Stephen M. Truitt
Although retired from Pepper Hamilton, Truitt continues to practice general civil litigation as a solo. In addition, along with former Pepper colleague Charles Carpenter, he has volunteered to serve pro bono to help Guantanamo captives, and represents two men currently held there: Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah (a.k.a. Sa id Salih Sa id Nashir) and Maher El Falesteny (a.k.a. Mahrar Rafat Al Quwari). Former client Rami Bin Said Al Taibi was transferred to Saudi Arabia in 2007.
Truitt is a plaintiff in Wilner v. NSA.
Truitt represented a number of companies that had claims against Iran arising from the Iranian Revolution before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, and was the first to address the full tribunal in the Forum Clause cases. He later represented a class of Tribunal claimants whose claims were espoused by the United States and settled. He also represented the National Iranian Oil Company in an action against Ashland Oil, Inc. for $283,000,000.00 in oil shipments not paid for by Ashland This case was settled in 1989 just prior to trial set in MIssissippi with Ashland paying NIOC $325,000,000.00 in settlement of NIOC's claims and Ashland's counterclaims.
Previously Truitt represented the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island (a federally recognized tribe) in a suit against the United States filed in 1954 and finally litigated in the late 1960s and 1970s. The claims arose under the Indian Claims Commission Act. The resulting award is the only one ever made exclusively under clause 2(5) of that act permitting recoveries for breach of the government's duty to "deal fairly and honorably with the tribe according to rules not known at law or equity." The award was essentially for a government imposed serfdom on the Tribe from 1876 to 1946.
- "October 14, 2007, TD Blog Interview with Stephen Truitt and Charles Carpenter". The Talking Dog. October 14, 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
- Jess Bravin (2005-08-30). "Lawyers for Saudi Prisoner Ask Court to Throw Out Roberts Ruling". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2010-04-24.
Lawyers for one of those prisoners, Rami bin Saad al-Oteibi of Saudi Arabia, filed their motion under seal on Friday. A court security officer cleared it for public release yesterday. The motion seeks to intervene in the Hamdan case and asks for a new hearing before a panel without Judge Roberts.mirror
- Mark Mazzetti, Scott Shane (March 28, 2008). "Tapes' Destruction Hovers Over Detainee Cases". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-29.
One of the court orders, issued in July 2005 by Judge Richard W. Roberts of the Federal District Court in Washington, required the preservation of all evidence related to Hani Abdullah, the Yemeni prisoner at Guantánamo, who is accused of attending a Qaeda training camp in 2001 and other offenses. Judge Roberts said in a January order that Mr. Abdullah’s lawyers had made a plausible case that Abu Zubaydah would have been asked about their client in interrogations.
- "Destroyed tapes come back to vex CIA". United Press International. March 28, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-29.
In a suit brought by Hani Abdullah, a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a federal judge has raised the possibility that the U.S. spy agency violated a court order to preserve all evidence relevant to the prisoner by destroying the tapes, The New York Times reported Friday.
- Matt Apuzzo (25 January 2008). "Judge seeking details on CIA tapes". Contra Costa Times. Retrieved 2008-03-29.
Roberts issued a three-page ruling late Thursday siding with Carpenter, who represents Guantanamo Bay detainee Hani Abdullah. The judge said the lawyers had made a preliminary "showing that information obtained from Abu Zubaydah" was relevant to the detainee's lawsuit and should not have been destroyed.
- "U.S. judge orders White House to explain destruction of CIA tapes". CBC News. 25 January 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-29.
There's enough there that it's worth asking" whether other videos or documents were also destroyed, said attorney Charles Carpenter, who represents Guantanamo Bay detainee Hani Abdullah. "I don't know the answer to that question, but the government does know the answer and now they have to tell Judge Roberts.
- Abrahim-Youri v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 482 (1996), aff'd, 139 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied sub nom. Gurney v. United States, 524 U.S.951 (1998).
- See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD81E3FF933A25751C1A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all