our care killed or injured. Q. And these are the same processes that have led to how many government investigations? A. I don't know. Q. But we've established somewhere upwards of ten, right? A. Yes, and they all started after Nisour Square and a blizzard of subpoenas driven mostly by Congressional interest of the Democrats. Q. And so is it your testimony that all of that Department of Justice interest in your operations is also just crazy stuff? A. I didn't characterise their stuff as crazy stuff. They have their job to do. We have our job to do. Q. But you don't agree -A. I'm just saying that the federal government -- the federal bureaucracies respond to Congressional boding and pounding by their appropriators and their staffs. Q. So is it a fair summary to say that you have yet to read anything you view as accurate either in any of legal pleadings that have been filed against your company by the Department of Justice or by the Davis's? MR BEIZER: Could you re-state that question? THE WITNESS: That's a long statement. MR BEIZER : Sorry I didn't hear it. MS BURKE: Yes. BY MS BURKE: Q. Is it a fair statement that you dispute the accuracy of all of the DoJ pleadings that you've reviewed today and all of the pleadings filed by Melan and Brad Davis? MR BEIZER: Objection. Vague. And also asked and answered in the previous -THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm not going to summarise your twenty-three, or whatever it was, exhibits in one fell swoop -BY MS BURKE: Q. Let me put it differently. A. -- we've read over 7 hours so... Q. Let me put it differently, Mr Prince. Is there anything in the Department of Justice's indictments of your personnel with which you can agree, factually? A. That people died in Nisour Square. Q. Is that it? A. Again, twenty-three exhibits, I'm not going to go through each one and -- I'm not going to say yes or no and get hung for excluding some point. Q. That's fine. I think that on each one you had an opportunity, but, if you did want to add anything or amend or alter your testimony in any way to correct the record, you should feel free to do so now? A. No, I think I've said enough. MS BURKE: I think I have exhausted my time, having been asked by your counsel to save a few minutes for him. MR BEIZER: No, I need you to take your 7 hours and, if I need time after that, if that's okay with you. I want to give you the full opportunity to explore your -MS BURKE: I'm sorry, I thought you had said reserve a few minutes for you. MR BEIZER: I did say. It was my understanding it would be after you complete your 7 hours. A misunderstanding. MS BURKE: Oh okay. Okay, let's take a brief break. I don't know how much time I have left but let me just take a brief break and find that out. VIDEOGRAPHER: I've got to change tape now anyway so... THE WITNESS: You've got 9 minutes. MS BURKE: Well, we'll have the court reporter -- the videographer give us an official.... Redacted Page 387

....children that you have with you here in Abu Dhabi? A. Yes. Q. And you are not comfortable putting the name of the school on the record? A. No. No, and I'm not comfortable doing that because last Friday at my house still in the United States some of your code pink protestors visited the house, pushed their way into the house and took pictures of my young children, all as a part of this lawsuit, so I'm not -Q. Mr Prince, that had nothing to do with this lawsuit. I believe that there are many -A. Oh yes. Some of the things they were saying and some of the statements given to police officers would probably prove otherwise so... Q. Mr Prince, I can assure you, as the lead counsel on this, that I speak with confidence in saying that had absolutely nothing to do with this lawsuit. A. I can assure you it was no coincidence. Q. Mr Prince, the question that I had asked you about whether or not providing people who are on steroids to the State Department, we had gone a bit about the differences between the steroids and the alcohol. Do you remember that discussion? A. Yes. Q. And what I want to get at this point on the record is -- is an understanding as to why you're drawing the distinction in your testimony between steroids altering judgment and alcohol altering judgment. Have you formed a view that having armed guards on steroids is not as dangerous as having armed guards under the influence of alcohol? MR BEIZER: Objection. Asked and answered several times. THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not the medical expert. Only from my 41 years of age, knowing that the State will take away your driver's licence if you're driving under the influence once or more, that's the only basis I draw that distinction on. BY MS BURKE: Q. And I take it it's not from any personal experience with those substances that you're drawing that distinction, right? A. That's correct. Q. The State Department had asked that we keep this transcript sealed until such time as they've been able to review it and mark anything that they deem confidential. At that point, whatever they deem confidential will remain sealed under public record. In addition, as your counsel may have informed you, he and I have worked out an informal arrangement to keep the deposition sealed, i.e. not provide it to the public, until such time as we have had an opportunity to get a protective order in place. If we disagree on the terms of that protective order, it's going to be incumbent on your counsel to go forward and protect the transcript, so at some point in the future, you know, the transcript may or may not become public, depending on the court rulings. But we have agreed with your counsel that until that is litigated out and ruled on by the court the transcript will remain non-public. And I don't have any further questions. I believe my time may be up. MR BEIZER: Thank you, Ms Burke. I don't have but one question. I probably have a hundred questions but I'm tired and it's time to go home for everybody, so I'll just ask this question. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BEIZER: Q. There was a question that was asked of you, Mr Prince, with respect to an RV, I believe it was an RV, that you got as a Christmas present. Do you remember Ms Burke asking you a question something about an RV as a Christmas present? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what the basis is or was for billing the Department of Homeland Security under what we've called in this lawsuit the Katrina contract? In other words, did the company separately bill the government for that RV? A. No, we did not. We billed on a per day, per guard basis, and that rate covered all the life support, logistics, travel, basic gear, living accommodations, all the rest. I know we also bought a -- we had to buy a circus tent because there was not enough tents available and the backlog was too long to try to get any kind of military tent. So a circus tent with some air conditioner sufficed. Q. Thank you, Mr Prince. Mr Prince, I have one follow-up question to that. RE-EXAMINATION BY MS BURKE: Q. You had previously testified that you weren't familiar with the manner in which the billing was done to Homeland Security. Do you know whether or not the contract provided for any type of cost accounting that led into a loaded overhead rate for the billing?

A. I think the only thing that was cost basis for that was gas, gasoline. Q. And I'm not talking about something being cost basis necessarily, but the calculation of what is sometimes referred to as an admin rate or an overhead rate; that becomes a percentage rate on the contract but it's fundamentally based on cost accounting? A. No. I -- you'll have to ask the people that know, but I believe it was right off the GSA schedule on a day rate per guy, although the life support and logistics was wrapped into instead of the gasoline piece of it which was cost plus or actual, I'm not sure. But that was only cost plus per the contract. Q. Okay. So your understanding is that the gasoline was cost plus and that everything else was per diem, and that there was no other element to the invoicing, is that correct? A. Right. The point being that it would make most of the female plaintiffs' complaints about the hurricane Katrina stuff as irrelevant. Q. Other than the gasoline? A. The gasoline. MS BURKE: Do you have further follow-up questions? MR BEIZER: Well I just, if I may enquire? Are you finished? MS BURKE: I have no further questions. RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BEIZER: Q. I just thought there was some confusion between a cost reimbursement and a cost plus, and they seem to be used interchangeably with respect to the gasoline element. Do you know whether it was actual cost reimbursement or whether it was cost plus, which use means cost plus in a word fee or cost plus of some additional thing? I don't know. A. I think it was just cost reimbursable, but I'm not sure. MR BEIZER: Okay. I have no further questions. MS BURKE: I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr Prince. VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of tape 5 volume 1 in the video deposition of Mr Erik Prince. We're now going off the record at 7 minutes past 6 p.m., as indicated on the video screen. (Deposition concluded at 6:07 p.m.) CERTIFICATE I, THELMA HARRIES, MBIVR, ACR do hereby certify: That ERIK PRINCE the witness whose examination is hereinbefore set forth was duly sworn by me and the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given by such witness. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties of this action nor in anyway interested in the outcome of this matter. THELMA HARRIES, MBIVR, ACR Certified Court Reporter The within and foregoing deposition of the aforementioned witness was taken before THELMA HARRIES, MBIVR, ACR., at the place, date and time aforementioned. There were present during the taking of the deposition the previously named counsel. The said witness was first duly sworn and was then examined upon oral interrogatories; the questions and answers were taken down in shorthand by the undersigned, acting as stenographer; and the within and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete record of all of the questions asked of and answers made by the aforementioned witness, at the time and place hereinabove referred to. The signature of the witness was not waived, and the deposition was submitted and the undersigned is not interested in the within case, nor of kin or counsel to any of the parties. I, ERIK PRINCE, being first duly sworn, on oath say that I am the deponent in the aforesaid deposition taken on Monday, 23 rd August, 2010; that I have read the foregoing transcript of my deposition, consisting of pages 1 through 394 inclusive, and affix my signature to same. ______________________________ ERIK PRINCE Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of ______________, 2010. END