CAIR | CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

November 11, 2010

NAIT RECEIVES MIXED BLESSING FROM APPEALS COURT

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: CAIR, Hamas, Islamic, NAIT, terrorism financing, Terrorist, terrorist apologists, unindicted co-conspirators — johntfloyd @ 4:09 am

Unindicted Co-Conspirator in Holy Land Appeals Case in Fight to Clear Name

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, formerly the nation’s largest Islamic charity organization based in Dallas, Texas, and seven of its leaders were indicted in 2007 with providing “material support” to a terrorist organization, primarily to Hamas. We have posted up articles about the case (here and here). A 2008 trial resulted in convictions for all those indicted and with Holy Land being labeled as the “largest terrorism financing” Islamic group in the country. In 2009 its founders were given life sentences.

Beyond the forced collapse of this organization and the incarceration of its leaders, the U.S. Justice Department effectively branded 246 other individuals and organizations as “terrorist” sympathizers by listing them as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the case. One of those organizations was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), the largest Muslim civil rights group in America. We posted an article here which dealt with the legal and reputational harm caused by the practice of the Government wrongfully naming unindicted co-conspirators. Also included in this infamous list were the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The reputational harm done to CAIR and other Muslim civil rights groups listed in the Holy Land case was evident by the national media coverage which virtually linked them as “associates of terrorism” (here and here).The House Republican Conference in March 2007 urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to cancel an event on Capitol Hill sponsored by CAIR, calling the organization “terrorist apologists.” The reputational and political fallout continues to this day for CAIR. This past March Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Welch sent a letter to four members of Congress justifying CAIR being named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case, saying the Justice Department has evidence that links CAIR to Hamas.

(more…)

Comments (1)

August 23, 2009

2009 CAIR AWARD: ASSISTING THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer, Homicide Crimes Lawyer — Tags: CAIR, FBI, McCarthyism, Muslim, pro bono, terrorism, voluntary interviews — johntfloyd @ 12:33 pm

Pro Bono Legal Representation in Voluntary Interviews, Profiling by FBI

By: John Floyd, Houston Criminal Defense Attorney

On August 15th, 2009, I received an award in recognition of my pro bono work for the Muslim community in Houston. CAIR-TX, Houston Chapter, presented the award upon which was inscribed: “In Recognition of: His personal dedication and committed assistance in providing protection to our community from undue harassment from federal agencies.” The award came after years, and hundreds of hours of pro bono work, representing individuals targeted under the Department of Justice’s voluntary interview program. In almost every case, these individuals were targeted for interview simply because of their religious beliefs, places of worship or country of origin and were not suspected of any criminal activity whatsoever. The voluntary interview program is simply an intelligence gathering effort designed to collect data about the Muslim community in hopes of preventing future acts of terrorism.

Sometime in 2004, I was approached by a fellow lawyer who had been offering his services pro bono to represent individuals targeted for “voluntary” interviews by the FBI and other agencies comprising regional Joint Terrorism Task Forces. He needed some criminal expertise and hoped I could help in what a growing problem in the Muslim community. As I soon realized, the term “voluntary” was somewhat misleading. Voluntary meant you were not under arrest, were probably not the target of a criminal investigation, and could refuse the interview. But, in practical and emotional terms, the process was hardly voluntary.

The agents would approach unsuspecting people at their homes and request entry to ask a few questions. As most legally untrained and intimidated people would do, the agents were allowed in and would begin to ask questions. If the interviewee began to feel uneasy, scared or insulted by the questions and refused to answer, or was intelligent and asked for a lawyer, the agents would persist, normally invoking the old reliable police tactics of “if you don’t have anything to hide or if you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t need a lawyer and should talk with us.” If the person had resolve and refuse to talk, agents would threaten to begin interviewing neighbors, friends, family and even employers, knowing these threats would normally coerce compliance.

The interviewing agents were sometimes aggressive, insulting and asked questions contrary to the letter and spirit of the principles set out in our great Constitution. It was a new McCarthyism, but this time Big Brother was focused on the Muslim community and, after 911, nobody seemed to care. The common response to these abuses, and other Bush era tactics of terror mongering and the “you’re either with us or against us” propaganda, was fear inspired complicity. (more…)

Comments (3)

March 5, 2009

UN-INDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR(S): AN UNNECESSARY STIGMA

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: CAIR, terrorism, unindicted co-conspirator, war on terror — johntfloyd @ 6:09 am

The Right Wing and the Council on American-Islamic Relations; No Due Process for the Unindicted

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

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. (more…)