“Thanks to State Department Cables, a U.S.Torture Victim Won a Rare $10 Million Settlement against UAE ruling family” – The condition: ‘Silence in the Press’!

July 13, 2017 Washington, D.C.  [First Published In ‘The Intercept News’]

Abu Dhabi Crown Prince and de facto ruler of the UAE Federation, Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, is a fugitive from justice. The Government of India has also helped him remain a 'fugitive debtor' all these years! 'A total shame for the so-called India-UAE relations'!!


‘Earn ‘FIVE TIMES’ Instant Value Without Losing Your MONEY’! -
A Unique Social Awareness Campaign to Enforce Unpaid and Unsatisfied
UAE Court Judgments’. …‘Crowdfunding Global Campaigns’

“Thanks to State Department Cables, a U.S. Torture Victim Won a Rare $10 Million Settlement against UAE ruling family” – The condition: Silence in the Press.

[Nearly three decades after he was tortured by high-ranking officials in the United Arab Emirates, Los Angeles resident Khaled Hassen secured a $10 million settlement against the top three members of the country’s ruling family. As a condition of his settlement, Hassen is not allowed to speak about the case; documents confirming the secret agreement was obtained by the Intercept through a “hacker,” or someone who had access to UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba's hotmail account. Hassen, who was held for two years captive in Abu Dhabi prison from at least 1984, brought the suit only in 2009 the Intercept reports].

[By ‘Ryan Grim’ and ‘Alex Emmons’]

An American citizen won  a rare $10 million torture settlement against three top members of the ruling family in the United Arab Emirates, after State Department cables proved the man had indeed been detained as he had claimed.

The confidential and previously unreported settlement was paid out in May 2013, according to documents extracted from the hotmail account of UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba. The documents were provided to The Intercept either by a hacker or someone who had access to his account.

Settlements for torture victims are extraordinarily rare, making the payout to Los Angeles resident Khaled Hassen that much more surprising.

Hassen’s case was brought in federal court in L.A. against three of the most powerful figures in the Gulf — the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan, known in Washington as MBZ, a man particularly close to Otaiba; the emir of the UAE, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan; and General Saeed Hilal Abdullah al Darmaki.

The case had more than geopolitical hurdles to overcome: it was seeking justice from an abduction all the way back in January of 1984, when Hassen was working for a member of the royal family consulting on weapons contracting. Competition for contracts in the arms-trade industry can often turn violent, as it did in Hassen’s case. At the time, the three defendants were also in the arms trading business, and were rivals of Hassen’s boss as they all fought to rise through the ranks of the UAE power structure.

MBZ personally witnessed some of Hassen’s torture, Hassen claimed.

Hassen, in his suit, claims he was held in a windowless 7 by 10 foot cell until November 1985, beaten, blindfolded for days at a time, with the air conditioner cut off in the summers, causing the temperature to rise to excruciating levels. His feet and legs, he said, were bound together and he was hung upside down for long periods of time; he was fed foul tasting liquids that brought on “severe pain and hallucinations.” All the while, the State Department was working feverishly to locate and visit with him, the cables indicate.

The suit was filed in February 2009, just weeks after the Obama administration took office. In November, the judge warned that the case was going to be dismissed for lack of action, as the defendants, who were in the UAE, had not been served. So Hassen’s attorneys served Otaiba instead, and the judge accepted it.

To overcome the denials of the UAE government, Hassen’s lawyers cited State Department cables that were released in 2006, showing U.S. embassy officials trying to locate Hassan and secure his release. “Special state security arm which claims even it has no jurisdiction over Al-Hassan [sic] admits latter does remain detained in Abu Dhabi under personal supervision of ‘highest levels’ of government…” one cable from July 1984 reads.

One of the UAE’s U.S.-based lawyers, Hamilton Loeb, noted in one email to Otaiba on July 2, 2010, that Hassen had produced nine State Department cables from 1984-1985 “that are somewhat ugly.” In them US embassy reports that after initial denials, UAE authorities confirmed Hassen was being held by a ‘special state security arm…under personal supervision of ‘highest levels’ of government.”

Loeb, who didn’t respond to a request for comment, told Otaiba that the cables made it impossible for the UAE to deny his imprisonment, and gave the case a credibility that they needed to take seriously, especially given the geopolitical implications.

Most cases that old don’t get very far — the statute of limitations on the U.S.’s Torture Victim Protections Act is 10 years — but Hassen argued that the power the men wielded made it reasonable for him to wait. He finally decided to go forward, he reasoned, because the UAE had decided it wanted to be on good terms with the US — a relationship that might be soured if an American citizen were murdered on American soil in retribution for a lawsuit.

Plaintiffs are typically required to exhaust all legal options in the home state of the defendants before bringing suit in the U.S., but Hassen argued that the courts in the UAE have no independence, and are controlled by the very people he is suing.

Most importantly, he argued, the release of the cables made it possible for him to prove his case.

The judge let it go forward.

Otaiba and the country’s foreign minister worked hard behind the scenes to shield the ruling family from liability, with limited success. U.S. law creates a process to remove a sitting head of state from a lawsuit for diplomatic purposes, and Otaiba successfully lobbied the State Department to request the emir be struck from the case. But Clinton declined to do the same favor for MBZ or al Darmaki.

On January 9, 2011, Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan thanked Clinton and the Department of Justice for granting the emir immunity, but pressed the case of MBZ. As a sign of how seriously the Emirates were taking the case, bin Zayed relayed to Clinton that he wanted to add it to the agenda of her upcoming trip to the Gulf.

Otaiba prepared talking points with a U.S. legal team, according to the emails, relying on a precedent set by Israel, a country that the UAE does not officially recognize, but with which they work in concert on regional issues in Washington. “We held off asserting ‘official acts’ in the initial round, in the belief that the judge would dismiss all claims on other grounds and thereby not require the UAE involve itself further in eliminating the lawsuit. The judge to whom the case was assigned, however, is brand-new on the bench and favorably disposed to claimants like Hassen. Accordingly, the UAE now needs to obtain State intervention to assert official acts immunity. If State does so, it is virtually automatic that the judge will dismiss the claims,” the talking points read.

“This is the same immunity that, for example, the Israelis used successfully to obtain State’s intervention in the Gaza apartment shelling case against Avi Dichter.”

The reasoning didn’t work, and MBZ remained on the case. When she was replaced by John Kerry as secretary of state, Otaiba pushed him as well.

On March 25, 2013, Kerry sent bin Zayed a letter that began: “Your Highness: It was a pleasure seeing you in Abu Dhabi on March 4, and I thank you for your letter regarding the case of Hassen v. Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nayhan et al.”

It read in full:

Attorneys from the Department of State’s Office of Legal Adviser recently met with Mr. Hamilton Loeb, one of Sheikh Mohammed’s attorneys, and discussed with him your request that the United States file a suggestion of immunity on behalf of Sheikh Mohammed. The Department will continue to monitor this case closely and continue our communications with Mr. Loeb concerning developments in the litigation.

Kerry, those who worked with him say, always enjoyed his time in the Gulf region meeting with leaders there — the fabulously expensive bottles of wine that are routinely uncorked when the ruling elite dine agree with Kerry’s elite sensibilities. But the wine wasn’t enough to buy MBZ’s way off the Hassen case, and Kerry’s diplomatic brush off seems to have sent UAE leaders scrambling toward a settlement.

By May 2, 2013, just a few weeks after Kerry’s rejection, the deal had been signed and counter-signed, and wiring instructions for a $10 million payout were circulated by Otaiba. The condition: silence in the press.

“The Embassy is not commenting on the emails,” said the Harbour Group’s Richard Mintz an Otaiba representative. The Intercept reached out to the law firm who represented Hassen and a woman there said the firm couldn’t comment on the case and immediately hung up.

In April 2013, the same years as Hassen’s settlement, the UAE government imprisoned Shez Cassim, a US citizen from Minnesota, for producing a satirical video about Dubai youth culture, the beginning of a horrifying odyssey through the country’s prison system. Soon, Otaiba would be fielding calls and emails from the Minnesota congressional delegation on the detention of Cassim, who became a cause celeb for comedians in the U.S., including Will Ferrell and others at Funny Or Die.

“I continue to be shocked that he is still in jail,” Sen. Amy Klubuchar (D-Minn.) wrote in one email to Otaiba on Christmas Day 2013. “I believe your country has reached a place on the world stage where these things matter even if they were acceptable in the past. That is the case I hope you can make.”

Otaiba told Klobuchar he would continue to lobby MBZ — fresh off the $10 million settlement for allegedly overseeing the torture of Hassen — to release Cassim. “I assure you that’s precisely the case I am making and it does have merit,” he assured her. He was released the next month.

In May 2014, Otaiba authorized the release of that year’s payment to Hassen after a search of the media turned up no articles on Hassen’s case.

Last Updated: July 13, 2017

View Excerpts from Failed Arguments of the Defendants, Central District Court:- Khaled Al Hassen v. Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan – The Attorneys for Defendants

* UAE offers a more adequate and alternative forum for Plaintiff’s claims; The UAE Constitution prohibits wrongful arrests, improper detention, and torture of all persons, including non-citizens.

* Litigating Plaintiff’s claim in California would be inefficient and unfair for Defendants, who reside in the UAE and hold extremely high governmental positions which require their presence and attention. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because this District is a seriously inconvenient forum for this lawsuit.

* Sheikh Mohamed and Sheikh Khalifa Are Absolutely Immune Under the Head-of-State Immunity Doctrine Regardless of whether general or specific jurisdiction exists, this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Sheikh Mohammed and Sheikh Khalifa under any circumstances because they are heads of state recognized by the U.S. Government, and thus “absolutely immune from personal jurisdiction in United States courts”.  …
Read full text: ‘Failed Arguments of the Defendants – Motion to Dismiss Case’

 ‘Khaled Case’ Full Text:  ‘Khaled Al Hassen v. Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan’ @ United States Courts Archive


“Support the “Judgment Creditor” to strengthen the Integrity of the Judiciary
and people’s confidence in our Justice System”.
“Invest In ‘UAE Judgments’ Min. 500% Returns! – Read Brochure”


Crowdfunding Promoted by: ‘Alliance Judgment Recovery’

In support of:
Legal Cell; Lawyers India; Reparation Law; Judgment Creditor


“Twenty one years of arbitrary detention in various forms by the UAE administration, denying fundamental rights and grossly offending the values of human dignity”.

Judgment For Sale’ (Court Judgments are not worthless piece of papers) As a lawful owner of a legal Judgment, the ‘Decree Holder’ has the right to offer his Judgment for sale or to make efforts to legally enforce and recover his assets and the inherent rights of individuals to dignity. …Why do we sell the UAE Judgments?


Link To Global Campaign

‘Alliance Judgment Recovery’ Launches Global Campaign to Expose the UAE fraudsters

Link To Articles

Legal Instruments & References – The Multi Billion Dollars Judgment Portfolios of UAE.

Judgments and documents relating to ‘Judgment Creditor’

“Alliance Judgment Recovery Networks”


“Support the “Judgment Creditor” to strengthen the Integrity of the Judiciary and people’s confidence in our Justice System”.
“Invest In ‘Justice’ Multiple Your Returns! – Read Brochure”

How do I become a crowdfunding partner?
Visit Link: ‘Crowdfunding Global Partner Program’.


How do I become a ‘Referral Partner’?
Referral Partner Program is Absolutely Free to Join

This entry was posted in $10 Million Settlement, Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi Police, Arbitrary Detention in UAE, Authoritarianism, Freedom, Government of India, High Court of Delhi, Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Judgment Creditor, Khaled Al Hassen v. Sheikh Khalifa, Malicious Prosecution IN UAE, Sheikh Khalifa, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, The Judgment Debtor, UAE, UAE Business, UAE Court Judgments, UAE Crown Prince, UAE Debt Referral Program, UAE Foreign Ministry, UAE Government, UAE Human Rights, UAE Investments, UAE Investors, UAE Judgments for Sale, UAE Prison, UAE Prisons, UAE Reputation, UAE Torture, Uncategorized, United Arab Emirates, White Paper, Willful Defaulters and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply