IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION

Filing 571

NOTICE of Authorization of Counsel by HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL-MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL-MITHALI re (210 in 1:08-mc-00442-TFH) Order (Cowan, Jennifer)

Download PDF
IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION Doc. 571 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE: Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH) GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION Civil Action No. 05-2186 (ESH) NOTICE OF AUTHORIZATION Pursuant to the Court's July 29, 2008 Order (misc. no. 08-442, dkt. no. 210), counsel for Hayal Aziz Ahmed Al-Mithali ("Petitioner") and his next friend Ali Aziz Ahmed Al-Mithali respectfully submit this notice of authorization of counsel. On more than one occasion, Petitioner has orally authorized Debevoise & Plimpton LLP to represent him in this action, as well as any other actions related to his imprisonment at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 22824018v2 Dockets.Justia.com In lieu of written authorization, we submit the declaration of Jennifer R. Cowan, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. September 29, 2008 Respectfully submitted, DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP _/s/_Jennifer R. Cowan___________ Jennifer R. Cowan 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 Facsimile: (212) 909-6836 John B. Missing 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 383-8000 Facsimile: (202) 383-8118 Shayana Kadidal (Bar No. 454248) CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, New York 10012 Tel: (212) 614-6438 Fax: (212) 614-6499 Counsel for Petitioners Hayal Aziz Ahmed AlMithali and Next Friend Ali Aziz Ahmed AlMithali 2 22824018v2 EXHIBIT 1 22824018v2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE: Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH) GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION Civil Action No. 05-2186 (ESH) DECLARATION OF JENNIFER R. COWAN I, Jennifer R. Cowan, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare the following: 1. I am counsel with the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. Debevoise provides pro bono representation to several men who are detained by the United States at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ("Guantanamo"), including Petitioner Hayal Aziz Ahmed Al-Mithali ("Petitioner") and his brother and Next Friend Ali Aziz Ahmed AlMithali ("Ali"). 2. five years. 3. In June 2005, Petitioner's brother, Ali Aziz Ahmed Al-Mithali, executed a next Petitioner has been detained by the United States at Guantanamo for more than friend authorization on behalf of Petitioner (attached hereto as Exhibit A) which, among other things, authorized the Center for Constitutional Rights ("CCR") and any person assigned by the Center for Constitutional Rights to act on Petitioner's behalf. 4. 5. CCR assigned Debevoise to act as counsel for Petitioner and his next friend. In November 2005, Debevoise and CCR filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of Petitioner on the basis of Ali's next friend authorization, which was attached as Exhibit A to the habeas petition. 1 22824018v2 6. In December 2005, several of my colleagues and I traveled to Yemen and met with Ali and other members of Petitioner's family. During those meetings, Ali orally authorized Debevoise to represent Petitioner in all court proceedings connected to his imprisonment at Guantanamo. 7. My colleagues and I have met with Petitioner at Guantanamo on numerous occasions, and he has orally authorized Debevoise to represent him in this action and in any other court proceeding related to his imprisonment at Guantanamo. 8. Petitioner has not signed an authorization and is wary of signing documents. I do not believe that any rule or order of this Court requires him to do so. 9. On November 21, 2005, Judge Ellen S. Huvelle entered the Amended Protective Order and Procedures for Counsel Access to Detainees at the United States Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, first issued on November 8, 2004 in In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 344 F.Supp.2d 174 (D.D.C. 2004) and certain subsequent related orders in this case (the "Original Protective Order"). (Case No. 05-CV-2386, Document 66.) The Original Protective Order did not require petitioners to sign an authorization stating that a petitioner had authorized counsel to pursue the action. Instead, the Original Protective Order provided that "Counsel shall provide evidence of his or her authority to represent the detainee. . . ." (Prot. Order, Revised Procedures for Counsel Access to Detainees at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, § III.C.2.) 10. On September 11, 2008 Judge Thomas F. Hogan replaced the Original Protective Order with a Protective Order and Procedures for Counsel Access to Detainees at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (misc. no. 08-442, dkt. no. 409) (the "Revised 2 22824018v2 Protective Order"). The Revised Protective Order provides that "[C]ounsel shall provide evidence of their authority to represent the detainee." (Revised Prot. Order, § II.10.a.) 11. It has been my understanding that evidence of an attorney's direct authority to represent a detainee may take the form of a sworn statement by the attorney. See Adem v. Bush, Case No. 05-CV-723 (RWR) (AK), dkt. no. 42, at 14-15 ("Here, a sworn statement provides evidence that [petitioner] was actively seeking a lawyer to represent him."). 12. My most recent meeting with Petitioner was on July 16, 2008, approximately two weeks prior to the Court's Order of July 29, 2008 requiring submission of an authorization or declaration. 13. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242, Debevoise and CCR are also authorized to represent Petitioner based on the next friend authorization executed by Ali. Ali has a significant relationship with Petitioner and is truly dedicated to his best interests. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 29, 2008. /s/ Jennifer R. Cowan Jennifer R. Cowan 3 22824018v2 Case 1:05-cv-02186-ESH Document 1 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 34 of 35 Case 1:05-cv-02186-ESH Document 1 Filed 11/07/2005 Page 35 of 35

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?