Crossposted from Defend Our Marines

“Hutchins Motion”in the SSgt Wuterich Case

by Nathaniel R. Helms | August 28, 2010

Read the Loss of Counsel, Hutchins Motion (pdf).

The government’s case against the last Marine standing in the so-called “Haditha Massacre” debacle may run aground on the rocks and shoals of Marine Corps legal precedence, said his leading civilian attorney.

Former Marine Corps military judge Neal Puckett says Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich was denied his inherent right to retain the military lawyer appointed by the Marine Corps to defend him so the case must be dismissed.

Wuterich, 30, of Meriden, Conn., faces 12 counts of voluntary manslaughter and related charges. On Dec. 21, 2006 he was indicted on 17 counts of unpremeditated murder, two counts of soliciting another to commit an offense, and make false official statements for his infantry squad’s actions at Haditha, Iraq. Since then the government has repeatedly reduced the charges when the evidence of massacre and cover up failed to materialize. If convicted Wuterich could still spend most of his life in prison. He has been waiting almost five years to go to court martial.

“He wants to get it over with,” Puckett said.

There is more at stake than mere legal precedence, Puckett explained. Also at issue is the overriding principal of balanced justice, a cornerstone of American jurisprudence. Why is the government privileged to leave in place a prosecution team long past the time ordinary personnel procedures dictate they move on, Puckett rhetorically asked, while insisting a critical Marine defense lawyer serving the same cause was forced into retirement over his repeated protests?

For instance, senior prosecutor Lt. Col Sean Sullivan, a reservist called to active duty to prosecute the Haditha Eight, has been retained on active duty so long he has obtained “sanctuary,” a circumstance that makes him eligible for full retirement and benefits after 20 years of interrupted service instead of having to wait until he is 62 like most other reservists, Puckett said. Sullivan has yet to obtain a conviction.

In another instance, Maj. Nicholas Gannon, another of the prosecutors, has been stationed at Camp Pendleton solely to prosecute Wuterich far longer than Marine Corps lawyers are usually left in one place, Puckett said.

To rectify the latest injustice Puckett intends to file a document Friday he coined the “Hutchins Motion,” a newly minted phrase that may serve as currency for generations of Marines to come, he said Thursday during a telephone interview from Camp Pendleton, Calif. The motion was prepared by Co-counsel and law partner Haytham Faraj, a retired major who was Wuterich’s military attorney before he retired, Puckett said.

Defense counsel involuntarily removed

At the heart of the Hutchins Motion is Colby Vokey, the retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel involuntarily removed from defending Wuterich before he could complete his defense. [Read the Declaration in US vs. Wuterich.in a pdf.]

Vokey was detailed as military defense counsel in the case on Jan. 11, 2007, three weeks after Wuterich and seven other Marines were charged with a long laundry list of charges that added up to massacre and cover up. At the time Vokey was the Regional Defense Counsel for West Coast Marines. After the case was delayed by appeals in 2008 the Marine brass told Vokey he would not be permitted to extend his active duty service beyond Oct. 1, 2008, court records show.

It wasn’t the first time the Marine Corps tried to remove Vokey after he was appointed to defend Wuterich. He was fired as Regional Defense Counsel in September 2007 for assigning too many defense attorneys to the Haditha and Hamdaniya defendants then facing court-martial in the biggest scandals in Marine Corps history. At the time Vokey was one of three regional defense attorneys charged by the Marine Corps with supervising the defense teams within the various commands of the Marine Corps. At the same time he was defending Wuterich against 17 charges of unpremeditated murder at Haditha.

Vokey was fired by Colonel Rose M. Favors, then the Command Defense Counsel of the entire Marine Corps after conferring with the one-star Judge Advocate General, who reports to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Favors told Vokey that assigning so many defense lawyers was unnecessary for them to receive adequate representation. He was rehired after the legal community inside and outside the Corps erupted in indignation.

He continued to be a thorn in the Marine Corps’ side after that skirmish. When the media hysteria proclaiming massacre and cover up spawned the largest investigation in Marine Corps history proved to be fallacious, the criminal complaints against six of the Marines from 3^rd Battalion, 1^st Marines, including Wuterich’s battalion commander and company commander, were dismissed. A third officer, an intelligence specialist recommended for a Bronze Star for his actions with the Thundering Third, was found not guilty of obstructing justice and trying to sneak out of the Marine Corps, the single note of hilarity in the otherwise gloomy dirge.

Puckett said the late date for entering the motion was not a ploy; rather it is an honest indication of the pain the Marine Corps’ procedural faux paux caused in the middle of the most complex case it ever prosecuted. The government has spent untold millions of dollars and thousands of man hours pursuing an incident the Iraqis call the “Haditha Accident.”

“We apologized to the court. We didn’t see it until we were in the last stages of preparing for court-martial and then we realized ‘Holy crap, we can’t use Vokey in this’ and he handles a third of our case load,” Puckett said.

Vokey continued to represent Wuterich after he retired on a part time basis until the defense team discovered he had a conflict of interest because the Texas law firm he joined also represents Cpl. Hector Salinas, a former grenadier in Wuterich’s squad and a designated witness for the prosecution. That tenuous association makes it legally impossible for Vokey to cross-examine Salinas during Wuterich’s court-martial, something Vokey has been preparing to do for almost four years. Therefore Vokey has no option but to withdraw from the case, a potentially fatal blow for the defense, Puckett opined.

“If he [military judge Lieutenant Colonel David Jones] finds in our favor the defense will ask the judge to dismiss all the charges against Wuterich, arguing that his defense has been compromised,” Puckett said, adding that Vokey was the only defense lawyer to go to Iraq and witness the scene of the killings. “The prosecution will appeal the judges’ ruling, it wouldn’t drop the charges.”

Vokey isn’t now available only because the Marine Corps forced him to retire over his strongest protestations, Puckett added.

“If he hadn’t had to take a job with the first law firm he could find to take care of his family after being forced to retire, the conflict would not have occurred. Vokey actually went to Haditha with Wuterich and covered the ground, examined the location where the ambush occurred, examined the alleged crime scene. That is all essential to our defense and now Wuterich has been deprived of a critical member of the team because of the Marine Corps’ insistence he retire,” Puckett explained.

The judge could rule anytime after the formal motion is submitted Friday and Wuterich’s trial date still set for Sept. 13, Puckett said.

The Hutchins decision

In Hutchins’ case, the appellate court overturned the infantryman’s conviction because the Marine Corps allowed his appointed defense co-counsel to obtain discharge in the critical days before Hutchins was tried.

“The multiple errors and inattention leading to deprivation of counsel in this case reflect something of a perfect storm,” the court said.

In an 8-1 decision the highest court of military judges ruled that the departure of one of his primary attorneys shortly before the court-martial began resulted in an unfair trial. It decided the Marine Corps legal system failed Hutchins when it allowed the discharge of one Capt G. Bass; the Marine Corps lawyer appointed co-counsel in Hutchins’ defense.

“On 31 Aug 2006 … Captain Bass tendered a request to resign his commission for an effective date of 1 July 2007,” according to court records.

Bass however did not represent Hutchins after May 25, 2007 when he began a terminal leave period that ended upon his release from active duty on July 1, 2007. Hutchins was scheduled for court-martial in July. Bass also failed to inform his client he was leaving until the day he disappeared from Hutchins’ defense team for good, the court record shows.

Puckett called the action an “egregious error” that revealed itself in what happened to Hutchins after his lawyer was discharged.

Thirty-five days later Hutchins was convicted of murder for leading his squad in the alleged April 2006 kidnapping and execution of an Iraqi civilian in Hamdaniya, Iraq. On Aug. 3, 2007 he was sentenced to 15 years in Leavenworth. His sentence was later reduced to 11 years by a clemency board, court records reveal.

After having his conviction overturned Hutchins was restored to his former rank and remains on duty in Calif. pending the appeal decision. Meanwhile the government still asserts the victim was abducted from his home and killed by Hutchins and his men. It alleges his squad placed a shovel and weapon next to the dead man so it would appear he was planting an improvised explosive device. Hutchins was also found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, making a false official statement and larceny.

Both of the Marines convicted with him apparently had adequate counsel. Cpl. Marshall L. Magincalda was found guilty of larceny, housebreaking and conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping, larceny, obstruction of justice, making a false official statement and housebreaking. He was sentenced to 448 days confinement and reduction in rank to Private. He had been in the brig at Camp Pendleton for 450 days and therefore released immediately. Cpl. Trent D. Thomas was sentenced to reduction in rank to Pvt. E-1 and a bad conduct discharge.

According the appellate court’s April, 2010 Hutchins decision:

• “After this early May 2007 meeting between Captain Bass and the appellant [Hutchins], the appellant never saw Captain Bass again.”

• “The appellant was never advised that he could request that Captain Bass be extended on active duty to complete the appellant’s trial.”

• “The appellant never signed a document releasing Captain Bass from active duty

• “Captain Bass never ‘requested’ that the appellant release him as his counsel; instead, Captain Bass presented the situation to the appellant as one in which there was no other option to remain on active duty.”

The government has appealed the Hutchins decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; the highest court a military member can seek a remedy before the issue goes to the US Supreme Court.

Puckett said the Marine Corps made the same egregious errors when it forced Vokey to retire.

“Because it is a new precedent doesn’t make any less of a law, the law is the law,” Puckett said. “The Marine Corps made a mistake forcing Vokey to retire.”

The prosecution has already stopped the proceedings several times while it appealed motions incited by its relentless prosecution of the last enlisted man facing court-martial. The case was stopped cold for almost two years while the prosecution fought it out with CBS television over out takes Wuterich made during his controversial appearance on 60 Minutes the broadcasting company refused to give up to the prosecution. Ultimately CBS prevailed in that fight after the issue went all the way to the U.S. Court for the Armed Forces in Washington, D.C.

Wuterich was charged on Dec. 21, 2006. Since then the last combat troops have left Iraq, making the war essentially over. At his preliminary hearing, Wuterich said he regretted the loss of civilian lives but believed he was operating within military combat rules when he ordered his men to attack.

Wuterich is accused of commanding a squad of Marines who killed 15 civilians – primarily women and children – as well as nine insurgents operating among them after his 12-man squad was ambushed at Haditha. During a lightning counter-attack Wuterich and three of his men swept through two houses where the civilian deaths occurred.

Last Wednesday, Iraqi insurgents indiscriminately killed more than 50 people in bombings and shootings in 11 towns and cities across the country.

__________________________________________

Nathaniel R. Helms
Defend Our Marines
19 August 2010

Note: Nat Helms is a Contributing Editor to Defend Our Marines. He is a Vietnam veteran, former police officer, war correspondent, and, most recently, author of My Men Are My Heroes: The Brad Kasal Story (Meredith Books, 2007).

Sadly, we just heard that Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, U.S. Marine Corps will face a General Courts-Martial.

The trial of Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich will go ahead after a military judge in California refused to dismiss the charges.

Sgt Wuterich is one of eight marines originally charged with murder or failure to investigate the killings. The charges against six of them were dropped or dismissed, and one was acquitted.

Lawyers for Sgt Wuterich had argued that his case should be dismissed. They said that an investigator into the incident was involved in meetings with the general who brought the initial charges against the soldiers.

But the judge ruled that there was no unlawful influence and no record of any “meaningful comment” between the general and an aide who had investigated the case as a military lawyer.

It means Sgt Wuterich faces a trial on charges of voluntary manslaughter and other crimes connected to the attack in Haditha. The deaths occurred after a marine was killed by a roadside bomb. Sgt Wuterich and a squad member were accused of shooting five men by a car at the scene. Investigators say he then ordered his men to clear several houses with grenades and gunfire. At an earlier hearing, Sgt Wuterich said he regretted the loss of civilian lives but believed he was operating within military combat rules when he ordered his men to attack.

Published on 03/23/10

By Mark Walker

NC Times

Gen. James Mattis, one of the most revered commanders in the Marine Corps, said Monday that he was never improperly influenced when deciding how to prosecute troops charged in the slayings of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq.

“I don’t recall a single time that anyone tried to influence me unlawfully,” Mattis testified in a Camp Pendleton courtroom, where the lone remaining Haditha defendant, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, is seeking to have the charges against him dismissed.

Mattis testified for more than 90 minutes. He said he independently reviewed all the investigative reports about the killings, which occurred after a roadside bomb killed one Marine and injured two others.

“I do my duty and let others do theirs,” said the four-star general, who now heads the U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va.

Wuterich’s attorneys want a judge to rule that unlawful command influence stemming from the role of a legal adviser to Mattis illegally taints the prosecution.

The 30-year-old Wuterich is charged with manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, obstruction of justice and dereliction of duty arising out of his role in the November 2005 incident.
He said little during the packed hearing other than to answer a couple of procedural questions posed by the judge.

Mattis was the convening authority over the eight Marines charged with crimes at Haditha, the largest prosecution of U.S. troops in the Iraq war, when he was stationed at Camp Pendleton in 2006-07 as head of the I Marine Expeditionary Force.

In his role as convening authority, Mattis had final say on which defendants would ultimately face trial.

Mattis acknowledged Monday that Col. John Ewers sat in on meetings in 2007 to consider alleged wartime abuses by U.S. troops but said the aide recused himself from discussions on the Haditha case.

The defense argues that Mattis was improperly influenced by Ewers, who investigated the killings and later became a top legal adviser to the general. Military policy prohibits Ewers from offering legal advice on Haditha because he was also an investigator in the case.

Similar arguments of unlawful command influence led to the dismissal of dereliction of duty charges against Wuterich’s battalion commander, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani. Chessani’s attorneys successfully argued, and were upheld on appeal, that Ewers’ mere presence constituted unlawful influence.

Mattis also testified in that case that he had no improper contacts or advice. Mattis, who led the Marine Corps’ invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, testified that he pored over thousands of pages of investigative reports into the Haditha killings, which ultimately resulted in a Pentagon requirement that all civilian killings receive at least a cursory investigation.

“I intended to have a better grasp (of the cases) than anyone before I subject Marines to situations like we are in today,” the general said.

At one point, a prosecutor handed Mattis a binder full of pictures of the slain Iraqis.

After thumbing through pages, Mattis said he recognized the victims as “noncombatants.”

Mattis said he did consult with his legal advisers, but not with Ewers, who had recused himself from offering any specific advice.

Final prosecution decisions came from him alone, Mattis said. “I’m obligated to do my duty,” he said. “I did my best.”

After Mattis testified, Lt. Col. George Riggs, who preceded Ewers as the general’s legal adviser, testified that Mattis always made his own decisions and wasn’t swayed by anyone, including those above him.

“General Mattis is one of the most single-minded commanders we have,” Riggs said. “He doesn’t give a damn what higher headquarters thinks. He’s his own man.”

On Tuesday, retired Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland is expected to testify about his recollections of Ewers’ role in the Haditha decisions Helland made after assuming the I Marine Expeditionary Force command and oversight role from Mattis in mid-2007.

Seven of the eight original Haditha defendants have had the cases against them withdrawn, dismissed or been acquitted.

The Wuterich hearing is expected to last most of the week.

If the judge rules in Wuterich’s favor, the Marine Corps has several options, including an appeal or ordering an entirely new investigation.

Wuterich, 30, was on his first combat assignment at Haditha, leading a unit from Camp Pendleton’s 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.

After the roadside bomb was triggered, he and his troops stormed a series of homes, resulting in the deaths of 19 men, women and children.

Five men who drove up in a car immediately after the bombing also were slain. Investigators have said that none of the Iraqis who were killed could be tied to the insurgency.

Wuterich, who remains on active duty at Camp Pendleton, and is scheduled to go on trial starting Sept. 13.

Los Angeles Times
March 24, 2010
Pg. AA5

Ruling May End Marine’s Haditha Case
A military judge sees the possibility of undue command influence. A similar finding halted a related trial.
By Tony Perry

SAN DIEGO — The defense for the last Marine facing criminal charges in the fatal shooting of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 won a key ruling Tuesday that could lead to the dropping of the case.

Lt. Col. David Jones, the judge, ruled that attorneys for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich had successfully shown that there was the possibility of what the military calls undue command influence in the decision by a general to send Wuterich to a court martial.

Jones’ ruling requires that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no such influence existed or that, although it may have existed, it did not influence the generals’ decision.

Faced with a similar ruling in the case of another Marine charged in the Haditha killings, prosecutors could not meet the burden of proof to the judge’s satisfaction. After losing an appeal, the Marine Corps dismissed charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani.

Jones set a hearing for Wednesday to hear any evidence prosecutors want to present. Maj. Nicholas Gannon, one of the prosecutors, said he was “99.9% sure” that he has no further evidence.

During the two-day hearing at Camp Pendleton, Gen. James Mattis and retired Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland testified that their decisions to charge Wuterich were not improperly influenced. Jones promised to issue his ruling Friday afternoon.

If he rules against the prosecution, he could dismiss the charges against Wuterich, which include manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, dereliction of duty and obstruction of justice.

He could also order the Marine Corps to hold a new preliminary hearing or assign the case to a general not “tainted” by alleged undue influence. In that event, the Marine Corps could decide to drop the case, as it did with Chessani.

Jones said he was troubled by the fact that a lawyer who had been part of an early investigation into the Haditha killings later sat in on staff meetings at which the Wuterich case was discussed. He also said that another lawyer advising the generals did not recuse himself from all aspects of the Haditha case after a run-in with the preliminary hearing judge for one of the defendants.

Wuterich, 30, showed no emotion when Jones issued his ruling.

Neal Puckett, one of Wuterich’s attorneys, said his client “is in good spirits. He hasn’t complained at all. He loves the Marine Corps and wants to make it a career.”

Another of his attorneys, Haytham Faraj, said it was to the Marine Corps’ credit that Mattis was ordered to undergo cross-examination about the case.

Of eight Marines charged in late 2006 in connection with the killings, six had their cases dismissed and one was found not guilty. Wuterich was the squad leader when Marines began searching nearby buildings after a roadside bomb killed one Marine and injured two.

Five Iraqis were killed by the Marines near the blast, and 19 others were killed in three houses. None was shown to have insurgent ties or to have been involved in the bomb blast.

Exonerated Marine to sue Rep. Murtha
Thursday, September 25, 2008
By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

One of the Marines cleared in the killings of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha plans to sue his congressman today for statements he says defamed him and other members of his squad.

Former Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 24, of Canonsburg, will file a civil lawsuit against U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Johnstown, who was widely quoted two years ago saying that eight Marines carried out a cold-blooded killing of 24 civilians in the Iraqi town on Nov. 19, 2005.

Charges were later dropped against all but one of the Marines, with a military prosecutor calling allegations against Mr. Sharratt “incredible.”

Noah Geary, a Washington County lawyer representing Mr. Sharratt, said his client will file suit today in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh accusing Mr. Murtha of violating his constitutional rights as well as slander for statements about the Haditha incident. A 1:30 p.m. news conference has been planned to announce the suit.

“He just held innumerable press conferences, just repeatedly kept saying this was cold-blooded murder,” Mr. Geary said of the congressman.

While Mr. Sharratt killed three insurgents, Mr. Geary said, he followed the rules of engagement for combat.

The Haditha incident remains a political flash point in the Iraq War, with critics saying Mr. Murtha, a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam, defamed American troops.

Mr. Murtha could not be reached last night and a spokesman did not respond to a message requesting comment.

One of the Marines at Haditha, squad leader Frank Wuterich, sued Mr. Murtha shortly after the congressman’s first public remarks at the beginning of 2006. That lawsuit has been in abeyance as Mr. Wuterich remains the only member of the eight-man squad still facing charges in connection with the deaths.

Prosecutors accused Mr. Wuterich, the staff sergeant, of leading some members of his squad to attack Iraqi civilians as revenge for a roadside bomb that killed one Marine and wounded two others. The defendants said any civilians who died were killed unintentionally, caught in the crossfire of a battle that broke out with insurgents after the blast.

Mr. Geary said Mr. Sharratt shot three individuals later identified as insurgents.

In the year after he was cleared, Mr. Sharratt left the Marine Corps.

His father, Darryl, said he telephoned Mr. Murtha’s office more than 40 times seeking an apology.

Sometime last year, Darryl Sharratt said, he reached the congressman personally.

“He kept skirting the issue,” Darryl Sharratt said. “This was right after Justin was exonerated and at no time did he acknowledge the fact that Justin was exonerated. He played the role of politician.”

Dennis Roddy can be reached at droddy@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1965.

MORE…

UPDATE – Marine accuses Murtha of slandar in lawsuit BY MIKE FAHER The Tribune-Democrat September 25, 2008 05:29 pm

— In May 2006, six months after 24 people were killed in a small Iraqi town, U.S. Rep. John Murtha made a startling accusation.

American soldiers, he contended, had killed innocent civilians “in cold blood.”

Now, less than six weeks before the longtime Johnstown Democrat is up for re-election, a Marine involved in the now-infamous Haditha incident is suing Murtha for slander.
Justin Sharratt of Canonsburg, Washington County, left the Marine Corps last year. But he claims Murtha’s statements have caused “permanent, irreversible damage to his reputation.”

“What Murtha did is outrageous, and I am seeking punitive damages,” said Noah Geary, a Pittsburgh attorney representing Sharratt.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in federal court in Pittsburgh.

It includes Murtha’s statements from nationally televised interviews in 2006, including an exchange with CNN interview with anchor Wolf Blitzer.

“There was an (improvised explosive device) attack, it killed one Marine, and then they overreacted and killed a number of civilians without anybody firing at them,” Murtha told Blitzer. “That’s what you’re going to find out.”

At this point, though, seven of the eight servicemen charged in the incident have been cleared. Geary said Sharratt was charged with three counts of unpremeditated murder but was later exonerated.

Sharratt, 24, was honorably discharged from the Marines, Geary said.

The lawsuit claims Murtha violated Sharratt’s constitutional rights to presumption of innocence and due process of law.
While Geary acknowledged that the congressman never mentioned his client by name, he said media reports did identify Sharratt. And the effects have been long-lasting, the attorney said.

“People see that on TV,” Geary said. “It becomes truth – it becomes a fact.”
He added that “Justin has had people approach him, giving him a hard time” in reference to Haditha.

And the suit says Sharratt has lost “significant employment opportunities” and “significant associational opportunities.”

Murtha, through a spokesman, offered no comment Thursday.

But when a different Haditha Marine filed a lawsuit against him in 2006, Murtha said he simply wanted to focus attention on troops who were “caught in the middle of a tragic dilemma” in war-torn Iraq.

“When I spoke up about Haditha, my intention was to draw attention to the horrendous pressure put on our troops in Iraq and to the cover-up of the incident,” Murtha said at the time.

The 2006 lawsuit is ongoing. It was filed by Frank D. Wuterich, the only Marine not yet cleared in the Haditha incident.

Wuterich has pleaded not guilty to voluntary manslaughter charges, The Associated Press reported.

Haditha has become a political issue in western Pennsylvania.

Diana Irey, a Republican Washington County commissioner, often spoke of the Haditha Marines during her unsuccessful 2006 campaign against Murtha.

Republican William Russell, challenging Murtha this year, has resurrected the theme.

In fact, Russell’s campaign Web site features a “personal video message”
from Justin Sharratt’s father, Darryl. And Russell’s only television ad has focused on Murtha’s Haditha comments.

Geary denied that Sharratt’s lawsuit is connected in any way to the Russell campaign.

Instead, he said, the legal action must be filed now because a statute of limitations for slander lawsuits is about to expire.

“There’s no political motivation whatsoever,” Geary said. “This is purely a legal endeavor.”

Nevertheless, Russell issued a statement on Sharratt’s lawsuit Thursday.

“I sincerely hope that Congressman Murtha will use this opportunity to admit his mistake and take responsibility for the harm his false accusations have done to Justin Sharratt and his family,” Russell said. “Justin’s right to justice goes beyond politics.”

Murtha has 60 days to respond to the lawsuit.