ILNews

Judges affirm rulings in Iraq name-selling case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's decisions in the appeals by the central Indiana man who tried to sell the names of CIA agents working covertly in Iraq shortly before the U.S. invaded the country in 2003.

The Circuit Court consolidated six appeals of Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban's post-judgment motions following his convictions in 2006 on six counts, including conspiracy and violating the Iraqi Sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Shaaban traveled to Iraq in late 2002 where he offered to sell the names of U.S. intelligence agents to the country for $3 million dollars, as well as broadcasted messages of support for the Iraqi government on Iraqi media stations that encouraged Iraqis and others to forcibly resist the U.S. He was sentenced to 160 months in prison.

The Circuit Court decided only two of Shaaban's appeals merited discussion. In United States of America v. Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban, Nos. 08-4124, 08-4278, 09-1206, 09-1330, 09-2251, and 09-2277, the judges found the District Court didn't abuse its discretion when it denied Shaaban's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. They agreed with the lower court's reasoning that the evidence was known to Shaaban or readily ascertainable before trial, was needlessly cumulative, or was unlikely to lead to acquittal in a new trial.

The judges also considered Shaaban's appeal of the adverse ruling on a motion to reconsider the denial of his demand for the return of seized property. In October 2008, the District Court issued an order that said if Shaaban wanted to pursue the return of his property, he would have to file a new civil action and pay the filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In December 2008, he moved for reconsideration of that decision because he said he couldn't afford the filing fee.

Shaaban argued that the District Court erred in requiring him to start all over and file a new civil action. The judges noted Shaaban would have a point if he had appealed the October order instead of the December order.

"Further still, although the district court may have erroneously required him to start over with a new civil complaint, nothing is really lost because he can still do just that," stated the per curiam opinion. "Shaaban - whose criminal proceeding in the district court closed in January 2006 - has six years from the close of his criminal proceedings to initiate an action for return of his property."

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT