The Muslim Brotherhood By Any Other Name is Still Hamas-Linked
Muslim Groups Get Little in the Way Of Ruling

In 1973, the Saudis created an important arm of Muslim Brotherhood operations in the United States and domination of American Muslim communities: the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

NAIT “controls” approximately 80 percent of the titles/deeds to the mosques, Islamic organizations and Islamic schools in the United States, ensuring that the vast majority of Muslim facilities in this country are dominated by pure, Islam, origianl Islam, the most reactionary strains of Islam (more here.)

A U.S. appeals court ordered that a lower court's reference to the North American Islamic Trust's (NAIT) association with Hamas be partially amended. But the reporting on this has been less than accurate.  See Politico's Josh Gerstein's wrong conclusions.

Federal prosecutors violated the rights of a major American Islamic organization by including it in a list of unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism-support case, a federal judge ruled in an opinion ordered disclosed Wednesday by a federal appeals court.

Not so fast, tool. Download the two files below and read the document that the prosecution in the original Holy Land  trial wrote when NAIT and ISNA asked to be removed as unindicted co-conspirators (UCC) in the original case, and then check out the Court opinion from earlier last week.

Download 20 October 2010 – Appeal of NAIT on UCC-1

Download US_v_HLF_OppositionNAIT_ISNA[1]-1

I conferred with a number of legal experts, and I think the Court ruled as it had to — but gave no more. It specifically refused to go any further by sustaining any arguments to overrule the facts giving rise to Appendix A. To defeat all of NAITs efforts in this case, all one needs to do is to say UCC and "and Joint Ventures" and all is good. 

As you read through the 20 October 2010 opinion, it suggests that had the Holder DOJ followed up and prosecuted as planned and as it should have, the court would not have been required to render the current judgment. In fact, given that the DOJ did not follow through, it made the opinion somewhat necessary. 

The court gave what was technically true and then seems to say: “we grant NAIT what the law demands, but gave not one fu++ing inch more!"

On reading it, you get the sense that those writing about it to date mischaracterize what the Court did (or did not do):
 

• ·        "It is clear that the Government’s procedural error, therefore, was its failure to file Attachment A under seal, not its decision to try to characterize the scope of the charged conspiracy or to lay the groundwork for relying on Rule 801(d)(2)(E). In light thereof, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to expunge the mention of NAIT in the newly sealed attachment." (page 10)
• ·        V.  NAIT seeks two additional forms of relief. First, it asks that we “publicly affirm” the district court’s conclusion that its rights were violated. Second, it asks that we order that the district court make a public declaration that NAIT’s rights were violated. As to the first request, we cannot affirm or reverse the district court’s holding that NAIT’s rights were violated, because the Government has not appealed it. The district court’s ruling on that issue is the final determination thereof. As to the second request, it would be unnecessary to require the district court to make a public declaration of its earlier Fifth Amendment conclusion, because that conclusion will itself be public when the district court’s opinion and order is unsealed. (page 13)
• ·        VI.  For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s order only insofar as it requires that the opinion and order be sealed. All other requests for relief are DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the district court to unseal its order in accordance with this opinion.  (page 13)

 
I read this to say that the Court knows that the trial court was wrong to publish Attachment A:  List of Unindicted Conconspirators (it actually was wrong), but maybe the trial court judge understood this as well when deciding to put it out anyway. 

A very hollow victory!
 
IMHO, this is a Holder/DOJ issue. To so publicly name an entity an unindicted co-conspirator for the purpose of following up and prosecuting them on the second round puts parties on notice.
 
Put aside what you personally think about NAIT, ISNA and CAIR. They are being made to wear a label that has not been made real by a follow-up trial to prove the guilt already clearly mapped out in the HLF trial. So when the Justice Department decided not to proceed on the case, it makes the UCC designation serve as a indice of guilt without trial. In this country, this is not right and … if you think about it, the current Justice Department will let this serve as a mantle on which those entities can not unreasonably claim discriminatory practices — if they are allowed to spin it as the media seems to be doing. By not following up with a court case, Justice made this a foreseeable outcome — one that could actually validate the Muslim Brotherhood's narrative of harrassment. So once Justice decided not to follow through on the prosecution, it made the recent court opinion "correct" in the sense that it removes a status that has lost its relevance through failure to follow through.
 
I would not challenge the judges on this — they played it close and gave NAIT nothing they did not have to, and certainly not the “prize.” (When you read at least the last few pages — in bulleted statements above, I suspect you will see the point here). Again, this is in the purview of why Holder does not proceed with prosecution on a dead bang case — lumping it with the New Black Panthers. IMHO, this is the nexus that has to be advanced! The evidence is overwhelming. This is what has to be made the issue and it must be directed towards why Justice will not undertake such a case!

The recent ruling concerning the Muslim Brotherhood groups did not exonerate these subversive groups of their terror ties. The next round of prosecutions would have been Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad, who founded CAIR. But just as in the Black Panther case, the DoJ under Obama is not doing its job. Those Holy Land documents are all but dispositive in that area, so I would suspect that CAIR and especially its leaders fall deep in the unindicted coconspirator side of the equation, whereas NAIT is closer to the "joint venturer" side — because the focus of HLF was HAMAS, and CAIR was in the middle, whereas documents regarding NAIT just noted their habitual relationship.

Z Street has a good piece on this here.

Still Tainted by Terrorism Z STREET

10/25/10 Our attention was caught by a JTA story that suggested all of us CAIR-haters may not have CAIR to kick around anymore because of a court decision.  But after reading the article, and the Politico article upon which the JTA apparently relied, we decided to do something radical and read the actual opinion.

RELAX everyone, we still have CAIR to kick around.  And ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and NAIT (North American Islamic Trust).  You see, the courts did NOT decide that CAIR or its fellow-terrorist-travelers are not actually terrorists or not actually terrorist enablers.

What the courts did was rule that the government should not have made public a document it attached to a brief in May, 2007, which the government then referred to as a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case.  The case determined that the so called Islamic Charity actually existed almost exclusively to support Hamas, the Arab Palestinian terrorist entity.

In fact, thank you so much to CAIR and to ISNA and to NAIT.  In the course of trying to get the courts to clear their "good" names, those organizations gave the courts and the government lawyers nearly half a dozen opportunities to point out that the government presented evidence during the trial of the organizations' connections to Hamas.  In other words – the fact that there was a violation of the organizations' Fifth Amendment rights because the organizations were publicly named as having close connections to terrorist entities in a document – and the organizations had no opportunity to defend themselves in that document – really didn't amount to a hill of beans because evidence was introduced at trial of those same connections. In fact, the government witness, testifying under oath, referred to CAIR as a Hamas front group.

The really fun reading is in the government's brief in opposition to CAIR's effort to clear its name.  Smackdown!  The trial court never even bothered to rule on CAIR's motion, presumably because the name-calling became justified by evidence introduced at the trial.  Bottom line?  The court REFUSED to remove the whiners from the official list of bad guys.  The appellate court merely said that the lower court should publish its opinion, but that opinion only says the list attached to the government’s pre-trial brief should not have been published, and, again, NOT that the whiners were entitled to a court pronouncement that they were not connected to terrorists.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA    § § v.    § § HOLY LAND FOUNDATION    § FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT,    § also known as the “HLF” (01)    § SHUKRI ABU BAKER, (02)    § MOHAMMED EL-MEZAIN, (03)    § GHASSAN ELASHI, (04)    § HAITHAM MAGHAWRI, (05)    § AKRAM MISHAL, (06)    § MUFID ABDULQADER, (07) and    § ABDULRAHMAN ODEH (08)    §
CR NO. 3:04-CR-240-P
ECF
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
The United States, through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits its
memorandum in opposition to Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North
American Islamic Trust’s (NAIT) motion for equitable relief. Through this motion – filed
without leave of court and without formal intervention – ISNA and NAIT seek a range of
declaratory and injunctive relief stemming from the public filing of Attachment A (“List
of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers”) to the government’s May 29,
2007 trial brief.    As part of the requested relief, ISNA and NAIT seek the “expunging of
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 2 of 20
Petitioners’ names from any public document filed or issued by the Government that identifies Petitioners as unindicted co-conspirators.” Pet. Mot. at 3. According to Petitioners, their motion is an effort to combat the negative press it allegedly incurred by being identified as a participant in a network of U.S.-based organizations affiliated with the designated foreign terrorist organization, HAMAS. ISNA and NAIT allege that the Government’s identification of them as unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers nearly fourteen months ago caused them significant injury, resulting in a violation of their Fifth and First Amendment rights.
The Court should deny the Petitioners’ motion for equitable relief.    First, Petitioner’s motion is untimely, coming more than a year after the filing of the Government’s Trial Brief. Petitioners were aware back in May 2007 that the Government publicly filed its Trial Brief. They were also aware that during the 2007 trial, another listed co-conspirator/joint venturer, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), moved for leave to file an amicus brief (ecf # 777) asking for essentially the same relief, for the same reasons, that Petitioners seek here. Yet, Petitioners, without explanation, waited over a year to file this motion.
Even if their filing were timely, which it is not, Petitioners’ motion would be moot.
During last year’s trial, numerous exhibits were entered into evidence establishing both
ISNA’s and NAIT’s intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine
Committee, and the defendants in this case. Accordingly, there is no possible basis for
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 2
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 3 of 20
petitioner’s “expungement” from the Government’s list of co-conspirators and joint venturers. Even sealing the co-conspirator list at this juncture would be futile – the evidence has been appropriately introduced during the course of a public trial.
ISNA and NAIT also lack standing. Petitioners cannot trace any current injury to the Government’s Trial Brief, as opposed to the actual exhibits that were introduced at trial. Petitioners also lack standing because their alleged injury cannot be redressed.
Finally, with respect to Petitioners’ legal arguments, Petitioners merely repeat the arguments made by CAIR in its proposed amicus submission. The government hereby incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth below, its opposition to CAIR’s motion seeking similar relief (ecf # 824).1
The Government respectfully submits that petitioner’s belated motion to litigate their status diverts this Court’s attention from the imminent retrial of this case, and could have been brought many months ago. For these reasons, and those set forth below, Petitioners’ motion for equitable relief should be denied.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1.    On July 26, 2004, a federal grand jury indicted HLF; Shukri Abu Baker, HLF’s Secretary and Chief Executive Officer; Mohammed El-Mezain, HLF’s Director of Endowments; Ghassan Elashi, HLF’s Chairman of the Board; Haitham Maghawri, HLF’s
1Rather than repeating its arguments in opposition to CAIR’s nearly identical brief last year, the government will focus on those arguments specific to these Petitioners.
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 3
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 4 of 20
Executive Director; Akram Mishal, HLF’s projects and grants director; Mufid Abdulqader, one of the HLF’s top fundraisers; and Abdulrahman Odeh, the HLF’s New Jersey representative.2    In addition to charging the defendants with providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, the indictment also charged the defendants with engaging in prohibited financial transactions with a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, money laundering, filing false tax returns, and several conspiracy charges, including: conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1); conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to Specially Designated Global Terrorist, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1706; and conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of $12.4 million in HAMAS assets.
2.    On May 29, 2007, the Government submitted a Trial Brief in support of the evidence and arguments to be relied upon in its case-in-chief. As explained in the brief, its purpose was to provide the Court with an overview of the case, the scope of the conspiracy, and information regarding the different kinds of evidence that the Government intended to seek to admit at trial, as well as the evidentiary bases for the admission of that evidence. The Government did not detail all of the evidence that it intended to present in its case-in-chief, nor did it describe all of the evidence showing the
2    The defendants Akram Mishal and Haitham Maghawri have not been arrested in this case and are fugitives.
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 4
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 5 of 20
existence of the alleged conspiracy and the statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Instead, the Trial Brief outlined the law with respect to types of evidence the Government intended to admit and provided background to the Court for evaluating their admissibility.
With regard to the breadth of the conspiracy, the Government provided:
Although the indictment in this case charges the seve
n named individual defendants and the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, it will be obvious that the defendants were not acting alone. . . . the defendants were operating in concert with a host of individuals and organizations dedicated to sustaining and furthering the Hamas movement. Several of the individuals who hold leading roles in the operation of Hamas are referenced by name in the indictment. A list of unindicted coconspirators is attached to this trial brief. (Attachment A).
The object of the conspiracy was to support Hamas. The support will be shown to have take several forms, including raising money, propaganda, proselytizing, recruiting, as well as many other types of actions intended to continue to promote and move forward Hamas’s agenda of the destruction of the State of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state in its place.
Trial Brief at 31. Thus, to provide greater clarity to the Court and the defense regarding the
complexity and magnitude of the global HAMAS-affiliated conspiracy to be demonstrated in the Government’s case-in-chief, the Government identified in an attachment to the Trial Brief those individuals and organizations which it intended to prove were engaged in supporting HAMAS. Attachment A to the Trial Brief listed 246 different individuals and organizations as either unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 5
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 6 of 20
venturers under one or more headings:
(1) individuals/entities who are and/or were part of the HAMAS social infrastructure in Israel and the Palestinian territories;
(2) individuals who participated in fundraising activities on behalf of HLF;
(3) individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations;
(4) individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the Palestine Section of the International Muslim Brotherhood;
(5) individuals who are and/or were leaders of HAMAS inside the Palestinian territories;
(6) individuals who are and/or were leaders of the HAMAS Political Bureau and/or HAMAS leaders and/or representatives in various Middle Eastern/African countries;
(7) individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood;
(8) individuals/entities that are and/or were part of the Global HAMAS financing mechanism;
(9) individuals/entities that Marzook utilized as a financial conduit on behalf and/or for the benefit of HAMAS;
(10) individuals who were HLF employees, directors, officers and/or representatives; and
(11) HAMAS members whose families received support from the HLF through the HAMAS social infrastructure.
ISNA and NAIT are listed in the attachment under the seventh heading, individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 6
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 7 of 20
Besides the category descriptions, the Government did not provide any further information regarding specific individual and organizational links to the conspiracies described in the Indictment and in the Trial Brief.
3.    The trial commenced on July 16, 2007. The Government called its first witness on July 25, 2007. During the trial, the Court entered into evidence a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking ISNA and NAIT to the HLF and its principals; the Islamic Association for Palestine and its principals; the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and its Palestine Committee, headed by HAMAS official Mousa Abu Marzook; and the greater HAMAS-affiliated conspiracy described in the Government’s case-in-chief. See, e.g., Government Exhibits 1-16, 3-1, 3-3, 3-23, 3- 49, 3-50, 3-64, 3-85, 3-89, 5-1 through 5-14, 5-23 through 5-26, 5-42, 5-78, 16-59, 16-87, 20-33.
4.    On August 14, 2007, CAIR filed a motion requesting that this Court permit
it to submit an amicus curiae brief in opposition to the “public issuance” of the
Government’s list of unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers filed with the Trial
Brief. The government responded on September 4, 2007, and CAIR replied September
13, 2007. The Court did not rule on the motion. Petitioners’ current motion, which
essentially repeats those arguments advanced by CAIR, was filed June 18, 2008, over a
year after the Government filed the co-conspirator/joint venturer list at issue, over ten
months after CAIR filed its brief, and nearly eight months after the Court declared a
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 7
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 8 of 20
mistrial. The retrial of this matter is scheduled to begin September 8, 2008.
ARGUMENT
I.    THE COURT SHOULD DENY THE PETITIONERS’ MOTION AS TIME- BARRED
It is axiomatic that a district court has the inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936); Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir.1995) (“The federal courts are vested with inherent power ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases[,]’ … includ[ing] the power of the court to control its docket[.]”). Included within the court’s inherent power to control its docket is the power not to entertain untimely filings, particularly from non-parties who have neither sought nor obtained the court’s permission to participate in the case. This is all the more true when the movant seeks to invoke the court’s equitable powers. It is the “long-established doctrine of courts of equity that their extraordinary relief will not be accorded to one who delays the assertion of his claim for an unreasonable length of time.” Hayes v. Port of Seattle, 251 U.S. 233, 239 (1920).
In this case, the Petitioners have inexplicably delayed for more than a year before seeking the requested relief. The government’s Trial Brief setting forth its legal position with respect to co-conspirators and joint venturers was filed May 29, 2007. Petitioners
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 8
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 9 of 20
failed to raise any issue at that time. Nor did Petitioners choose to join CAIR in its submission on August 14, 2007, even though that filing raised the identical issues Petitioners raise now.3    And, even after the government immediately announced its intention to retry the case following the court’s declaration of a mistrial in October 2007, Petitioners were silent.4    When the Court set the trial date for mid-August and then finally for September 8, Petitioners did nothing. Instead, Petitioners waited until the virtual eve of retrial, in the midst of pretrial preparations, to file what could have been raised at countless earlier opportunities.5
Petitioners offer no explanation as to why they did not seek leave to file a motion im
mediately following the Government’s filing of its Trial Brief,6 or at any point
3 Petitioners’ motion recognizes that CAIR filed a proposed amicus brief, but spends mere paragraphs addressing it and the government’s arguments in opposition. Even those paragraphs ignore entirely the government’s jurisdictional arguments in opposition to CAIR’s filing.
4 ISNA, immediately following the mistrial, did issue a press statement parroting almost verbatim its current grievance. Yet, despite its promise to “vigorously employ all legal avenues available,” it waited until the eve of retrial to interject itself into this case. See “Islamic Society of North America, HLF Verdict Press Statement,” www.isna.net/articles/Press-Releases (attached).
5The only time Petitioners raised this issue with the government was in the middle of the last trial, when the prosecution’s attention was exclusively devoted to trying the case. It is hardly surprising that, as Petitioners’ counsel complains, prosecutors were unwilling to divert their attention to what was, as exhibits establishing the conspiracy/joint venture were introduced into evidence, a moot exercise of sealing the co-conspirator list. By the time Petitioners called the government to confer with respect to this motion, the sealing of the co-conspirator list would have been pointless – the evidence had already been made public during the trial.
6Not only do Petitioners fail to explain their delay, but they fail to provide any explanation or support for their failure to seek the court’s permission to file the instant motion.
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 9
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 10 of 20
thereafter. In particular, Petitioners provide no explanation as to why they waited until after evidence at trial had already established their ties to defendants and the conspiracy at issue, or how the relief they request can, at this late date, have any impact on evidence already in wide circulation in the public domain. At this juncture, the Petitioners’ motion only serves to divert the Court’s attention from the pressing task of preparing for and completing an on-going criminal matter. The Court should therefore exercise its discretion to reject the petitioner’s untimely motion. II.    PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS ARE MOOT
Even were the Court to consider Petitioners’ motion, the Court would lack
jurisdiction to act on the requested relief. Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the
jurisdiction of federal courts to the resolution of “actual, ongoing controversies.” Honig
v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). The law is well-settled that federal courts have no
authority “to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.”
Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoting Mills
v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)); see also United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty,
445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (Mootness is “the doctrine of standing in a time frame. The
requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of litigation (standing)
must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”). Moreover, because mootness goes
to the heart of the constitutional power of a federal court to consider the rights of the
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 10
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 11 of 20
parties and afford any relief, it is a “jurisdictional question” that “a federal court must resolve before it assumes jurisdiction.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971).
Generally, any set of circumstances that eliminates an actual controversy after the commencement of a lawsuit renders that action moot. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997). That means, “throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477) (emphasis added). Thus, if an event occurs while a case is pending that makes it impossible for the court to grant “meaningful relief” to a prevailing party, the case must be dismissed as moot. Church of Scientology, 506 U.S. at 12.
Petitioners’ claims against the Government are plainly moot. ISNA and NAIT have asserted no justiciable claim because no “meaningful relief” is available, in light of the fact that their participation as a joint-venturer and/or co-conspirator is a matter of public record in this case, and was a matter of public discussion even prior to the filing of the government’s Trial Brief.7
7 See, e.g., “In Search of Friends Among The Foes,” by John Mintz and Douglas Farah, The Washington Post, September 11, 2004, p. A01 (“Some of the same Brotherhood people who started MSA [Muslim Students Association] also launched the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) in 1971. * * * In 1981, some of the same people launched the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was also cited in [Yussef] Qaradawi’s speech.”); “Muslim Brotherly Hate,” FrontPageMagazine.com, June 30,
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 11
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 12 of 20
The evidence introduced at trial, for example, established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.8    Govt. Exh. 3- 64 (seized from the home of HAMAS leader Ismail Elbarasse); Govt. Exh. 3-3 (Muslim Brotherhood document noting that ISNA was founded by the US-Muslim Brotherhood) ; Govt. Exh. 3-85 (1991 memorandum authored by U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni, recognizing ISNA and NAIT as Muslim Brotherhood organizations.) Government’s Exhibit 3-85, entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group, described the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as a kind of “grand Jihad”:
The Ikhwan must understand that their role in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious….
2006, frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp; “The Truth About The Muslim Brotherhood,” Assyrian International News Agency, June 16, 2006, www.aina.org/news/20060616105850.htm.
8 The Muslim Brotherhood, also known as the Ikhwan Al Muslimin, was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan Al Banna. Its ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law. Muslim Brotherhood members first migrated to the United States in the 1960s where they began their grassroots work on campuses, through an organization called the Muslim Students Association. At that time, the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was loosely structured and in its infancy. Govt. Exh. 3-89. By the mid-1980s, the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood had grown exponentially, established numerous front organizations, developed a solid hierarchical structure, and received direction from the International Muslim Brotherhood’s General Guide. Id. HAMAS was established in 1987 as an outg
rowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, by Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheik Ahmad Yassin. Govt. Exh. 21-61, 3-6. In the late-1980s and early 1990s, the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was controlled by Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood members, and the leader of the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood was Mousa Abu Marzook, who in 1989 was selected to be the leader of HAMAS, a position that he held while residing in the United States and controlling the US-Muslim Brotherhood. Govt. Exh. 3-1. Marzook was arrested in New York in 1995, deported to Jordan, and subsequently expelled to Syria, where he currently serves as the head of the HAMAS political bureau under Khalid Mishal. See generally testimony of Matthew Levitt.
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 12
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 13 of 20
Govt. Exh. 3-85. At the end of the document, the memorandum lists those Muslim Brotherhood organizations that – if they all worked together – could help accomplish this grand objective. These organizations include ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund (OLF )(the former name of the Holy Land Foundation), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), and others. Id.
ISNA and NAIT, in fact, shared more with HLF than just a parent organization. They were intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to HAMAS. Shortly after HAMAS was founded in 1987, as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Govt. Exh. 21-61, the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, whose job it was to support HAMAS with “media, money and men.” Govt. Exh. 3-15. The U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP, and the UASR. CAIR was later added to these organizations. Govt. Exh. 3-78 (listing IAP, HLF, UASR and CAIR as part of the Palestine Committee, and stating that there is “[n]o doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide . . .”). The mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support HAMAS, and the HLF’s particular role was to raise money to support HAMAS’ organizations inside the Palestinian territories. Govt. Exh. 3- 17 (objective of the Palestine Committee is to support HAMAS).
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 13
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 14 of 20
During the early years of the HLF’s operation, HLF raised money and supported HAMAS through a bank account it held with ISNA at NAIT. Govt. Exh. 5-1 through 5- 14, 5-26, 5-42. Indeed, HLF (under its former name, OLF) operated from within ISNA, in Plainfield, Indiana, where Defendant Shukri Baker was employed. Govt. Exh. 5-6, p. 3; 1-16. ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader Mousa Abu Marzook, Nadia Elashi (defendant Ghassan Elashi’s cousin and Marzook’s wife), Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s Islamic Center of Gaza, the Islamic University, and a number of other individuals associated with HAMAS. Govt. Exh. 20-55, 20-56.
ISNA was also discussed during the 1993 Philadelphia conference, a meeting of the Palestine Committee convened to discuss the impact of the Oslo Accords. Govt. Exh. 16-47. During the conference, Palestine Committee members discussed using ISNA as official cover for their activities. Govt. Exh. 16-0059 at 10-11; 16-60. In short, evidence introduced during the course of a public trial demonstrates that ISNA and NAIT are indeed co-conspirators/joint venturers, and no relief that the Court can grant would alter the state of the record in that regard.9
9 All the exhibits cited herein were admitted into evidence and posted publicly on the Court’s website. Due to their volume, we have not resubmitted them here. In the event that the Court or Petitioners do not have access to the exhibits, government counsel will provide them upon request.
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 14
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 15 of 20
Although Petitioners seek “expungement” of their names from any document reflecting their co-conspirator status, they cannot expect this Court to alter evidence properly admitted during the course of a public trial. The law is well-settled that the public has a presumptive right of access to the records of judicial proceedings, Press- Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 509 (1984), and that public information regarding “[t]he source of evidence admitted at trial and the circumstances surrounding its admittance are important components of the judicial proceedings and crucial to an assessment of the fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings,” Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). See also United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 805 (5th Cir. 1975) (“[I]t must be recognized in the process of balancing private injury and governmental interests that wholly different, and valid, governmental interests apply to naming the private citizen . . . in trial testimony.”).
Petitioners, in fact, do not dispute that once such information is admitted into evidence at trial it is properly in the public domain. Instead, Petitioners ignore entirely the evidence presented at trial, relying only on the government’s representation that ISNA and NAIT were not subjects or targets of the criminal investigation to support their contention that they were unfairly included within the universe of co-conspirators and joint venturers. See Petitioners’ Mot at 14, 18-19; see also Press Statement (attached).10
10 ISNA’s post-trial Press Statement stated that ISNA “never was, and is not now, affiliated with or influenced by any international organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood.” It did not address any of the Muslim Brotherhood documents introduced during the trial that state the contrary.
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 15
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 16 of 20
Petitioners’ status as co-conspirators/joint venturers, however, is not inconsistent with the government’s earlier representations. Even were the Court to agree to strike Petitioners’ names from the attachment to the Trial Brief, or seal it, that would not prevent Petitioners’ involvement with HLF, and others affiliated with HAMAS, from remaining a matter of public record. That has already occurred as a consequence of the presentation of evidence at trial.11
Because this Court is unable to provide Petitioners with any “meaningful relief,” as contemplated by law, their motion for equitable relief must be denied. III.    PETITIONERS LACKS STANDING
An “essential and unchanging part”of the case-or-controversy requirement is also the doctrine of standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To establish standing, a plaintiff must, at an “irreducible consti
tutional minimum,” demonstrate: (1) an injury-in-fact; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements and of coming forward with evidence of specific facts which prove standing. Grant v. Gilbert, 324 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2003);
11 To be clear, the purpose in introducing this evidence at trial had little to do with ISNA and NAIT. The documents and testimony at issue give the background and context for the conspiracy in which the defendants operated, and constituted evidence as to the defendants’ participation in the charged illegal conspiracies. That ISNA and NAIT appeared in these documents and share a common history with these defendants is a reflection of the evidence, not any attempt to “disparage” or “vilify.” Pet. Mot. at 12.
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 16
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 17 of 20
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. Petitioners have no justiciable claims resulting from the Government’s decision
not to file the portion of its Trial Brief enumerating unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers under seal. Even assuming cognizable injury, Petitioners cannot trace its alleged injury to the Trial Brief, versus the public evidence properly admitted during trial.
A simple Google search for “Muslim Brotherhood” and “Explanatory Memorandum,” for example, reveals nearly 1000 “hits” for Government’s Exhibit 3-85, with many providing a hyperlink to the document itself. Broader searches reveal over 250,000 references. Even articles cited by the Petitioners discuss actual evidence introduced at trial, and not merely the Government’s Trial Brief. See, e.g., Petitioners’ Mot., Appendix B, pp. 16-22 (Rod Dreher, The Muslim Brotherhood is Here, Pittsburgh Trib. Rev., Sept. 16, 2007; Rod Dreher, A Nation Asleep, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 28, 2007; Cal Thomas, A New Fifth Column?, Fort Worth-Star-Telegram, Oct. 26, 2007).
Consequently, Petitioners cannot demonstrate any “causal connection between the [alleged] injury and the conduct complained of,” such that the injury is “fairly traceable to the challenged action . . . and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.” See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
Finally, as discussed in connection with the above mootness argument, and for the reasons set forth therein, there is no likelihood that the Petitioners’ alleged injury could be redressed. Even a favorable decision by this Court to strike Petitioners’ names from the
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 17
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 18 of 20
Government’s Trial Brief attachment would not remedy Petitioners’ alleged injury, as its involvement as a participant in the conspiracy and/or joint venture has already been disclosed at trial. See, e.g., Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (“The injury must be ‘fairly’ traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be ‘likely’ to follow from a favorable decision.). In the absence of redressibility, and therefore standing, Petitioners’ motion must be denied.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully requests that this Court deny Petitioners’ Motion for Equitable Relief. July 10, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD ROPER United States Attorney Northern District of Texas
By:    /s/ Elizabeth J. Shapiro JAMES T. JACKS BARRY JONAS ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO D.C. Bar 418925
Assistant United States Attorneys 1100 Commerce St., Third Floor Dallas, Texas 75242 214.659.8600
214.767.2898 (facsimile) [email protected]
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 18
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 19 of 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 10, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Linda Moreno Law Office of Linda Moreno P.O. Box 10985 Tampa, Fl. 33679
Nancy Hollander Theresa M. Duncan Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg & Ives 20 First Plaza, Suite 700 Albuquerque, NM 87102
John D. Cline Jones Day 555 California St., 26th Fl. San Francisco, CA. 94104-1500
Joshua L Dratel Aaron J. Mysliwiec Law Office of Joshua L Dratel 2 Wall St, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10005
Marlo P Cadeddu Law Office of Marlo P Cadeddu 3232 McKinney Ave, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204
Greg Westfall Westfall Platt & Cutrer Mallick Tower One Summit Ave, Suite 910 Fort Worth, TX 76102
In addition, I have served on this same day, by electronic mail, the following counsel for third party petitioners Islamic Society of North America and North American Islamic Trust:
Lisa Graybill Legal Director ACLU Foundation of Texas P.O. Box 12905 Austin, TX 78711 [email protected]
Hina Shamsi ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 [email protected]
/s/ Elizabeth J. Shapiro
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Attorney, U.S. Dept. Of Justice
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 19
Case 3:04-cr-00240-P    Document 1091    Filed 07/10/2008    Page 20 of 20
GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF    Page 20

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

0 0 votes

Article Rating

4 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

dagamore

13 years ago

IF they have provable links to a terror group, and or are actively funding a know terror group, could all of their assists be seized?

0

Robert Laity

13 years ago

AIG and others are involed in “Zakat”,1/8th of which goes to terrorists under Sharia law:
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/search?q=AIG+sharia/

0

'nuff already

13 years ago

The mere fact that these organizations are allowed to continue unabated in this country is pure bull… But what is often even more astonishing is the large number of people who don’t know anything about the Holyland trial. Had the MSM been doing its job at least a few people might know what you’re talking about when you bring it up. I think it is the lack of knowledge about the issues among the masses that makes it easy for this administration to sweep it under the rug. As always, it is up to those of who for whom the bell of truth tolls loudly to educate are dhimmi-witted friends, neighbors, families and co-workers on the true meanings of islam.

0

ProtectYourself

13 years ago

N.Y.-Born Man Arrested in Plot to ‘Wage Jihad’
“A New York City-born man, Abdel Hameed Shehadeh, was ordered to return from Hawaii where he was arrested on charges he tried to join the U.S. military at a Times Square recruiting station so he could be deployed to Iraq, desert, and fight with anti-American insurgency forces.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/25/hawaii-man-charged-international-terror-case/

0