ILNews

2 Indiana lawyers part of legal team representing plaintiffs in 9/11 litigation

Michael W. Hoskins
September 14, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even now, chills run down Mary Beth Ramey’s spine when she stands along the canal in downtown Indianapolis and thinks about how that spot ties into the litigation she’s been involved in for the past decade.

The longtime Indianapolis attorney recalls standing with family members of those killed on Sept. 11, 2001, overlooking the World Trade Center site that was still smoldering a few months after the attacks. That experience played a key part in her decision to fight for those families in the federal court system.

For her husband and law partner, Richard Hailey, the full impact of that same litigation hits home when he thinks back to interviewing the exiled president of Iran on foreign soil and wondering whether that deposition and even his life might be in jeopardy from bomb blasts or attempted assassination at any moment.

Those are the most poignant memories that the Hoosier lawyers have experienced as part of the legal team representing plaintiffs who had family members killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Ten years after 9/11, the two lawyers say the focus of the litigation hasn’t much changed: accountability of those they believe are responsible, based on a decade of high-risk international interviews, meticulous review of classified materials, and heart-wrenching visits to the terrorist-struck sites.
 

9-11-memorial-15col.jpg Standing in front of the Indianapolis 9/11 memorial just before its public unveiling, attorneys Richard Hailey and Mary Beth Ramey talk about representing families of those killed during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in a lawsuit against those they believe are responsible. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“We wanted to be a part of figuring out how this all came to be, to tell that story and expose this terrorist matrix that did this to us,” said Hailey, a personal injury lawyer and former president of the American Association of Justice who’s been practicing for more than three decades. “We believe this will result in an enormous, record-setting judgment against Iran, but these nation-state cases are about proving what happened and holding them accountable.”

First filed in 2002, the initial Washington, D.C., suit was on behalf of Fiona Havlish, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center attack. That case has since been consolidated into a single piece of multi-district litigation in the Southern District of New York, In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, No. 03 MDL 1570. The families of the more than 3,000 victims killed are accusing Iran of aiding and abetting Al Qaida in carrying out the mass-casualty plot. Plaintiffs have a default judgment against Iran, and Hailey says the suit could lead to billions in damages, but the principal focus is for the U.S. to admit Iran’s involvement and mount further investigations into that.

The Indiana lawyers were part of a group of 15 firms that gathered in New York just months after the attacks, when a friend and fellow attorney in Pennsylvania asked them to get together to discuss how this litigation might be possible using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

“We got involved because of a call from a friend, but we became committed by being there, seeing this, and talking to people who lost the ones they loved,” Hailey said. “I was angry and needed to do something. If I was 32, I knew what I would’ve done – that would have been to enlist. But at my age, the legal process is what I could do; it’s what I knew and believed in.”

The central component behind the litigation is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, which Hailey describes as saying: “we’ll respect your government’s sovereignty unless you do certain acts that give way to a private cause of action in our federal courts.”

Nine firms remain on the case after a decade, and Hailey describes the expensive and sometimes-dangerous litigation as “a hell of a journey.”

Some of the most memorable moments are sealed by court order, and Hailey can only tell the stories of what happened in those times of international travel through expressions on his face and emotion in his voice reflecting what he went through. He’s been to France, Germany, Spain, Iran, Iraq, and many other parts of the world to speak with former military and intelligence operatives. Hailey recalls once in France, finding out a former Iranian intelligence official was brutally murdered by a death squad the night before a deposition.

“This has been a career changer, “he said. “When you’re on the Feds’ watch list because you’re talking to murderers and foreign intelligence operators, or sitting in a room in France deposing the exiled president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, hoping that the building doesn’t blow up … that’s when it gets real. You have all that in the background, and it proves this isn’t just another case.”

Ramey didn’t travel overseas and instead handled many of the U.S. components, and so she was not exposed to the same level of danger as Hailey was. The most vivid memories for Ramey come from the very beginning, just months after the attacks when the two traveled to New York and talked to members of the 9/11 victims’ families and stood on a hotel platform overlooking Ground Zero. At the time, the site was still smoldering and those images, smells, and sounds still come to mind when she stands in front of the 9/11 Memorial in downtown Indianapolis and looks at the two beams from the World Trade Center on display. That sends a chill down her spine and brings back vivid memories.

“It takes you right back there, and really enforces why we’re doing all of this,” she said.

Appropriateness offederal courts

Not everyone agrees with this type of litigation. G. Robert Blakey, a Notre Dame law professor who is nationally known as an expert on federal racketeering, has also previously been involved in some 9/11 litigation. He doesn’t believe the Iran suit will be successful, since he sees that proving that a country may have intended money to go to terrorism is next to impossible and these organizations don’t have money on hand to collect. He also noted that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act doesn’t provide a RICO element, making collection even more difficult.

“I don’t think that civil litigation is the way to deal with terrorism,” he said. “Criminal or military tribunals, maybe. But not the civil courtroom in this way.”

Ramey and Hailey disagree, looking to one Washington, D.C., attorney on a similar Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act case against Hezbollah and Iran that has already collected some of the money. They see that seized assets and money in foreign banks, or even held in the U.S. Treasury, can be used to collect. Another possibility is a new democratic regime that is emerging in Iran, and the new leaders could agree to pay of some debts in order to make peace.

The defendants didn’t respond to the suit – Hailey says more than $100,000 was spent ensuring Iran received adequate legal service – and the court has entered a default judgment against Iran. After 10 years of investigation, the legal team filed its proofs in May and is now awaiting a decision from the judge on whether proceedings can be held to assess potential damages. The lawyers hope to know in the next year what happens next and if they’re able to proceed, or if other decisions need to be made about the litigation’s future.

“We’d hoped to close the book by now, to have some finality to this legal chapter,” Ramey said. “Litigation can keep wounds open, and many of these families want closure. But they do want to keep this alive and get disclosure, so that Iran is held accountable.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT