Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 2011 usa-v-hlf-order-07012009

2011 usa-v-hlf-order-07012009

2011 usa-v-hlf-order-07012009

Page 1: 2011 usa-v-hlf-order-07012009

Category:Obtained Document

Number of Pages:20

Date Created:July 1, 2009

Date Uploaded to the Library:July 30, 2013

Tags:leave, Muslim, Procedure, rules, names, research, evidence, individuals, amendment, rights, exhibit, organizations, search, public, Council, anderson, trial, filed, government, meeting, america, DOJ, smith, committee, federal, American, states, court, united, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT TEXAS 
DALLAS DIVISION 

UNITED STATES AMERICA    
    CRIM. NO.  
  3:04-CR-0240-P  
HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR    
RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT (1)    
SHUKRI ABU BAKER (2)    
MOHAMMAD EL-MEZAIN (3)    
GHASSAN ELASHI (4)    
MUFID ABDULQADAR (7)    
ABDULRAHMAN ODEH (8)    

MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER 
Now before the Court are two motions from three organizations: the Council American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) (collectively, Petitioners). CAIR filed its Motion for Leave File Brief Amicus Curiae Instanter (Amicus Brief) August 14, 2007. ISNA and NAIT filed their Motion for Equitable Relief from the Governments Public Naming Them Unindicted Co-Conspirators (Motion) June 18, 2008. the Amicus Brief, CAIR seeks have its name and the names all other unindicted individuals and organizations stricken from the Governments List Unindicted Co-conspirators (the List), that was filed with the Governments Trial Brief the first trial this case May 29, 2007. their Motion, ISNA and NAIT ask the Court (1) declare the Governments public naming them unindicted co-conspirators violation their Fifth Amendment rights; (2) enter order expunging their names from any public document filed issued the Government that identifies them unindicted co-conspirators; (3) prohibit the and ISNAs requests for relief. 
Government from identifying them unindicted co-conspirators; and (4) order such relief the Court deems equitable. After careful consideration the briefing and the applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS CAIRs motion file its Amicus Brief and GRANTS PART CAIRs, NAITs BACKGROUND 
This dispute related the criminal charges conspiracy brought against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and seven other named defendants. (Tr. Br. 31.) May 29, 2007, the Government filed its Trial Brief outlining the scope the alleged conspiracy and identifying the different types evidence would seek admit trial, well the evidentiary bases for the admission that evidence. (Tr. Br. 27-33.) its attempt illustrate the breadth the conspiracy, the Government provided the List, which contains the names 246 individuals and organizations that the Government identified unindicted co-conspirators. (Tr. Br. 31, Attachment A.) The Government listed CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT entities who are were members the U.S. Muslim Brotherhoods Palestine Committee and/or its organizations. (Attachment Mot. 6.) 
The first trial this case commenced July 16, 2007. The Government called its first witness July 25, 2007. The trial was still underway when CAIR filed its Amicus Brief August 14, 2007. The first trial resulted hung jury and mistrial October 22, 2007. February 13, 2008, the Court scheduled this case for retrial. ISNA and NAIT filed their Motion June 18, 2008. The Court urges CAIR and the Government consult and comply with Local Criminal Rule 47.2(d), which requires that brief excess ten (10) pages contain table contents with page references and table authority. 
3:04-CR-0240-P Order Page 
CAIR objects the public release the List because violates the named individuals and organizations rights due process under the Fifth Amendment and has chilling effect their First Amendment free speech and association rights. CAIR requests that the Court strike the names the unindicted co-conspirators and seal the List and any other documents that name them unindicted co-conspirators. (Amicus Br. 55; Mot. 3.) 
The Government argues that CAIR should not permitted submit its Amicus Brief because (1) CAIRs submissions are neither useful nor timely; (2) CAIR lacks standing; and (3) CAIRs claims are moot. The Government also argues that CAIRs name should not stricken from the List because CAIR has not established that impermissible disclose the identity unindicted co-conspirator when that unindicted co-conspirator subsequently identified trial member ongoing, unlawful conspiracy. (Resp. 22.) 
II. CAIRS MOTION Leave File Amicus Brief 
The Government argues that CAIRs motion for leave should denied because the Amicus Brief used promote CAIRs own interest instead assisting the Court. (Resp. 2.) The Government also argues that the motion untimely. response, CAIR acknowledges that this not typical amicus brief. explains there procedural mechanism for the type relief seeks and the most sensible option amicus brief. 
Generally, the function amicus brief aid the court with matters apparent the record matters practice that may otherwise escape the Courts consideration. See Am. Jur. Amicus Curaie  (2007). amicus brief proper when assists the judge presenting aspects ideas, arguments, theories, facts data that are not the parties briefs. See id.  Usually, amicus may not file pleadings motions case, may not raise issues that have not been presented the parties, and may not seek relief beyond the scope that sought the parties. See, e.g., Russell Bd. Plumbing Examiners, Supp. 349, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); State Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 159 P.3d 513, 514 (Alaska 2006); Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. Chillura, 952 So.2d 547, 553 n.7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dist. 2007) (in the appellate context); Am. Jur. Amicus Curaie  6-7. undisputed that CAIRs application for amicus status addresses issue not raised any the Parties and seeks specific relief for CAIR and other non-parties the case. also undisputed that there procedure available CAIR for seeking and obtaining the relief requestsit not party the criminal case, and cannot intervene the criminal case non-party. See Smith, 656 F.2d 1101, 1104 n.8 (5th Cir. 1981) (the Federal Rules Criminal Procedure provide[ procedure for intervention private party.); see also United States Driscoll, 445 Supp. 868, 868 (D.N.J. 1978). Smith, the district court allowed non-party who was accused taking bribe file motion the criminal action have his name stricken from factual resume. See Smith, 656 F.2d 1104. appeal, the Fifth Circuit noted that Rule 7(d) the Federal Rules Criminal Procedure allows the court strike surplusage from information upon defendants motion, and Rule 12(f) the Federal Rules Civil Procedure allows the court strike immaterial, impertinent, scandalous matter from the pleadings civil caseseven requested non-party. See id. The court stated that the non-partys motion strike and seal innovative hybrid the two procedures which approve. Id. The Court adopts the Smith courts practice under this set circumstances and considers CAIRs amicus brief hybrid motion strike and seal pursuant Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(f) and Rule 7(d) the Federal Rules Criminal Procedure. 
The Government has not cited any authority establishing that CAIRs brief was untimely. CAIR, non-party this case, submitted its brief less than three months after the List containing 246 names was filed and before the trial concluded. The Court rejects the Governments untimeliness argument. The Court therefore GRANTS CAIRs Motion for Leave file its Motion Strike and Seal. Standing 
The Government argues that the Court may not consider CAIRs Motion because the Petitioners lack standing. satisfy the federal standing requirement this case, CAIR must show suffered (1) injury-in-fact its reputational interest; (2) causal connection between the injury its reputational interest and the Governments publication its name unindicted co-conspirator; and (3) likelihood the injury will redressed the Court striking its name from the list unindicted co-conspirators. See Lujan Defenders Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). United States Briggs, the Fifth Circuit held that named unindicted co-conspirators had standing sue because they suffered injury their good names and reputations and impairment their ability obtain employment. 514 F.2d 794, 797 (5th Cir. 1975). The Briggs court did not rely actual, concrete evidence injury establish standing, but instead found that standing exists where such a characterization individual will expose him public embarrassment and ridicule where the labeling would interfere with charitable organizations right carry its work, free from defamatory statements. Id. 797, 798. 
There real dispute that CAIR suffered injury its reputational interest being listed unindicted co-conspirator this terrorism case. Press accounts and blog entries have reported, based this case, that CAIR criminal organization that supports terrorism. (Reply Attachments Mot. Appx. B.) Additionally, CAIR has been forced defend itself against violent threats direct result being named unindicted co-conspirator. (See id.) Moreover, CAIRs designation the Government impacts its credibility impeding its stated missions that include fostering better relations for American Muslims, developing educational and social outreach programs, and enabling Muslim communities pool their assets. The relief CAIR requests would redress the injury continues suffer.  Mootness 
The Government also argues that CAIRs claim moot because CAIRs status co-conspirator was made matter public record trial through evidence and testimony and thus, striking CAIRs name from the Trial Brief will not prevent its co-conspirator status from being publicly available and known. (Resp. 11-15.) The Government identifies four portions the record from the first trial that purportedly establish that CAIR was joint venturer and co-conspirator: (1) Government exhibit showing the objective the Palestine Committee support Hamas; (2) Government exhibit showing that CAIR founder Omar Ahmad part the Palestine Committee and Mousa Abu Marzook its head; (3) Government exhibit listing CAIR part the Palestine Committee; and (4) the testimony Special Agent Lara Burns and accompanying exhibits placing the CAIR founder the 1993 Philadelphia conference and describing the CAIR founders mediation dispute between HLF and Ashqar over Hamas fundraising. (Resp. 12-13.) The Government does not mention any occasion where used the 801(d)(2)(E) hearsay exception introduce statement CAIR. The four pieces evidence the government relies on, discussed below, create least prima facie case CAIRs involvement conspiracy support Hamas; however, even the proverbial cat was let out the bag trial, there ongoing injury that will persist long the public has ready access the Governments list unindicted co-conspirators. 
Additionally, practical matter the public has readier access the Governments Trial Brief than does any trial exhibits testimony. The Trial Brief accessible through the internet everyone, 24-hours day, 7-days week. Because easy access this information, any member the public, including the press, sees CAIRs name associated with HLF, Hamas, and other known supporters terrorist organizations. This injury will occur long the public has access this information. Thus, the Court concludes that CAIRs claim not moot, and may consider its Motion Seal and Strike. Asserting the Rights Others 
The Government argues that CAIR lacks prudential standing seek relief behalf the other unindicted co-conspirators. (Resp. 20-21.) general rule, party may assert his own legal interests, not those third parties. See Edmonson Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 629 (1991). exception exists the litigant can demonstrate that has suffered concrete, redressable injury, that has close relation with the third party, and that there exists some hindrance the third partys ability protect his her own interests. See id. 
The Court held supra that CAIR has demonstrated that suffered concrete, redressable injury. Also, the Government publicly identified the names 246 unindicted co-conspirators the same document, during the same trial, and without any supporting documentation. However, this case demonstrates, the other 246 individuals and entities have the same mechanism available them CAIR, NAIT, and ISNA redress their injury. The others have chosen not file motions this Court. For these reasons, the Court concludes that CAIR does not have standing seek relief behalf the other listed unindicted co-conspirators. Sealing the List 
CAIR argues that the Governments public identification CAIR and others unindicted co-conspirators violates the Department Justices (DOJ) attorney guidelines. According CAIR, United States Attorneys Manual 9-11.130 discourages prosecutors from identifying unindicted co-conspirators indictments. (Br. 11-12.) The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the DOJs attorney manual used provide internal guidance and does not create any enforceable rights party civil criminal context. (Resp. 23-25); see, e.g., Nichols Reno, 124 F.3d 1376 (10th Cir. 1997). 
CAIR also argues that the Governments public disclosure CAIR unindicted co-conspirator violates its Fifth Amendment right due process. The seminal case this issue the Fifth Circuit case United States Briggs, which the court held that the liberty and property concepts the Fifth Amendment protect individual from being publicly and officially accused having committed serious crime, particularly where the accusations gain wide notoriety. 514 F.2d 794, 797-99 (5th Cir. 1975). The Fifth Circuit held that courts must weigh the harm suffered the private individual against the legitimate governmental interest that served stigmatizing private citizens criminals while not naming them defendants affording [them] access any forum for vindication. Id. 804. The Briggs court found that federal grand jury violated the petitioners right due process identifying him unindicted co-conspirator the indictment. Smith, the Fifth Circuit extended the Briggs ruling factual resume read the prosecutor during plea hearing open court. 656 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1981). Smith, the factual resume accused Mr. Smith taking bribe from the defendant. Id. 1106. The court held that legitimate governmental interest was served official public smear individual when that individual has not been provided forum which vindicate his rights. Id. Subsequent cases have held that the Briggs balancing test weighs favor protecting the individuals private interests when the unindicted co-conspirators name appears bill particulars, other pretrial filings, and sentencing documents. See, e.g., United States Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1105 (3d Cir. 1985) (bill particulars); U.S. Anderson, Supp. 1163, 1168-69 (D. Kan. 1999) (pretrial motion filed Government). contrast, courts tend allow the identification unindicted co-conspirators through discovery and trial testimony. See United States Ladd, 218 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2000) (allowing identification co-conspirators whose hearsay statements were admitted into evidence pursuant Fed. 801(d)(2)(E)); Anderson, Supp. 1169; see also Briggs, 514 F.2d 805. Courts have held that there important distinction between being unqualifiedly identified pretrial document unindicted co-conspirator and being identified co-conspirator trial for purposes Federal Rule Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the Government must demonstrate, preponderance the evidence, that the individuals, although unindicted, were fact members conspiracy. See Ladd, 218 F.3d 705. 
The Court sees reason not extend Briggs and its progeny this case. The Briggs balancing test requires first that the Court identify the harm the unindicted co-conspirators. The List communicates the general public that the named organizations and individuals, the opinion the chief federal law enforcement official the district, are guilty may guilty engaging terrorist support and/or activity. This information unaccompanied any facts providing context for evaluating the basis for the United States Attorneys opinion. Neither CAIR nor the other unindicted co-conspirators have been charged with crime and they have judicial forum which defend against the accusation. See Smith, 776 F.2d 1106-07, 1113-14. The evidence indicates that the release the List subjected CAIR annoyance, ridicule, scorn, and loss reputation the community. CAIR has been subjected violent threats and has been made the subject news stories and articles. reasonable surmise that donations CAIR have and will suffer result this designation. 
The Government has not argued established any legitimate government interest that warrants publicly identifying CAIR and 245 other individuals and entities unindicted co-conspirators. The only possible legitimate interest the Government could assert the publics interest having access the trial ensure the legitimacy the proceedings. See, e.g., Ladd, 218 F.3d 703-04 (recognizing the presumption that all trial proceedings should subject scrutiny 
3:04-CR-0240-P Order Page the public). Yet the Court unaware any way that access the List would assist the public evaluating the legitimacy the proceedings. appears doubtful the Government intended use the statements all 246 individuals entities under Fed. 801(d)(2)(E). 
The Government had available less injurious means than those employed this caseit could have anonymously designated the unindicted co-conspirators other persons, could have asked the Court file the document under seal, could have disclosed the information Defendants pursuant protective order. See, e.g, Smith, 776 F.2d 1105-06; Briggs, 514 F.2d 
805.  This invasion privacy far outweighs the interest publicly naming CAIR and others coconspirators.   Anderson, Supp. 1168. Therefore, the Court grants CAIRs motion seal the list. 
III. ISNA AND NAITS MOTION their Motion, ISNA and NAIT argue: (1) that the Government violated their Fifth Amendment rights when publicly named them unindicted co-conspirators, (2) the Government has not asserted any interest that justifies its decision publicly identify ISNA and NAIT, and (3) that this Court has the authority remedy this controversy. (Mot. 8-21.) the Governments response, the Government claims that ISNA and NAIT lack standing bring this claim, the claim moot, and the claim untimely. (Resp. 8-18.) Briggs Analysis for Violation Fifth Amendment Rights 
ISNA and NAIT claim that the Government violated their Fifth Amendment rights naming them unindicted coconspirators. (Mot. 8.) The Court used the Briggs balancing test evaluate CAIRs claim and will also use Briggs assess ISNA and NAITs claim. 
3:04-CR-0240-P Order Page 
First, the Court must determine the harm caused ISNA and NAIT. Like CAIR, ISNA and NAIT have been indentified co-conspirators without being charged with crime having available any forum which defend themselves.  See Smith, 776 F.2d 1106-07, 1113-14.  Both ISNA and NAIT have been the subject news reports, editorials and blog posts which they are accused of, among other things, being an integral part the [Muslim] Brotherhoods effort wage jihad against America, and radical Muslim organizations. (Mot. App. Ex. Mot. App. Ex. A.) Again, reasonable surmise that donations ISNA and NAIT have may decrease result these characterizations. Additionally, the government agencies that have traditionally worked with ISNA create better understanding Muslim culture have been pressured into cutting ties with ISNA result its being named co-conspirator. (See Mot. App. Ex. 8-9.) light these facts, both ISNA and NAIT shown that being named unindicted co-conspirators has caused real harm them. 
The Government has not cited any legitimate interest for publicly naming ISNA and NAIT unindicted co-conspirators. The Government originally included them the List order use their statements under Fed. 801(d)(2)(E). (Mot. 6-7.) The Court finds that legitimate interest existed justify publicly naming ISNA and NAIT unindicted co-conspirators. 
Finally, noted above, the Government had available less injurious means accomplish its purpose.  This invasion privacy far outweighs the interest publicly naming ISNA and NAIT coconspirators. Anderson, Supp. 1168. Standing have standing, ISNA and NAIT must show they suffered (1) factual injury their reputational interests; (2) causal connection between their injuries and the governments naming them unindicted co-conspirators; and (3) likelihood the injury will redressed the Court, should grant their motion. See Lujan, 504 U.S. 560. applying this test, the Briggs court found that standing exists where such a characterization individual will expose him public embarrassment and ridicule where the labeling would interfere with charitable organizations right carry its work, free from defamatory statements. Briggs, 514 F.2d 797, 798. noted above, ISNA and NAIT have suffered concrete and redressable injury the damage their reputational interests. This damage was result their being publicly named unindicted co-conspirators, shown multiple examples media reports characterizing them sympathizers Islamic terror organizations.  (See e.g., Mot. App. Ex. App. Ex. A.) Also, sealing the record the List would redress the injury NAIT and ISNA suffer. Thus, the Court concludes that ISNA and NAIT have standing bring the Motion.  Mootness 
The Government also attacks ISNA and NAITs claim moot. (Resp. 10-16.) ISNA and NAIT respond arguing that long their names are the publicly available List, there exists ongoing controversy. (Reply 8-9.) the Court already determined with CAIR, the injury ISNA and NAIT will continue long their names are available the public unindicted co-conspirators. Also, because Trial Brief available any member the public any time and more accessible than the exhibits presented trial, sealing these records would constitute meaningful relief.2  See Smith, 656 F.2d 1106. Therefore, the Court finds that ISNA and NAIT claims are not moot.  Timeliness 
The Government contends that ISNA and NAITs Motion time barred because they did not file the Motion until June 18, 2008, whereas the Government filed its Trial Brief naming them unindicted co-conspirators May 29, 2007. Although the time between these two dates more than year, ISNA and NAIT believed that the Government intended remove their names from the List, evidenced communications regarding the removal their names continuing through August 2007 and ending April 2008. (Reply 10-11; Mot. App. Ex. B.) Additionally, other courts have granted parties relief when their reputation still suffered for periods after the trial which they were named co-conspirators. See, e.g., Anderson, Supp. 1168; Delpit Beckner, 481 Supp. 42, (M.D. La. 1979) (granting relief from being named unindicted co-conspirator, despite explanation for delay greater than one year). Because ISNAs and NAITs injuries are real, direct and continuous, relief may granted. See Briggs, 514 F.2d 800. Thus, the Court finds that the ISNA and NAIT Motion timely. 

IV. CAIR, ISNA and NAITs Motions Strike 
Finally, CAIR, NAIT and ISNA ask the Court strike their names from any public document filed issued the government. (Mot. 6.) While clear from the Briggs line cases that the Government should have originally filed the unindicted co-conspirators names under seal, the Court declines strike CAIR, ISNA and NAITs names from those documents. The The overwhelming majority media reports provided ISNA and NAIT link them terrorist organizations based the unindicted co-conspirators list, rather than evidence presented trial. (See generally Mot. App. B.) 
3:04-CR-0240-P Order Page 
Government has produced ample evidence establish the associations CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and with Hamas. While the Court recognizes that the evidence produced the Government largely predates the HLF designation date, the evidence nonetheless sufficient show the association these entities with HLF, IAP, and Hamas. See U.S. Ladd, 218 F.3d 704-05 (the Government must prove preponderance the evidence that conspiracy existed). Thus, maintaining the names the entities the List appropriate light the evidence proffered the Government. 
Government Exhibit 3-85 titled An Explanatory Memorandum the General Strategic Goal for the Group North America, authored Mohamed Akram the Shura Council the Muslim Brotherhood and dated May 22, 1991. (Govt Ex. 3-85 (Elbarasse 21.) The Explanatory Memorandum includes section titled Understanding the role the Muslim Brother North America, which states that the work the Ikhwan the United States a kind grand Jihad eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house their hands and the hands the believers that eliminated and Gods religion made victorious over all other religions. (Id.) Also contained that document list the Muslim Brotherhoods organizations and the organizations our friends, which includes ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund (OLF) (HLFs former name), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). (Id. 32.) Government Exhibit 3-64, titled Preliminary vision for preparing future leadership and dated December 18, 1988, further ties ISNA the Muslim Brotherhood listing apparatus the Brotherhood. (Govt Ex. 3-64 (Elbarasse 5.) 
During the early years OLF/HLFs operation, OLF raised money and supported Hamas through bank account that held with ISNA and NAIT. (Govt. Exhs. 5-1 through 5-14, 5-23 through 5-26, 5-42 (NAIT).)  Indeed, OLF operated from within ISNA, Plainfield, Indiana, where Defendant Baker was employed. (Govt. Exh. 5-6 (NAIT) 1-16 (HLF Search 14) 20.) ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for OLF were often made payable the Palestinian Mujahadeen, the original name for the Hamas  military wing. (Govt. Exh. 5-23 through 5-25 (NAIT); 1-174 (HLF Search 109).)  From that ISNA/NAIT account, OLF sent hundreds thousands dollars Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, Nadia Elashi (Defendant Elashis cousin and Marzooks wife), Sheikh Ahmed Yassins Islamic Center Gaza, the Islamic University, and number other individuals associated with Hamas. (Govt. Exh. 20-55, 20-56 (OLF 1988-89 Disbursements).) 
The Muslim Brotherhood supervised the creation  the Palestine Committee, which was put charge other organizations, such HLF, IAP, UASR, and ISNA. (See Govt Ex. 3-15 (Elbarasse Search 14).  The July 30, 1994 Meeting Agenda for the Palestine Committee lists IAP, HLF, UASR and CAIR working organizations for the Palestine Committee. (Govt Ex. 3-78 (Elbarasse 19) 6.)  Government Exhibit 3-15, titled Islamic Action for Palestine internal memo October 1992, contains section titled Islamic Action for the Palestinian Cause North America. (Id.) That section states that 
[w]hen the Intifada started and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) was formed and the general apparatus for Palestine developed Palestine Committee was formed under the supervision the executive office [of the Muslim Brotherhood]. The Committee was then tasked with supervising all the organizations which serve the plan the Movement domestically and internationally addition the Palestinian cause. Among these organizations were the Islamic Association [the IAP], the Occupied Land Fund, and the United Association [the UASR]. Like other directors the Movements committees and sections, the director Palestine Committee submit periodical reports and adheres the directions and the guidance the leadership the Group.  
The Palestine Committee was also known the Central Committee, the Central Committee for Palestinian Activism America. (See Govt Ex. 3-5 (Elbarasse Search 13) 7.) Government Exhibit 3-17 document titled Re: suggestion amend the bylaws the Central Committee, dated April 1991. Articles and the document state that the Palestine Committee will called the Central Committee and originates from the Palestine Body formed the Executive Office the Muslim Brotherhood. (Govt Ex. 3-17 (Elbarasse Search 8-9.) Article states that the Central Committee considered the highest Shura and Executive authority regards work for the Palestinian cause the American front . (Id.) Article goes state that the Committee focused supervision and follow-up all work and issues relating the following fields: 1-Issues relating the Islamic Association Palestine Issues relating the Occupied Land Fund Issues relating the United Association for Studies Research . (Id.) later section, the International Shura Council and the Office Guidance instruct collect[ donations for the Islamic Resistance Movement from the Ikhwan and others. (Id. 12.) Additionally, Government Exhibit 3-1, organizational chart titled Central Committee Org. Chart for the Year 1991 lists OLF and UASR under the Central Committee. (Govt Ex. 3-1 (Elbarasse Search 10) 1.) 
Government Exhibit 3-5 titled Annual Report for the year 89-1990 Presented the Organizational Conference. (Govt Ex. 3-5 (Elbarasse Search 13) 5.) states that the Central Committee is charge planning, directing and following all work related and connected the Group. (Id. 7.) The Central Committee includes several committees and organizations, some which are: The Islamic Association for Palestine, The Occupied Land Fund, The United Association for Studies Research . (Id.) The Achievements listed the Palestine Committee include: 
Twenty-three Intifada festivals have been held this year Sakhra band participated over festivals during activities the Association and the Fund [HLF] The sum $728,059.04 has been raised through the Occupied Land Fund support the steadfastness the people the Inside. Most the money has been transferred Five books have been issued the United Association for Studies Research. They are currently being marketed benefit the Intifada The Studies office [UASR] has published issues Aqsa bulletins and issues the Striking Arms leaflets. Government Exhibit 3-1, chart titled Chart Outline for Palestinian Action Aspects lists Ahmad (founder CAIR) under the UASR, and indicates that charge the Studies Research Office. (Govt Ex. 3-1 (Elbarasse 10) 4-5.) The same Chart Outline also lists the IAP and the OLF, addition UASR.  (Id. 5.) Defendants Elmezain and Baker are listed conjunction with HLF. (Id.) 
Omar Ahmad also attended the 1993 Philadelphia conference, where leaders the organizations under the Muslim Brotherhood umbrella met discuss the future the Brotherhood the United States. The Philadelphia conference was attended several members the Palestine Committee, which supported and collected money for Hamas. the conference, attendees discussed how proceed light the recently negotiated Oslo Accords between Israel and Palestinians. Hamas opposed the Accords because called for the recognition the state Israel. The attendees also discussed how they would have careful their opposition the Oslo Accords because they did not want viewed being against the peace process aligned with terrorist groups. 
The attendees agreed not mention the word Hamas but refer Hamas Samah which Hamas spelled backwards. The Philadephia conference essentially laid out the path that the Palestine Committee would take accomplish its goal supporting Hamas the future. Wiretaps from the Philadelphia conference reflect that Ahmad participated, together with Defendants Baker and Elashi, number meetings related the goals, strategies, and American perception the Muslim Brotherhood. (See Govt Exs. 16-69 (Philly Meeting 4-5; 16-77 (Philly Meeting 6;16-67 (Philly Meeting 5.) Topics discussed included redefining the perception the sub-organizations due their work for the Palestinian cause, and the legal hurdles the Brotherhood faced when raising funds for Hamas and other Palestinian causes when taking orders from overseas leaders. (Govt Exs. 16-77 (Philly Meeting 6;16-69 (Philly Meeting 4.) 
Finally, ISNA was also discussed during the Philadelphia conference. During the conference, Palestine Committee members discussed using ISNA official cover for their activities. (Govt. Exhs. 16-59 (Philly Meeting13) 10; 16-47 (Philly Meeting 10-11.) 
Evidence presented public trial inherently different from the Government publishing list persons alleged co-conspirators. The public may make its own judgment from evidence presented trial. The evidence may examined and conclusions can drawn whether the evidence establishes what the government claims does. But published list from the Government naming individuals entities co-conspirators without any supporting evidence not subject such scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds appropriate seal the entire list unindicted co-conspirators but stops short ordering CAIR, ISNA and NAITs names expunged from any documents filed produced the government. 
3:04-CR-0240-P Order Page 

IV. CONCLUSION therefore ordered that the District Clerk for the Northern District Texas shall file and seal the Amicus Curaie Brief the Council American-Islamic Relations Support the Unindicted Co-Conspirators First and Fifth Amendment Rights, which has been decided herein. The Clerk shall also seal Attachment the Governments Trial Brief, filed May 29, 2007 [Docket No. 656]. also ordered that all pleadings, records, documents, orders and other papers concerning 
(1) CAIRs Amicus Brief, (2) CAIRs Motion for Leave file Amicus Brief, and (3) ISNAs and NAITs Motion [Docket Nos. 777, 778, 797, 799, 850, 851] including this Order sealed. All these documents shall kept sealed until further order this Court. ORDERED, this day July 2009. 
JORGE SOLIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE