Unindicted Co-Conspirator Designation Not a Proof of Guilt

by Sheila Musaji

This past week during the first of Rep. Peter King’s hearings the term “unindicted co-conspirator” was used a number of times in relation to at least one American Muslim organization, CAIR.  Representatives King, Wolf and Cravaack all referred to this term.  In fact, Cravaack went further and accused CAIR of being a terrorist organization and a Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood entity.

The Unindicted co-conspirator designation

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post noted about this claim:

The federal government said the organizations were included on the list in order to produce evidence at the trial, but the district court and a federal appeals court later ruled that it had been a mistake to make the list public.

As the appeals court summed up last year, “The court held that the Government did not argue or establish any legitimate government interest that warranted publicly identifying [one of the organizations] and 245 other individuals and entities as unindicted co-conspirators or joint venturers, and that the Government had less injurious means than those employed, such as anonymously designating the unindicted co-conspirators as ‘other persons,’ asking the court to file the document under seal, or disclosing the information to the defendants pursuant to a protective order.”

However, federal Judge Jorge A. Solis denied CAIR’s request that its name be publicly striken from the list. He said that the government “has produced ample evidence” to establish the association of CAIR and other organizations with entities such as the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and with the Hamas militant group. Solis acknowledged CAIR’s claim that evidence produced by the government “largely predates” the official designation of these groups as terror organizations but he said the “evidence is nonetheless sufficient to show the association of these entities with HLF, IAP, and Hamas.”

The appeals court, in a ruling involving another Muslim organization on the list, criticized Solis for this statement, saying it “went beyond what was relevant to any hypothetical evidentiary issue and may have obfuscated the underlying Fifth Amendment issue.”

The term unindicted co-conspirator is used over and over again in referring to ISNA, CAIR, and other American Muslim organizations in connection with the Holy Land Foundation trial.  It sounds menacing and ominous, and in the minds of many seems to infer that they are guilty of something.  I don’t imagine I am unique in not having a clear understanding of the meaning of the term.  As an American Muslim, however, I felt that I needed to do a little research to improve my understanding. 

The Holy Land Foundation was a Muslim charity.  There are tens of thousands of Muslims who supported this organization in the 1990’s, because they believed it to be doing charitable work and providing humanitarian aid to needy people across the world, including Israel/Palestine.  HLF was an approved 501-C3 Charity in the United States.  HLF was found guilty of channeling money to Hamas (material support for a designated terrorist organization) in 2008.  Previous to this, not only were Muslim individuals and organizations unaware of any such activities, but neither was the Federal Government who had approved their 501-C3 designation.  Hamas was designated as a terrorist organization in 1997. 

The ACLU has produced a report BLOCKING FAITH, FREEZING CHARITY which sheds some light on this dilemma.  The summary states

This report documents the effect of U.S. government actions on American Muslims’ exercise of their right to profess and practice their religion through charitable giving. The ACLU’s research shows that U.S. terrorism financing policies and practices are seriously undermining American Muslims’ protected constitutional liberties and violating their fundamental human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom from discrimination.

The ACLU found that these policies and practices are neither fair nor effective, and are undermining American values of due process and fairness. This report outlines clear measures the Obama administration and Congress should take to ensure American Muslims can exercise their religion while protecting charities from mistaken targeting and abuse, and simultaneously promoting national security and humanitarian aid.

I am not an attorney or any sort of a legal expert, but have done some research to attempt to understand exactly what is meant by this term and how it relates to any guilt or innocence of the individuals or organizations so named.

Many well known individuals have been named as unindicted co-conspirators, including:— President Richard M. Nixon **— Rep. John Murtha ** in the FBI ABSCAM sting operation. — Rep. Jerry Costello ** for conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of obstructing justice — Bill Baxter, ** Tennessee State Economic Development commissioner in State Sen. Jerry Cooper’s land fraud case — Erwin Roberts ** who ran for Congress in Kentucky in a hiring scandal involving the Fletcher administration — Former Senate Majority Leader Jerry Mackie **  in a federal corruption investigation in Alaska — Sen. Jerry Cooper ** in a land deal that benefitted him personally — Bruce R. Lindsey, White House Counsel under Pres. Clinton ** ** in a conspiracy case —

Most often unindicted co-conspirators are not named publically.  For example in the AIPAC case, as Justin Raimondo reports in an article with many links that The indictment [.pdf file] of Larry Franklin, the 58-year-old analyst who headed up the Pentagon’s Iran desk, marks a milestone in the FBI’s four-year-plus probe into Israel’s covert activities in the U.S.  ...  The indictment lists two unindicted co-conspirators, identifying them only as “CC1″ and “CC2,” but we know from numerous news accounts that they refer to Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s longtime public policy director, and Keith Weissman, the lobby’s Iran specialist. For two years, the indictment charges, Franklin “did unlawfully, knowingly, and willingly conspire, confederate, and agree, together with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to communicate, deliver, and transmit information relating to the national defense to CC-1 and CC-2, persons not entitled to receive such information, with reason to believe that such information could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation.”      That foreign nation is the state of Israel, a country passionately interested in U.S. policy toward Iran – and aggressively pursuing a campaign to glean all the information it can about the making of that policy in a clear effort to shape it. The indictment shows how the Israelis used AIPAC for that purpose.  Robert Dreyfuss reports on this same case that But as the full text of the indictment makes clear, the conspiracy involved not just Franklin and the AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, but at least several other Pentagon officials who played intermediary roles, at least two other Israeli officials, and one official at a “Washington, D.C. think tank.” It’s an old-fashioned spy story involving the passing of secret documents, hush-hush meetings and outright espionage, along with good-old-boy networking.

What does the term mean? 

Stuart Taylor of The American Lawyer gave this definition on PBS when discussing the Bruce Lindsey case: The prosecutor is saying in essence in court—and they haven’t said it yet by the way—but they apparently will—that we believe this man was part of the criminal conspiracy, along with the people who are on trial. We haven’t indicted him but the relevance of that for the purposes of the trial is that lets them get in more evidence about the unindicted co-conspirator’s or the alleged unindicted co-conspirator’s out-of-court statements than they otherwise could. It’s a way around the hearsay rule. ... For example, if they want to—somebody, one of their witnesses, to talk about what Bruce Lindsey said to him, ordinarily that would be barred by the so-called hearsay rule. You can’t talk—you can’t testify in a trial about what somebody else said out of court. That rule has a lot of exceptions. One of the exceptions is if the person who you’re trying to quote, here Bruce Lindsey, is named by the prosecution as an unindicted co-conspirator, then you can talk about what he said out of court. 

Guilty Without Charge: Assessing the due Process Rights of Unindicted co-conspirators **by Ira P. Robbins *) discusses this in more detail:

Abstract - [a.1] The grand jury practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators routinely results in injury to reputations, lost employment opportunities, and a practical inability to run for public office. Yet, because these individuals are not parties to a criminal trial, they have neither the right to present evidence nor the opportunity to clear their names. Thus, Professor Robbins argues that the practice violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” While prosecutors may offer many justifications to support the practice of naming unindicted co-conspirators, these reasons do not withstand careful scrutiny. Legitimate governmental objectives can be met in other ways. Professor Robbins concludes that Congress should breathe life into the traditional “shielding” function of federal grand juries and prohibit the use of unindicted co-conspirators’ real names in grand jury indictments.

... A. Definition of “Unindicted Co-Conspirator”

[II.A.1] The term “unindicted co-conspirator” refers to any person who allegedly “agreed with others to violate the law but who is not being charged with an offense and who, consequently, will not be tried or sentenced for his criminal conduct.”(24) The law permits admission of unindicted co-conspirators’ statements and acts performed during and in furtherance of the conspiracy as evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the indicted conspirators.(25) Prosecutors often have enough evidence to indict these individuals, but instead name them as unindicted co-conspirators for a variety of strategic reasons.(26)

CAIR has produced a Legislative Fact Sheet: No Day in Court discussing their view of this designation in their case:

Publication of Unindicted Co-conspirator List Violates Fifth Amendment, DOJ Attorney Guidelines and Leaves Those Tainted by the Designation without a Defined Procedure for Vindication

The Issue

In December 2001, the United States Department of the Treasury named Holy Land Foundation (HLF), at that time the largest American Muslim charity, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.

In May 2007, the Department of Justice publicly named 306 individuals and organizations as “unindicted co-conspirators” (UCC) in conjunction with the HLF case. The UCC list includes three of the largest American Muslim organizations-The Islamic Society of North America (the largest Muslim organization in America), The North American Islamic Trust(the largest Muslim endowment/trust in America) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (the largest Muslim civil liberties group in America).

In August 2007, CAIR filed an Amicus Curiae Brief requesting “...the Court to strike their name from the list, along with the names of all other unindicted individuals and organizations…”

The government vindictively used judicial process and the filing of their list of unindicted co-conspirators, to damage the reputations of groups engaged in constitutionally protected political activities. However, the government did not offer any legitimate reason for the necessity of publicly filing the names of UCC’s.

In re Smith, 656 F.2d 1101, 1107 (5th Cir. 1981) indicates that sullying a person’s name as an unindicted co-conspirator is a Fifth Amendment violation because it does not allow the unindicted co-conspirator a “forum for vindication”.

“According to one senior law-enforcement official (who asked not to be named talking about an ongoing case), the listing of ISNA, CAIR and other groups as ‘unindicted co-conspirators’ was largely a tactical move by the government.” (Newsweek, 8/08/2007) This “tactical move” strikes some as McCarthyistic.

In a September 2007 Memorandum of Opposition to CAIR’s Brief the government attempted to use various procedural barriers as a shield against punishment for its unconstitutional actions.

No statements made by CAIR were used during the trial.

What We Ask of Members of Congress

Members are requested to insist that the Attorney General explain why the Department of Justice took the unusual and unconstitutional step of publicly naming unindicted co-conspirators in that case.

Reasons to Support

Public identification of unindicted co-conspiroters smears those named and deprives them of the due process rights that they would have had at a trial

Being named as an unindicted co-conspirator impresses upon the typical member of the American public that those listed are involved in criminal activity.

There is no defined procedure for the vindication of uncharged third parties’ rights. The government’s reference to Civil Rule of Criminal Procedure 24 as the correct procedure is mere subterfuge, as the right of third parties to intervene does not exist in criminal cases.

The practice of naming individuals as unindicted coconspirators is a controversial aspect of American law. Prof. Ira P. Robbins of the American University recently wrote in the Federal Courts Law Review, “The grand jury practice of naming individuals as unindicted coconspirators ...appears to be an anomaly in United States law, in that it violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. ... As long as the United States grants due process rights to those tried within its borders, the process of naming unindicted co-conspirators, even if there is a terrorism connection, violates these rights.”

Being named an UCC is not a pronouncement of any guilt or even guilt by association. It allows for an exception to the hearsay rule making “co-conspirator” statements admissible as evidence against HLF even though HLF was not party to the conversations.
Public discourse of uncharged entities and individuals as unindicted co-conspirators violates the uncharged parties’ Fifth Amendment due process rights

In publicly naming CAIR and the other unindicted co-conspirators during the pre-trial proceedings, the government has clearly violated the uncharged parties’ Fifth Amendment due process rights.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….“U.S. Const. Amend. V.

The Fifth Circuit and other courts have unequivocally held that the public naming of unindicted co-conspirators in pre-trial proceedings violates the due process rights of the uncharged parties.In re Smith, 656 F.2d 1101, 1106-07 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1112-13 (3d Cir. 1985); United States v. Anderson, 55 F.Supp.2d 1163 (D. Kan. 1999).

Public identification of unindicted co-conspirators violates the Department of Justice’s Attorney Guidelines

The public naming of third parties that have not been officially charged with a crime is clearly against the Department of Justice’s guidelines in the United States Attorney’s Manual.(U.S.A.M)  U.S.A.M. 9-11.130 specifically deals with limitations on naming persons or entities as unindicted co-conspirators.

The guideline states that “[t]he practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators in an indictment charging a criminal conspiracy has been severely criticized in United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975).“U.S.A.M. 9-11.130.

Furthermore, the guideline states that: “[o]rdinarily, there is no need to name a person as an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment in order to fulfill any legitimate prosecutorial interest or duty.For purposes of indictment itself, it is sufficient, for example, to allege that the defendant conspired with ‘another person or persons known.‘The identity of the person can be supplied, upon request, in a bill of particulars.With respect to the trial, the person’s identity and status as a co-conspirator can be established, for evidentiary purposes, through the introduction of proof sufficient to invoke the co-conspirator hearsay exception without subjecting the person to the burden of a formal accusation by a grand jury.” U.S.A.M. 9-11.130.

Finally, the guideline avers that “n the absence of some significant justification, federal prosecutors generally should not identify unindicted co-conspirators in conspiracy indictments.“U.S.A.M. 9-11.130.

The John T. Floyd Law Firm published an article The Right Wing and the Council on American-Islamic Relations; No Due Process for the Unindicted which dealt with explaining the term “unindicted co-conspirator”

What exactly is a un-indicted co-conspirator?

Attorney Peter R. Rient defined the term as any person the Government alleges “agreed with others to violate the law but who is not charged with an offense and who, consequently, will not be tried or sentenced for his criminal conduct.” 1/

While the “un-indicted co-conspirator” designation may not have immediate legal consequences, it definitely has long term social consequences. As Ira P. Robbins, Bernard T. Welsh Scholar and Professor of Law and Justice, has written: “Although a criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty and has a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, these procedural protections do little to shield an individual who is identified as an unindicted co-conspirator. Because trials focus on the guilt or innocence of the indicted individuals, the practice of naming an individual as an unindicted co-conspirator in effect accuses the person of a crime without providing him or her with a forum for seeking vindication. Thus, the practice routinely results in injury to their reputations, lost employment opportunities, and a practical inability to run for public office.” 2/

Three decades earlier the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Briggs came to much the same conclusion: “”[t]the grand jury that returns an indictment naming a person as an unindicted conspirator does not perform its shield function [protecting the innocent] but does exactly the reverse. If the charges are baseless, the named person should not be subjected to a public branding, and if supported by probable cause, he should not be denied a forum.” 3/

That’s precisely what happened to some of the nearly 300 individuals or entities named as un-indicted co-conspirators in the “Holy Land Foundation terrorism case” tried in Dallas last year. One of the groups named as an un-indicted co-conspirator was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This group found itself in the Government’s cross hairs after one of the Holy Land leaders, Ghassam Elashi, who founded the Texas chapter of CAIR and chaired on the Holy Land Foundation, was indicted on terrorism related charges.

There was absolutely no evidence that CAIR aided or abetted terrorism, or lent any kind of moral or financial assistance to any identified terrorist group. But because Elashi had been charged—and subsequently convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison—with having financial ties to a high-ranking Hamas terrorist and exporting computers to countries that supposedly backed terrorism, the Government concluded CAIR had to be supporters of terrorism, or as House Speaker Nancy Polosi labeled the group in March 2007, “terrorist apologists.”

CAIR continues to assert it is a mainstream group whose aim is “to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.” These admirable social objectives prompted California’s leading Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer to bestow an “award” upon a local CAIR official in her district. But as soon as the group was named “un-indicted co-conspirators” in the Holy Land case, the senator withdrew the award.

Right wing political groups and conservative talk show hosts also took up the drum beat of unfounded attacks on CAIR. These forces pointed to what they called CAIR’s position of being “soft on terrorism.” They charged that while the group offered what the New York Sun called “generic denunciations of terrorism,” it refused to “condemn by name specific Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas or Hezobollah.” They also pointed out that a number of CAIR officials have been, as the Sun reported, “convicted or deported after being charged with fraud, embargo violations, or aiding terrorist training.”

The right to live in this country as individuals, or to congregate as groups, does not require that we offer public condemnation of groups designated by the Government as “terrorist” organizations, especially when those designations were made by an administration as lawless as that of George W. Bush, Jr. CAIR has never offered what can reasonably be described as a justification for terrorists or terrorism in general as suggested by Rep. Polosi. If a public official wants to engage in childish behavior as Sen. Boxer did by saying “gimme back my award,” that’s one thing, but to level an unsubstantiated accusation that a particular group is “apologists” for terrorism is irresponsible and despicable.

The social impact of being named un-indicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case has been significant on CAIR. The unsubstantiated indictment reduced the group’s membership and donations. In court pleadings filed before the Holy Land convictions were returned last year, CAIR said that its donations had “dwindled well below [its] monthly budget.” The group charged that the Government had implicated it in “criminal activity” through nothing more than “pure guilt by association.” CAIR said this governmental misconduct undercut its “central mission to protect Muslim-Americans’ civil rights and foster an atmosphere of acceptance in American society … The American public and the media which CAIR uses to deliver its message will no longer believe in the veracity of such message because CAIR will be perceived as a terrorist front organization.”

And that is exactly what happened as evidenced by Rep. Pelosi’s public comments about the group. The tragic thing about the naming of CAIR as un-indicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case is that it violated U.S. Justice Department guidelines. Guideline 9-11.130, United States Attorney’s Manual, states that “[t]he practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators in an indictment charging a criminal conspiracy has been severely criticized in United States v. Briggs …”

The Guideline further provides that ordinarily “there is no need to name a person as an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment in order to fulfill any legitimate interest or duty. For purposes of indictment itself, it is sufficient, for example, to allege that the defendant conspired with ‘another person or persons known.’ The identity of the person can be supplied, upon request, in a bill of particulars. With respect to the trial, the person’s identity and status as a co-conspirator can be established, for evidentiary purposes, through the introduction of proof sufficient to invoke the co-conspirator hearsay exception without subjecting the person to the burden of a formal accusation by a grand jury.”

Finally, the Guideline cautions that “in the absence of some significant justification, federal prosecutors should not identify unindicted co-conspirators in conspiracy indictments.”

What are the reasons for naming un-indicted co-conspirators? Professor Robbins offered the following nine reasons prosecutors generally use to engage in this highly questionable practice:

1. To benefit from the hearsay rule that allows statements made by co-conspirators to be introduced at trial.
2. The un-indicted co-conspirator may have already been charged in another case.
3. The Government may have plans to try un-indicted co-conspirators before a military tribunal.
4. Because of serious constitutional questions, the Government may name a sitting President as an un-indicted co-conspirator rather than seek a formal indictment.
5. The un-indicted co-conspirator may be dead.
6. The un-indicted co-conspirator refused to cooperate with a Government investigation.
7. The statute of limitations has expired on the crimes allegedly committed by un-indicted co-conspirator.
8. To punish the un-indicted co-conspirator for exercising his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before a federal grand jury.
9. Government wants to stigmatize disfavored groups or persons. 4/

Professor Robbins made it clear that none of these reasons are “weighty enough to justify the assault on the due process rights of the named individual, and several of the reasons plainly constitute abuses of prosecutorial power.” 5/

A credible argument can certainly be made that the Government abused its prosecutorial powers by naming CAIR as un-indicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case and did so for no other reason than to stigmatize the group in the eyes of the American public as being associated with “terrorism.”

We do not support terrorism and have no truck for individuals or groups that do. What we do support is “due process of law”—a constitutional concept that condemns any practice by the Government that convicts individuals or groups with no more evidence than “guilt by association.” Our Government once protected lynch mobs that killed people because of the “color of their skin” and our Supreme Court once refused to recognize black people as “human beings.”

This tragic history cannot be minimized when one realizes that the George W. Bush administration supported kidnapping people off the street in foreign countries, placing these suspected “terrorists” in secret prisons, and torturing them until they confessed to what Government interrogators wanted to hear. That’s why it is difficult for us to accept with any reasonable degree of confidence those designations made by federal prosecutors, poisoned by the gung ho, never mind the Constitution, philosophy of the Bush administration, naming individuals and groups as “un-indicted” terrorists or terrorism sympathizers without affording them a forum to defend against the charges.

NOTES:
1/ Impeachment or Indictment: Is a Sitting President Subject to the Compulsory Process?: Hearing Before the Subcom. on the Constitution, Federalism, and Prop. Rights of the Sen. Comm. On the Judiciary, 105 Cong. 225 (1998) [Peter F. Rient, partner in Gainer, Rient and Hotis].
2/ Robbins, Ira P., Guilty Without Charge: Assessing The Due Process Rights of Unindicted Co-Conspirators, Federal Courts Law Review – 2004 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 1.
3/ 514 F.2d 794, 803 (5th Cir. 1975).
4/ Id., Robbins.
5/ Id., Robbins.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair - Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd has been rated as among the best and brightest attorneys practicing criminal law and has been recognized as one of Houston’s Top Lawyers for the People (2008,2009), Top Lawyers: Criminal Defense (2008) and has earned a “Superb” rating, scoring 10/10, from AVVO. He has appeared on national television and radio programs as an expert on criminal law related issues and has been quoted in newspapers and other news outlets throughout the country.    Copyright John T. Floyd Law Firm

A Muslim site posted the following explanation

In an opinion disclosed on October 20, 2010 an Appeals Court disclosed the ruling of a Federal District Court judge who ruled that that the Government should not have listed ISNA and CAIR as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the case against the HLF. When the ruling was initially made by the District Court judge, he sealed the ruling. This was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this Court ordered the ruling to be unsealed.

The Appeals Court judge wrote:

The Court held that the Government did not argue or establish any legitimate government interest that warranted publicly identifying NAIT and 245 other individuals and entities as unindicted coconspirators or joint venturers, and that the Government had less injurious means than those employed, such as anonymously designating the unindicted co-conspirators as ‘other persons,’ asking the court to file the document under seal, or disclosing the information to the defendants pursuant to a protective order.

The ruling came in a case brought by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), another “unindicted co-conspirator.” In fact, the District Court ruled that the Government violated NAIT’s Fifth Amendment rights by naming it as an “unindicted co-conspirator.” The Fifth Amendment, remember, guarantees due process of law. It states, in part:

No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

In addition, a footnote in the ruling states:  NAIT’s motion was filed in conjunction with the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”), which is not a party to this appeal. Another entity, the Council on American Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) moved the district court for leave to file an amicus brief requesting that its name and all other unindicted coconspirators be stricken from Attachment A. CAIR’s motion was addressed in the order addressing NAIT’s motion, but CAIR is not a party to this appeal.

If I understand this correctly, this may mean that the District Court judge also found that the Government violated ISNA’s and CAIR’s Fifth Amendment rights by naming them as “unindicted co-conspirators,” but since they were not parties to the appeal, that part of the ruling will not be unsealed. In any case, it has been established that the Government was wrong and had no basis to name ISNA and CAIR as “unindicted co-conspirators,” and this totally pulls the rug out from underneath Spencer’s and other Islamophobes’ attempts to paint all maintream Muslim organizations as “extremist.” So, will the Islamophobes stop saying CAIR and ISNA are “Hamas-linked”? We will see. I’m not holding my breath, though, for it’s been shown that facts don’t matter to the “Scholar” Robert Spencer.

You know, it is interesting…this news came out on October 20, 2010 but there was barely a peep in the media. A Google news search came up with only 3 links.

Judge ruled prosecutors should not have publicly released Holy Land unindicted co-conspirators list, an article by Jasan Trahan in the Dallas News reported that

One of the most widely circulated documents from Dallas’ Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case should never have been released publicly and violated the Fifth Amendment due process rights of a prominent Islamic organization, according to a federal judge’s ruling recently ordered unsealed by an appeals court.

The finding by U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis is a bittersweet victory for the North American Islamic Trust.  The trust, along with the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, have for years said that their inclusion among Holy Land’s unindicted co-conspirators - a list of 246 individuals and groups - amounts to guilt by association.

SEE ALSO

al Haramain Foundation http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1086263834212870.xml 

American Muslim Charities Easy Targets in War on Terror http://mpac.org/home_article_display.aspx?ITEM=755

American Muslims Demand Release of Zakat Funds http://www.isna.net/news/miniheadlines.asp?dismode=article&artid=299 

Charities to Contest U.S. Terrorism Screening Requirement http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61327-2004Aug12?language=printer

Commission Finds Muslim Charities Shut Down Without Cause http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2383/1/280/

Court Won’t Hear Muslim Charity Appeal http://www.amperspective.com/html/court_will_not_hear.html

Curbs on Muslim Charities Seen as Double Standard http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Dec-27-Thu-2001/news/17740148.html

Double Standard - for a view of a Double Standard see American Tax Shelter for Israeli War Criminal http://www.mpac.org/news_article_display.aspx?ITEM=385 

HOLY LAND FOUNDATION The HLF is No JDL, Yousef al Yousef, http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/2002jan_comments.php?id=174_0_7_0_C 

Holy Land Foundation Says FBI Falsified Evidence http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617F73E590C748EDDAE0894DC404482

Holy Land Foundation Officials Indicted http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18257-2004Jul27.html

KINDER USA Suspends Activities http://www.amperspective.com/html/muslim_charity_suspends.html

List of Charities Being Probed http://www.amperspective.com/html/list_of_charities.html

Muslim Charities and Religious Freedom http://www.mpac.org/popa_article_display.aspx?ITEM=18

Muslim Charities Facing a Climate of Fear http://www.amperspective.com/html/charities_feared.html

Muslim Charity Says Volunteer Wrongly Charged http://www.amperspective.com/html/muslim_charity.html

Muslim Groups IRS Files Sought http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A14205-2004Jan13?Found=true

Muslims in Charity Quandry http://www.amperspective.com/html/charity_quandry_lat.html

New Membership Group Will Set Standards for Islamic Charities http://www.amperspective.com/html/new_membership.html

Picking on U.S. Muslims http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041020-023958-1129r.htm

Senate Probe of Muslim Charities http://www.solidarity-usa.org/p_releases/Jan04/1-14-04.htm 

Senators Request Tax Information http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2004/Jan/15-147062.html

Three Muslim Charities Ordered to Pay $156 Million to Parents of Boy Killed in Jerusalem Bombing http://www.amperspective.com/html/three_muslim_charities.html

U.S. Blacklists 27 Muslim Charities http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/20/top11.htm 

U.S. Islamic Charities in Trouble http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F447DB5C-38CB-472C-AD9E-C22B75D17E56.htm

U.S. Muslim Charities Complain of Witchhunt http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/mar/02/yehey/opinion/20040302opi5.html

U.S. Rejects Muslim Pleas for Approved Charities http://www.amperspective.com/html/us_rejects.html 

U.S. Treasury Appoints Advisor on Islamic Finance http://www.amperspective.com/html/us_treasury.html 

USA Today Admits False Reporting Against Global Relief Foundation http://www.amperspective.com/html/usa_today.html