CAIRLESS lies

CAIRLESS lies

The amicus curiae brief filed by CAIR in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Submitted by Washington attorney William Moffitt, the 56-page brief supports CAIR's motion to strike the government's identification of CAIR and others as unindicted co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation. The brief is poorly written and poorly argued, though here I want to focus only on one theme of the brief that is of particular interest. Indeed, it is newsworthy. If the New York Times were as interested in the news as it is in serving as CAIR's public relations arm, it might have found room for this aspect of the brief on CAIR's motion.

CAIR's brief verges on hysteria in asserting that the government has harmed it by identifying it as an unindicted co-conspirator. It repeatedly asserts that the government's identification of CAIR has reduced its membership and donations. CAIR states at page 10:

[T]he mere publication of CAIR being named as an unindicted co-conspirator impresses upon the
typical member of the American public that CAIR is involved in criminal activity. This is pure
guilt by association.

The] negative reaction by the American public can be seen in the decline of membership
rates and donations resulting from the government’s publicizing of CAIR as an unindicted coconspirator.

In an omitted footnote supporting this proposition, CAIR cites Audrey Hudson's June 11, 2007 Washington Times story on CAIR's membership decline. At page 19 of the brief, CAIR states:

With CAIR, the formal and public co-conspirator accusation has already resulted in a precipitous decline in their donations and, therefore, their ability to effectively advocate on the part of Muslim-Americans.

At page 38 of the brief, CAIR states:

Muslim-American advocacy groups such as CAIR, that rely on charitable donations for funding, have suffered severe damage to their ability to carry out their stated goals of the protection of Muslim-American civil rights and the fostering the acceptance of Muslim-Americans in United States’ society. First, the donations that they rely on for funding have suffered since the government named them as an unindicted co-conspirators. The public naming of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator has impeded its ability to collect donations as possible donors either do not want to give to them because they think they are a ‘terrorist’ organization or are too scared to give to them because of the possible legal ramifications of donating money to a ‘terrorist’ organization. Any harm to the receipt of donations fundamentally affects CAIR’s ability to carry out its mission statement.

In an omitted footnote, CAIR again cites Hudson's June 11 Washington Times story on CAIR's membership decline. At page 51 of the brief, CAIR states:

[T]he publication of CAIR’s name as an unindicted co-conspirator has already resulted in a demonstrable chilling of their associational activities. Since being named as unindicted coconspirators, their membership ranks have shrunken. Furthermore, the amount of donations that they have been receiving has dwindled well below their monthly budget, and as their associational activity necessarily relies upon donations from the public, the government’s labeling of them as an unindicted co-conspirator has chilled their associational activity.

In an omitted footnote, CAIR again cites Hudson's June 11 Washington Times story.

At the time of the publication of Hudson's story, CAIR vociferously disputed its accuracy. In a June 12 press release CAIR asserted:

CAIR today accused a right-wing Washington, D.C., newspaper of "agenda-driven reporting" for falsely suggesting there has been a drop in its grassroots support. According to CAIR, an article in today's Washington Times newspaper misrepresented figures on its tax filings to falsely indicate a drop in membership.

On the one hand, CAIR's brief in the Holy Land Foundation trial confirms Hudson's story. Indeed, it cites Hudson's story to support its argument. CAIR's brief also shows CAIR's contemporaneous statement disputing the accuracy of Hudson's story to be false. CAIR freely lies to suit its convenience.

On the other hand, however, CAIR's amicus brief lies when it suggests that Hudson's story supports its argument in the Holy Land Foundation case. The government named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation this year during the first week of June. Hudson's Washington Times story was based on data covering the period 2000-2006, before CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. CAIR's citation of Hudson's story in support of the argument made in its brief is another lie of convenience.

The amicus curiae brief filed by CAIR in the Holy Land Foundation trial is a curious document. It purports to object to the government's public identification of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation prior to trial. But the government has introduced substantial evidence linking CAIR with the Holy Land Foundation at trial. CAIR's motion and accompanying brief seem to be moot. CAIR waits until the final paragraph of its 55-page brief to confront this problem, arguing that the identification of unindicted co-conspirators is simply unconstitutional. The rules of evidence that authorize the introduction of co-conspirator hearsay into evidence apparently need to be rewritten to suit CAIR.

CAIR first opened for business with a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR is understandably concerned that its association with the Holy Land Foundation might give people the right idea about the organization. As CAIR explains in its brief:

[T]he public ‘outing’ of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator fundamentally undercuts their [sic] central mission to protect Muslim-Americans’ civil rights and foster an atmosphere of acceptance of Muslims in American society. Any message that CAIR tries to deliver to the American public, will be undercut by the insinuation that they are a criminal terrorist organization. The American public and the media which CAIR uses to deliver its message will no longer believe in the veracity of such message because CAIR will be perceived as a terrorist front organization.

One can only hope.