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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT