Follow Up to
The Holy Land Foundation
Donna Diorio, October
The following is a short report on the reading of the verdict
in the Holy Land Foundation
trial. I've also included a briefing on the
facts of the case, many that have come to light
in the week since the verdict. These dots are not
likely to be connected and forwarded by major media
coverage which did not come out for
the trial, made a last minute appearance at the
verdict reading and has already let this story begin
to fade without bringing it into clear focus for
I am not one who supports a scatter gun approach to opposing Islam in the United States and
do not forward information that simply 'bad mouths' Muslims to my mailing lists. Those who are really
interested in getting to the truth of the matter
have to get to the bottom with fact finders who
are soft-peddling the threat, nor are those who
don't distinguish between extremists and non-extremist
Muslims. Neither of these polarized positions
in the public debate about Islam in America has done
choose our battles by educating
ourselves on those who are working in darkness with
evil agendas. If we don't move
beyond the two polarized positions above--the one
that merely sees American Muslims as victims and the other that sees all of them as evil enemies, then
we will continue to cancel out any effective insight
into dealing with radical Islam that counter terror forces in our country are trying to awaken us to.
public has to learn who the Islamist
enemies in America
to back the efforts of those who are sounding the
alarm and moving to keep us safe from them.
We don't have to re-invent the wheel; we just have to do due
diligence in investigating the evidence--much of
which was laid out in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
Counterterrorism experts are the frontline in the information war with radical Islamic terrorism in
and in Israel. They are breaking
it down into bite sized chucks for the media and
the public to digest. It is sheer foolishness
to ignore what they are bringing forth.
An Eyewitness to the Courthouse
22, 2007 in the Holy Land Foundation Trial
of all I would like to describe the scene for you
at the court house on Monday. Only the immediate family
and limited media were allowed inside the court
room. The 16th floor overflow room
was strictly for media. The court
sent everyone to the Cafe on the 6th
floor with no media feed. But when we went
in with a couple from the Texas Jewish Post
we saw that it was not going to be the best place
for us to wait for the verdict. There were at least
100 to 150 Muslim HLF supporters gathered in the
We ended up waiting out the verdict in the jury
selection room on the lobby level where the media
was setting up for potential interviews. No
one but media was allowed on the lobby level, though
we were given special permission since the Muslim-packed
Cafe was out of the question for us. While
in the jury selection room we began to get the first
whispers from the media camp that the verdicts had
come. We heard the verdicts were mostly acquittals
mixed with "no decisions."
Little by little the media area began to fill up
with some of the higher profile HLF Muslim associates,
like Nihad Awad of CAIR, an un-indicted co-conspirator and Mahdi Bray, Muslim American Society, as well as locals like
Muslim Legal Fund president Khalil
Meek, and Dallel Mohmed whose KinderUSA 'charity' was started as a replacement within
a couple of months of the Holy Land Foundation closure. [Ms. Mohmed
was arrested in Israel
in 2002 with another KinderUSA
co-founder on suspicion of transferring funds to
suicide bombers. Not charged by the Israelis, Ms.
Mohmed is nevertheless
barred from re-entering Israel.]
the HLF supporters filtering down into the lobby
were celebrating, feeling they had won. It was very
difficult for me, even when one of the reporters
clarified the situation. The judge had polled
each juror individually and finding some in disagreement
with the verdict, sent the jury back into further
was news that sparked the tiniest glimmer of hope,
but frankly in the moment that glimmer was overwhelmingly overshadowed by the
gloating, and almost jubilant crowd of HLF supporters
already giving comments to the media. Confidence
was high among the supporters that none of the defendants
would be going to jail.
We decided not to stick around for the growing party atmosphere
among the HLF crowd. On the drive home we could
barely even talk wondering what this
devastating setback meant.
the time we made the 20 minute drive home, I had
received an email from the court that gave the official
communication that Judge Fish had declared a mistrial.
A mistrial meant the whole lot of them could be
re-tried. We were not doomed
after all to the consequences of failing
to convict--of leaving
the welcome mat out for Islamic terror groups
are the simple ramifications of the failure to get
convictions, so rather than the worst possible news--acquittals--a
mistrial meant that there was another shot at getting
convictions. Mourning turned to great joy
and renewed hope that this wasn't over with yet.
I was amazed how good a mistrial looked to
me at that point! It may be an uphill climb
to retry the case but at least it wasn't over.
The government must be encouraged to go forward
to retry. It cannot be seriously
considered to let it go.
The newspapers and broadcast media are painting this as a
terrific loss for the government and placing the
fault on the prosecutors or others in the government. However
that is not the conclusion counter terror experts
are giving in postmortem analysis.
It also does not take into account what we now know
went on behind the closed doors of the jury deliberations.
The devil was in the details of this one. Next time
we can win.
is a brief of facts that have been revealed
since the verdict was read in interviews
and media reports,
--Critical quotes in blue for quick read. Source links for deeper
much damage can one juror really do?
Only one juror chose to do interviews after Judge
Fish declared a mistrial and that was 33 year old,
William Neal, who was on my Top Four List of Possible Problem Jurors from observing
them during the trial. Turns out, that is
exactly what Mr. Neal was—the problem juror
because as he bragged in an interview a couple
of days later,
if I had not been on that jury this would have been
a different case."1
Neal's two local interviews have revealed that,
in fact, he credits himself for keeping the jury
from voting their own conscience returning guilty
verdicts, "For the most part a lot of the jury did believe that.
Like I said earlier, a lot of people felt that way,
they just didn't vote that way."2 Neal revealed in an interview with
KRLD that the juror who was dismissed after one
week of deliberations believed the defendants were
guilty and refused to continue debating it.
As the Dallas Morning News put it, "Mr.
Neal admitted he ran roughshod over most other panelists,
whose intellectual abilities he has criticized."3
of juror Neal's post-trial interview statements
indicate that he had many strongly held opinions
that if he had been transparent, he would have been
eliminated during the voir
dire process. In a radio interview given two days after the
verdict Neal described how he thought the prosecution
had chosen him for the jury panel: "For
me, I think my answers looked like I was a pro-American,
flag waving American."
back peddling, Neal said, "I
mean I am, but they thought I was not going to be
able to think for myself and just go on the facts....I
think they were looking for a different juror...I
think they were looking for someone [who would say] 'Oh, they're guilty, just
because!'....That I wouldn't question them because
my father was in the military."4
seems to forget that the defense attorneys also
used the written questionnaire to assess the backgrounds
and potential biases of prospective jurors before
seating them on a jury panel. The defense
(who used a jury consultant) took a chance on choosing
Neal because his father was in military intelligence,
but the prosecution took a chance seeing Neal's
own occupation was an art director. He was a bad
selection for the prosecution.
of questions prosecutors asked of all the prospective
jurors was whether they could convict someone of
supporting terrorism if that support was in the
form of humanitarian aid. According to Dallas
Morning News report "Holy Land defendants long wait ends as U.S. vows to retry
case,”"many in the potential jury
pool admitted they could not and were excused.
All the jurors empanelled on the HLF trial assured
lawyers for both sides they could apply the law
fairly without prejudice.
juror William Neal was not exactly honest in response
to this question and did bring other rather strong
opinions into the case which he was coy about in
the voir dire process.
post trial interviews Neal admitted that his view
of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is that the
oppressed by the Israeli government."
He also did not believe that Hamas is strictly
a terrorist group as it has been designated by the
U.S. government. Neal said of Hamas in post
trial interviews, "Part
of it does terrorists acts, but it's a political
movement. It’s an uprising."5
talkative juror also said the prosecution of the
Holy Land Foundation defendants was primarily a
politically driven agenda by President Bush who
personally announced the closure of HLF in December
Bush shut them down and he's just trying to make
sure that he gets that case closed,"
he told KRLD interviewers two days after the verdict.
accusation ignores that the FBI had the Holy Land
Foundation on its radar from the first year of the
administration. In 1993 Israeli intelligence
passed along the confessions of a Palestinian-born
Chicago businessman who had
been arrested by Israeli security for couriering
funds from the U.S.
into the Palestinian-controlled areas.
would later recant saying he was tortured into talking,
he was connected to senior Hamas leaders in the
and Britain. Salah
also identified the Holy Land Foundation as the
chief fund-raising arm of Hamas. 7 Salah pleaded
guilty to Israeli charges in 1995 of helping to
smuggle $650,000 to Hamas. He served nearly
five years in an Israeli prison and then returned
to the United States.
In July of 2007 Salah
was convicted in a Chicago lawsuit for lying about not having terrorist
14-year Old Evidence. Why the long wait?
8 years of intelligence gathering only
during Clinton administration.
The age of the evidence was obviously not a problem
in 2004 for the successful civil litigation against
the Holy Land Foundation and two other groups brought
on behalf of the family of an American teenager
who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist in 1996
while standing at a bus stop in the West Bank. 9
ability to get guilty verdicts in the civil cases
bears a certain similarity to the O.J. case.
The lawsuit brought an award of $156 million to
the parents of the teenaged terror victim, David
Boim. Does anyone
seriously think that the prosecution did not present
strong enough evidence for conviction in the criminal
case, but in the civil case--with less evidence
than the government possessed--the civil attorneys
did convince jurors of the connection between HLF
are pointing to "old" evidence as the
reason prosecutors were unable to convince the jury
to convict in the HLF case. 8 What no one seems
to be talking about is why it took so long
to make the evidence public and to bring HLF to
the 14-year wait between detection and prosecution
is a factor, then the failure is with the Clinton
administration to act on solid intelligence from
the Israelis--intelligence the FBI was able to confirm
independently within a few months. Justice
delayed cannot reasonably be laid at the
feet of the Bush administration which first moved
against the defendants in the first year of Bush’s
presidency and pre 9/11.
the eight years of the Clinton administration, from
the first red flag raised against the Holy Land
Foundation from Israelis in January 1993, and all
the subsequent wiretapping and surveillance--some of the evidence 10 brought into the public
light through this trial--the government under
Clinton never made a move to cut off activities
by the Holy Land Foundation to assist Hamas.
is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence entered
into the HLF trial: the full transcript a 1993 strategy
meeting of "The Palestine Committee" --Hamas members and supporters in
the United States including some top HLF and CAIR
leaders--that was secretly taped in Philadelphia
by the FBI only months after the Israeli information
via Mohamad Salah
was shared with the United States.
Clinton administration did nothing about
the exposure of the Hamas U.S. network for two full
in the first year of the Bush administration, and
in fact within one week prior to the horrific 9/11
public awakening to radical Islamic terrorism, federal
agents had already made their first move to curtail
the activities of HLF's sister company, INFOCom.
In boxes of information seized from the INFOcom
office, agents found Holy Land Foundation records
which were used in their follow up move to freeze
and shut down HLF operations a few months later
in December 2001.
Clinton was likely reluctant to shut down HLF operations
because it could have interfered with his attempt
to be the president to broker an end to the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. This was one of the greatest flaws
of Clinton's efforts in the conflict--there was a
tendency to 'see no evil' when it came to the Israeli
security issues posed by Islamic terrorism. Hamas
stood for no negotiations with Israel
but Yasser Arafat held
them close to carry out violence when needed.
was not simply a matter of the U.S.
not having solid, confirmed evidence of the Hamas
operations and agenda to oppose the Oslo
peace negotiations going on in the United States.
The 1993 Philadelphia meeting
transcript reveals that the meeting was specifically
called to strategize how to proceed in the United
States in order to thwart a
peace accord from being realized in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. 11
one agrees or not with the potential for success
of any peace plans and negotiations between
Israel and the Palestinians, allowing Hamas to work
a plan in any form on U.S. soil to disrupt
peace negotiations will ultimately translate to
violent terrorism perpetrated on Israeli soil.
Regardless of what we think will work or not work
politically, most of us can agree that cutting off
anything that lends support to terrorists is a positive
U.S. government action. If some continue
to see terrorism as a valid means for Palestinians
to secure their future with Israel,
should these people be allowed to sit on a jury
if they don’t even honor the U.S. designation
of Hamas as a terrorist organization?
HLF Defense Attorney Asked the Jury:
"Are you really going to trust the government?"
who are really politicizing terrorism trials--the
ones pointing their fingers at citizens who take
the threat seriously--are seriously undermining
our public safety whether it is the media, ACLU
attorneys or jurors who seemingly get their position
on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict straight from
National Public Radio or Al Jezeera. Some are so locked into distrust of the government
that they favor trusting terrorists instead.
Who can explain such reasoning?
you really going to trust the government,"
was exactly the right question for at least a couple
of the HLF jurors and it was repeatedly asked by
Shukri Baker's attorney,
Nancy Hollander. In any re-trial, the prosecution
needs jurors who aren’t locked into personal issues
with authority figures.
his statements to the press juror William Neal expressed
a lot of authority issues--from his KRLD
interview comments about President Bush, the prosecution,
the Israeli Shin Bet agent (which is the equivalent
of our FBI), and even distrusting the defense star
witness, former U.S. ambassador Edward Abington.
(Abington had a terrible reputation
for a bias towards Palestinians. After leaving
his post as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel,
Abington then drew a salary as a lobbyist for the
Yassar Arafat's Palestinian
Abington, Neal said he distrusted him because he
was a politician. "Most
politicians don't want to know what's going on so
they can't be held liable. The fact that he didn't
know that these people could have been Hamas, he
probably never asked." 13
brings us to a good point that a National Review
editorial asked, “Were there no knowledgeable American officials who could
have refuted the lobbyist's points and shored up
the Israeli's [national security agent’s]
someone who sat through Abington's testimony--even
knowing his leanings on the ambassadorial job in
seemed an awfully glaring hole in the prosecution
case that no high level American government official
was offered to counter balance the defense’s star
witness. Abington was not a particularly convincing
witness, but it was the authority of his office
that needed to be offset by a prosecution-friendly
government official. It was not enough to
challenge Abington's personal integrity or credibility
since it was the office he held that lent credibility
to his appearance at trial.
Review editors also ask if the government's case
was "light on explanation"
through perhaps "too
much streamlining" pointing to the original
estimate of several more months of testimony in
the prosecution case. There was much second-guessing
going on about the trial taking too long that may
have influenced the prosecution decision to cut
its case short but any re-trial should try to bring
in witnesses who are better able to help jurors
connect the dots of the evidence presented. They
need someone to paint a clear picture of how it
all fits together. The learning curve is huge
and takes most of us years to get a solid grip on.
The jury has only weeks and they don’t have the
background to follow bread crumbs--even big, tasty
Neal's authority issues aside for the moment, the
U.S. government was all over the Holy Land Foundation
from 1993 until HLF operations were shut down in
2001. The intelligence the Israeli security
shared with the United States was not only for Israel's sake,
but for our own public safety concerns!
Andrew McCarthy, the federal prosecutor in the trail
for the 1993 bombing of the World
Trade Center said, "You
are asking the jury to do something about a conspiracy
the government has known about since 1993.
It is hard to develop a sense of urgency about that."
McCarthy also noted that American juries are most
interested in threats to Americans not in the threat
that Hamas posed of terrorism in Israel. 15
This is a reality that must be tackled
head on in trial. Most of the public don't
really care if it doesn't touch them personally--sad
but true. Protection of the U.S. public safety has to be brought home to
the next jury to hear this case.
fact that we knowingly allowed radical Islamists
to network any type of operations across
our nation is a grave public safety issue which
we are now paying for. Public ignorance--due
to lack of media coverage--of the true threat of
these organizations in the United States is also
directly related to eight long years of an administration
that had no will to acknowledge or fight the presence
of these networks. The point has not been sufficiently
brought home to Americans that nations who have
become enablers of radical Islamic terrorist organizations
have ultimately suffered greatly from terrorism
on their own soil. Europe is
a living example of that.
Foundation" Cal Thomas wrote, "Anyone
in doubt about the game plan for infiltrating, undermining
and attacking America from within our borders had better sober
up. Our enemies know our ways and they are using
them to gain a strategic advantage over us.
"From the rapid construction of mosques and
Islamic schools across the country…to the use of
front organizations as conduits to channel money
to terrorist groups abroad, a “fifth column” has
been opened in the United States."
continues, "The Holy Land Foundation is not an unfairly persecuted
charity. While it exhibits some charitable work
as window dressing, evidence presented at the trial
show its connections with known terrorist groups."
expert Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on
Terrorism gives readers a taste of the many lies
HLF defendants have uttered in an effort to deceive
the U.S. public about the true nature of their ‘charity’
operations in, "Silver Linings: Trial Exposed
Secrets." As HLF defendant Shukri
Abu Baker said in the taped 1993 Philadelphia
meetings, "War is
deception. Deceive, camouflage. Pretend that you’re
leaving while you’re walking that way. Deceive your
Investigative Project notes discussions in those
meetings about how to talk to Americans without
revealing their true objectives [page
7 of Government Exhibit 16-57]: "But I cannot approach them through my strict
Islamic address. I can't tell him I demand the '48
borders," HLF defendant Shukri
Baker said. "No way,
no way on earth, okay? No, I approach it through
humanitarian suffering, refugees' rights and issues
which the Americans will agree with you on."
is a phrase used repeatedly in the FBI taped meetings
and phone conversations between the defendants and
their associates that became evidence in the HLF
trial. The term meant that the person they
were discussing was publicly exposed as Hamas.
It meant these were persons who must not be
connected to HLF so the
HLF cover was not blown. As the United
States government began to
wise up about the terrorist network in the U.S., the network--like
a criminal syndicate or conspiracy--burrowed deeper
the media stayed away from this trial and its
evidence in droves. If these men are exposed
in open court but no one takes that to the public
then it is like the tree that falls in the forest
and no one is there to hear. What difference
will it make if the defendants now stand exposed
and few know?
major exposure in those transcripts is the
relationship of the Council on American Islamic
Relations (CAIR) leaders Nihad
Awad and Omar Ahmad to Hamas and HLF. 18 These are now "exposed brothers,"
but the press appears to be mostly oblivious to
that fact because few journalists bothered to follow
the evidence presented in the trial. The media
still utilizes CAIR for statements as if it were
not a tainted source proven in the evidence of this
also continues to be treated by the press as a legitimate
voice for Muslim civil rights
and not as Hamas' public relations division running
interference for the network in the U.S. That
is exactly what trial transcripts strongly indicate
CAIR is. Instead, the media carry Nihad
Awad’s ridiculous comparisons
of the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation to
"McCarthyism" in the 1950’s. 19
Another ridiculous comparison made
to the press by the defendant Ghassan
Elashi’s daughter, Noor, compared
her father to Rosa Parks.
hot button pushing and working the system does not
seem to be seriously challenged by the press.
If evidence has exposed these men--and it has--then
ridiculous statements like these should be challenged
by the reporters.
extent to which that exposure gains traction hinges
on factors like media coverage," writes Mark Bergin for World
Magazine. “The absence
of national news reports on the HLF trial has stunned
[Douglas] Farah, who spent two
decades as a foreign correspondent and investigative
reporter for The Washington Post and considers the
story eminently newsworthy."20
Farah in the same article regarding the reluctance
to believe how dangerous and coordinated these Muslim
groups are: "Most people in this country don't like conspiracy theories.
When you're talking about groups that want to establish
a caliphate, as the [trial] documents clearly show,
it sounds scary and implausible."
an editorial by National Review online, "Unholy
Mistrial," the editors wrote, "Funding is the lifeblood of radical Islam. Organizations
such as Hamas cleverly create divisions devoted
to social-welfare work, not terrorist attacks. At
first blush, supporting such work seems admirable.
But contributions are fungible, and there is no
policing what the donations subsidize after they
are safely in a terrorist organization's coffers.
Even if they were spent on charitable work, they
would still serve to increase the prestige and recruiting
appeal of organizations that pursue their objectives
through mass murder. No good works can redeem a
founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum
for Democracy, M. Zuhdi
concerned that the HLF mistrial will provide a platform
for CAIR's claims of victimization
and civil-rights violations. Jasser worries about the setback in a case where the prosecution
had good evidence:
"All mistrial says is that these jurors were profoundly confused."
speech and faith practice is certainly protected
by our First Amendment, it cannot insulate individuals
from accountability for the financial support of
organizations which execute and employ acts of terror,"Jasser said. "I
am counting on a retrial and on the DOJ making its
case more convincingly and with less confusion."
Talkative Juror Provides Clues on What Went Wrong
--but not necessarily how to proceed in retrial.
While the prosecution analysis of this case is a
good and needful thing, there should be caution
taken on giving too much weight to the statements
made by HLF juror William Neal because he expressed
distrust over just about everything and everyone
in the trial. When asked by WFAA's
Rebecca Lopez, "Why do you think this case
was taken to trial?" Neal answered, "I
think it was political."
you think about some of the witnesses," the juror continued, "one of the witnesses
has been in every trial since…Marzook
was arrested….Dr. Levitt….I
looked…and he was listed on two other trials involving
Hamas." 24 It is pretty damning stuff in Neal's
eyes to be a counter-terrorism expert.
told interviewers in the KRLD radio interview a
few days later, "All
the prosecution witnesses were all biased because
they've been doing this for thirteen years."
Neal on the Israeli agent's credibility: "He
admitted in open court that he was being paid to
be here—completely biased!" 25
That is not even comparable to the paid professional psychiatric
witnesses who are routinely used by defense attorneys
to declare their clients mentally ill. Of
course the Israeli agent was on the clock. Why wouldn't
he continue to be paid for traveling in the course
of his capacity in the Israeli defense services
to testify in a terrorism trial?
juror's offense at Dr. Matthew Levitt
as a witness is also flimsy. Levitt
is also highly qualified to testify as an expert
in terrorism cases.
He is the former deputy assistant secretary
for intelligence and analysis at the Treasury Department
and a former FBI counterterrorism analyst specializing
in tracking terrorists' money.
a Dallas Morning News article, "Experts
split as prosecutors consider retrial in Holy Land
case," Dr. Levitt
says retrying the case is vital, not only as a deterrent,
but also to hold enablers of violence accountable.
"These people…have not been cleared."
Dr. Levitt says, "I believe there
is formidable evidence,"26 juror William Neal offered his opinion
that a retrial would
be a "waste" of time. "I think they’re
just going to come to the same conclusion, in fact,
wait until George Bush is out of office and it’ll
be a different story." 27 So much for Neal's claims to be an
unbiased juror just basing his opinion on the facts
of the case.
may not be the only information juror Neal gave
to the media that was heavily laced with his own
prejudices. He may have
not been exactly accurate about the unanimity of
the jury panel on October 18th when the
verdict was handed over to the court magistrate.
must-read article by Miriam Rozen in Texas
Lawyer magazine, "The Decision Making Behind
the Wait for the HLF Verdict," has
gone into the U.S. District Court Northern District
of Texas, with quotes from the court officials on
exactly how the events unfolded.
not only clears up how the decision was made to
handle the verdict if it came in while Judge Fish
was attending an out of state conference with both
the prosecution and defense attorneys. She
further reports that Paul D. Stickney, the assigned
magistrate judge on the case, "recalls
that earlier on [Thursday] Oct.
18, one juror seemed upset and concerned about the
jury's decisions. Stickney says she asked if the
individual jurors would be polled.
Oct. 22, before the 10 a.m. scheduled proceeding,
juror No. 7 wrote a note to the judge asking: '1.
Are we going to be polled? 2. Does undecided mean
(not guilty). If we are not going to be polled I
would like to give my statement with the court reporter
there on some of charges with the defendants will
you please let me know. ..." 28
I close this follow up two outstanding items remain:
first is the explanation of a Dallas Morning News
editor, Rod Dreher writing on a related news story
in a Beliefnet blog,
the article titled, "Shut up or, inshallah,
we'll sue." (Shut
up or, by God, we'll sue.) In it Dreher discusses how radical Islamists are using libel lawsuits
to intimidate and silence critics. Apparently
that is a strategy that has been working for them
on some. 29 I’m reminded, however, of one of the adages that came out of post-Nazi German:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph
is for good men to do nothing."
that note, my final comment here is a heartfelt
thank you to the prosecution team of First Assistant
U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, Barry Jonas, a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice in
the Counter-Terrorism Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Nathan Garrett, and Elizabeth J. Shapiro
of the DOJ's Civil Division in Washington, D.C. Also
a salute to FBI agents Lara Burns and
Robert Miranda who have been on
the case for many years fighting the good fight.
my vantage point this team did an outstanding job
in an aggressive, impassioned prosecution of an
extremely difficult case. It is a good thing
we have warriors like them ready to go into battle.
They are to be commended....and also encouraged
to continue to pursue justice in this case to the
of the websites devoted to covering the Holy Land
Foundation from their supporters' perspective was
called "Hungry4Justice." I say we
should see to it a full plate of justice is served.
Diorio, October 30, 2007
1 WFAA Rebecca Lopez Interview with
HLF juror William Neal, Oct 22, 2007
Selected Government Exhibits &
Documents from U.S.
v. Holy Land Foundation
12 1993 Philadelphia
Multiple headings in HLF documents at the NEFA Foundation
14 Unholy Mistrial
Review Editorial October 25, 2007
15 Age of evidence hurt case on terror
Korosec Houston Chronicle
October 27, 2007
16 Unholyland Foundation
Cal Thomas HumanEvents.
Silver Linings: Trial
Investigative Project on
Terrorism, IPT News October 26, 2007
Audio and Transcripts entered into Government’s
Evidence August 6 and 7, 2007
States District Court Northern
District of Texas, Judges – Notable Cases
v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development
Coming Up Empty
Mark Bergin World Magazine
November 3, 2007 issue
Coming Up Empty
Mark Bergin World Magazine
November 3, 2007 issue
21 Unholy Mistrial
National Review Editorial October
Coming Up Empty
Mark Bergin World Magazine
November 3, 2007 issue
24 WFAA Rebecca Lopez Interview with
HLF juror William Neal, Oct 22, 2007
The Decision Making Behind the Wait for the
Miriam Rozen Texas Lawyer
October 29, 2007
Shut up or, inshallah, we’ll
Rod Dreher October 29, 2007 Cruchy
Con blog on Beliefnet.com