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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT