....and it's not good.


Holy Land Foundation defendants face mixed verdicts

10:31 AM CDT on Monday, October 22, 2007
By JASON TRAHAN and MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News
jtrahan@dallasnews.com

The original chairman and director of endowments of the Holy Land Foundation was found not guilty of supporting terrorism by sending money to charity committees controlled by Hamas.

The jury in the terrorism-financing trial was unable to reach unanimous decisions on three of the six defendants, U.S. District Judge Joe Fish said Monday as he unsealed their verdicts.

On two others, they were able to reach unanimous decisions on some of the counts — including those charges against Mohammad El-Mezain, the original chairman of what was once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S. On only one defendant were they able to reach unanimous decisions on all counts."


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1878fd716.html

I read last week---during their deliberations---that there was ONE JUROR who refused to change his/her mind or even vote.

...."the foreperson told the judge in a note that one of the panelists was refusing to vote."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...d.35d126a.html

This juror may have had his/her own agenda. Also, they said the evidence---trial was 16 weeks long----was quite mind-numbing. Financial matters and conspiracy related to such is very difficult for some people to grasp. I don't know their education level---but may not have been able to follow.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I guess no one but me was interested in this...so I'll talk to myself!!

I cannot imagine that this jury---or any jury----would not see the Hamas connection and be able to conclude they were all guilty. After all, the guy who started the Holy Land Foundation used to be head of Hamas. One of the defendants---Elashi---ran an internet service right across the street from the foundation. In 1999, investigators found that the internet firm had violated export laws by doing business with customers in Syria, Libya, both of which the U.S. considered state sponsors of terrrorism.

At a bugged 1993 meeting, one of the defendants---Baker----talked of "war is deception"----and discussed how to hide the charity's real motives.

The only juror who is talking so far---is a real Jew hater. I suspect there was one or two more. Juror William Neal---when interviewed---had problems even admitting Hamas IS a terrorist group. Regarding the government's witness, Avi----Juror Neal said this: Avi "was paid by the Israeli government to be there. He's going to say what he needs to say."
This juror also is a Palestinian sympathizer who believes that Palestinians are "oppressed by the Israeli government."

Neal is also quite mad that the jury couldn't come to the conclusion that all were not guilty. He complained that only a handful of jurors examined the evidence and he said this,"I'm ashamed that we came to nothing." It's clear that he wanted them all found Not guilty on all counts. This juror also said of Hamas....."Part of it does terrorist acts, but it's a political movement, It's an uprising." Now----you cannot tell me this juror didn't LIE during questioning about his firm beliefs and had NO INTENTION whatsoever of finding these guys guilty.

It's a mistrial in most counts and the gov't WILL retry.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...d.367cb2b.html

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Just shows you the terrorizing power of terrorism. They were probably scared someone would come kill them.

I'm not surprised that it was a mistrial. You didn't actually think they were gonna come out with a guilty verdict, did you? These people have their own lives to fear!

Apparently there was just not enough connective tissue to close the wound. One should ask why not? Why was the state so anxious to bring charges when they lacked evidence for probable cause? What judge signed this off to bring charges first and evidence second? And how was the evidence collected by the state to know an internet service was involved? Did they have a warrant from the same judge? Often cases are lost because American laws are violated. Lacking probable cause shows in the difficulty the jury had in finding them innocent.


There is the magic word - bugged - where is the word warrantless?

I have made some purchases/donations from a charity religious organization high in the Tibetian mountains, as an effort to help poor children there. I have no idea if they are connected to the gods, or Hamas or Benny Boy, but a zealous prosecutor might go about showing I was supporting terrorists in in a small S. American jungle village & want to send me up the river for kindness. That sound like what happened in this humanitarian case. Collecting and donating without knowing how the funds were used.

__________________
One Tin Soldier Walked Away....................

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...tionkill-1.jpg

I don't know. Maybe you should ask the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION....considering it happened while they were at the helm!!

Hamas was designated a terrorist organization during the Clinton administration. And even if you knew that ONE portion was going to terrorist acts, you'd be guilty. The so called "good things" they do is only a cover-up for the funds they use to murder and maime.

Well, I am sick at letting supporters of terrorist go free. And I'm also sick of Jew-haters getting on these juries by LYING, only to sabotage the entire thing.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

[quote="JP5";p="405589"]

Oh, you want to blame Clinton for this? Seven years after he left office? LMAO! Of course.......... Yeah, we had better things to do in Clinton's last Administration, like investigate everything and everybody, leak information to the press, go to civil trials & grand juries & impeachments & write a sex book & stuff connected to the head of Mr. Bills bobber & bimbos. Gawd those "Gates" were great times. Were you around then, and notice how the gov. resources & president were allocated back then? We barely had time to fire a missile at a camel drivers tent, because we were dealing with sperm guppies on a blue dress. I am really looking forward to another 8 wasted years in DC when the Clinton team 08' arrives home again.





Yeah, following the law is problematic, but it's the best law we have.

__________________
One Tin Soldier Walked Away....................

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...tionkill-1.jpg

So....Shin.....I gather you don't really want to discuss what YOU brought up?......which was the "bugging" that occured in 1993. I'm sure you thought you were "getting Bush"....but hey, who was President in 1993? I'll help you if you don't know.

So, do you or do you NOT have a problem with the "bugging" that Clinton did of these guys back in 1993??? Huh???

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I actually hadn't considered Bush, so I didn't attempt to blame him. Notice, my concern was the investigators who maynot have had probable cause, and got a corrupt judge to issue a warrant without probable cause, and make an arrest without probable cause - which when it hit the jury where the "Buck stops" they said whooooooooo turkeys - your evidence is weak, you can drive a semi-truck through the gaps. Of course they lost after wasting 12 million dollars of your money on this -because they operated outside the American laws & then attempt to have American jurists judge the case.

And then the prosecuter thinks he should have the right to retry this for another 12-20 million? IF he had been a prosecuter capable of prosecuting the case - he should have won. And that tells me the state would be wasting its money at this late date. Justice in America isn't one sided.

If it was without warrant, yes I do. And I would bet the area where no warrant was used, if the case, would be the internet service across the street. If they can spy on a terrorist without warrant, they can spy on you - so yes indeed I do have a problem with it. I have a problem with a lot of the new tech devices that violate Americans rights to privacy and freedom from search & seizure.

Do I think Clinton ordered it. No. Maybe Att. Gen. Reno did - I don't know.

__________________
One Tin Soldier Walked Away....................

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...tionkill-1.jpg

Well, you've obviously read nothing about the trial and deliberations; you are just making stuff up which has nothing to do with the FACTs here.

[quote="shintao";p="405641"]And then the prosecuter thinks he should have the right to retry this for another 12-20 million? IF he had been a prosecuter capable of prosecuting the case - he should have won. And that tells me the state would be wasting its money at this late date. Justice in America isn't one sided.

Justice in America means the government has the RIGHT to re-try the case. More and more is coming out about this jury; it was a flawed jury from the start. The forewoman sent the judge all kinds of notes saying that some argued over their OPINIONS and refused to discuss the evidence presented in the case. One person refused to vote when the jury tried to take votes. Several jurors with others over their BELIEFS; not the facts of the case. Obviously, some people managed to get on this jury that wanted to find these men innocent of all charges no matter what the evidence was. The juror who spoke---the only one who has so far----is obviously a Jew-hater and a Palestinian sympathizer who said he believes Israel oppresses the Palestinians and believes the Jewish key witness was only saying what Israel wanted him to say. Does that sound OBJECTIVE to you????


Why are you so sure about Clinton? Frankly, I don't care and it's not even the issue in the case. This is something you are making up. There were no reports of the jury having an issue over this 1993 bugging of a meeting.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007