T4 B5 BIF Legal Fdr- Entire Contents- Court Docs- 1st Pgs Scanned for Reference 279

8/14/2019 T4 B5 BIF Legal Fdr- Entire Contents- Court Docs- 1st Pgs Scanned for Reference 279

1/6

FindLowW W W . F I N D L A W . C O MUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISION

BENEVOLENCE INTERNATIONAL )FOUNDATION, INC. )Plaintiff, )

) No.JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as )Attorney General of the United States of )America; PAUL H. O'NEILL, in his official )capacity as Secretary of the Treasury of the )United States of America; COLIN L. POWELL, )in his official capacity as Secretary of State of )the United States of America; ROBERT S. )MUELLER, III, in his official capacity as )Director, Fede ral Bureau of Investigation; and )R. RICHARD NEWCOMB, in his official )capacity as Director, U nited S tates Department )of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Control,)Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

BENEVOLENCE INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC. ("BIF"), by counsel, complains ofdefendants as follows:

INTRODUCTION1. This case challenges the de fendants' unconstitutional actions in seizing the property,and blocking the property and activities, of a law-abiding faith-based charity engaged in criticalhumanitarian work, without a hearing, without meaningful notice or opportunity for a hearing,and without probable cause. BIF seeks a declaration that these actions violate the UnitedStates Constitution and federal statutes; an injunction directing defendants to return the seizedproperty and remove the restrictions placed upon BIF and its property; plus attorneys' fees andcosts.


2/6

15 of 18 DOCUMENTSBENEVOLENCE INTERNA TIONAL FOU NDATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHNASHCRO FT, in his official capacity as A ttorney General of the United States ofAmerica; PAUL H . O'NEILL, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury ofthe United States of America; COLES L. POW ELL , in his official capacity asSecretary of State of the United States of America; ROBER T S. MU ELL ER, III, inhis official capacity as Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; and R. RICHA RDNEWCOM B, in his official capacity as Director, United States Department ofTreasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, D efendants.

Case No. 02 C 0763UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT FO R THE NORTH ERN DISTRICT OFILLINOIS, E ASTERN DIVISION

200 F. Supp. 2d 935; 2002 U.S. Dist. LE XIS 8658May 14, 2002, DecidedM ay 15,2002, Docketed

DISPOSITION: [**1] Case stayed in its entirety.LexisNexis (TM) HEADNOTES - Core Concepts:

COUNSEL: Fo r BENEVOLENCEINTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., plaintiff:Matthew J. Piers, Frederick Scott Rhine, Mary M.Rowland, Shilpa S Satoskar, Juliet Vanessa Berger-White, Gessler, Hughes & Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL.Fo r BENEVOLENCE INTERNATIONALFOUNDATION, INC., plaintiff: Edward Arthur Voci,Attorney at Law, Oak Park, IL.For JOHN ASHCROFT, PAUL H O'NEILL, COLIN LPOWELL, ROBERT S MUELLER, R RICHARDNEWCOMB, defendants: Thomas P. Walsh, UnitedStates Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL.JUDGES: Judge James H. Alesia, United States DistrictCourt.OPINIONBY: James H. AlesiaOPINION:

[*936] MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDORDER

For the following reasons, the court stays this case inits entirety until the conclusion of the parallel criminalcase, United States v. Benevolence Int' l Found., et al,No. 02 CR 414 (N.D. 111., filed Apr. 29,2002).I. BACKGROUNDPlaintiff Benevolence International Foundation("BIF") claims that it is a nonprofit, religious,humanitarian, charitable organization funded bydonations from individuals, businesses, and other Islamicorganizations and dedicated to assisting individualsafflicted by war, natural disaster, and extreme [**2]poverty. According to BIF, since 1992, it hasadministered essential humanitarian aid to the poor inneedy areas of the world, by distributing food, clothing,and medical services in places such as Afghanistan,Bosnia, China, and Pakistan, and by operating hospitals,medical and dental clinics, and orphanages in places such

as Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Daghestan, and Ingushetia.According to BIF, it is an Illinois corporation withoffices in Illinois and New Jersey and approximately tenoffices overseas. BIF claims that, in October 2001, itretained counsel because it became aware of a storypublished in the New York Times on October 1, 2001,which indicated that BIF was targeted for investigationas a potential source of funding for terrorism.


3/6

12 of 18 DOCUMENTSUnited States v.Benevolence Int'l Foundation, et al.

Case No. 02 CR 414UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NO RTHERN DISTRICT OFILLINOIS

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21758October 8,2002, DecidedOctober 10,2002, Docketed

DISPOSITION: [*1] Defend ants' request for staydenied.LexisNexis (TM) HEADNO TES - Core Concepts:

COUNSEL: For BENEVOLENCEINTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., defendant:Matthew J. Piers, Mary L Rowland, Gessler, Hughes &Socol, Ltd., Chicago, IL.For ENAAM M ARNAOUT, defendant: Joseph J.Duffy, William Paul Ziegelmueller, Stetler & Duffy,Ltd., Chicago, IL.U. S. Attorneys: AUSA, United States Attorney's Office,Chicago, IL.U. S. A ttorneys: Pretrial Services.U. S. A ttorneys: Probation Department.JUDGES: Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.OPEVIONBY: JoanB. GottschallOPINION: Reverse Side of Minute Order dated10/8/02

Defendants have requested that this court modify itsorder of September 13, 2002, which dismissed theindictment in this case, to reflect its continuingjurisdiction while the government seeks new charges.Upon dismissal of a defective indictment, the districtcourt retains jurisdiction to order that the defendant be

continued in custody or that bail be continued for aspecified time pending the filing of a new indictment orinformation. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(h). Moreover, case lawprovides that the district court "has inherent jurisdictionwithin the time allowed for appeal to modify itsjudgment for errors of fact [*2] or law or even to revokea judgment." United States v. Villapudua-Perada, 89 6F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1990). The government hasthirty days to appeal an order dismissing an indictment.18 U.S.C. 3731. During this period o f time, the courtmay entertain a motion for reconsideration. Villapudua-Perada, 896 F.2da t 1156.The government argues that the court does not havepower to stay its September 13, 2002 order, but this isplainly wrong. As the Villapudua-Perada case clearlystates, the court maintains jurisdiction during the periodprovided for filing an appeal and has the power tomodify or reconsider its ruling. If the court has the power

to reconsider its ruling, it surely has the power to stay it.The problem here is that no reason for a stay hasbeen advanced except as a means of asserting continuingjurisdiction over this case. Since the court retainsjurisdiction over this case until the expiration of the timeprovided for appeal, it does not have to stay itsSeptember 13 order to accomplish that result.

Presumably, within the thirty days provided for agovernment appeal, the court also has power to enter an[*3] order pursuant to Rule 12(h) "for a specified time."Defendants assert that they request a stay so that thiscourt can continue to exercise jurisdiction over issuesrespecting defendant Arnaout's custody and pretrialpreparation issues pending the anticipated return ofanother indictment. The clerk's office of this court hasthe capacity to assign a case to a district judge while a


4/6

FindLawWWW.F INDLAW.COM

IN THEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISIONBENEVOLENCE INTERNATIONALFOUNDATION,INC.

Plaintiffs,v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacityas Attorney General of the United States ofAmerica; PAUL H. O'NEILL, in his officialcapacity as Secretary of the Treasury of theUnited States of America; COLIN L.POWELL, in his official capacity asSecretary of State of the United States ofAmerica; ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, in hisofficial capacity as Director, Federal Bureauof Investigation; an d R.RICHARDNEWCOMB, in his official capacity asDirector, United States Department ofTreasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control,

Defendants.

No. 02 C 0763

Judge James H. AlesiaMagistrate Judge Michael T. Mason

No. 02 C 0674Judge Wayne R. Andersen

MOTION FO R PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff Benevolence International Foundation, Inc. (BIF) moves for a preliminaryinjunction requiring defendants to (1) grant a hearing in which BIF may respond to anyallegations against it; (2) return the property seized from BIF's offices and the home of EnaamArnaout; and (3) unblock BIF's funds. In the alternative, BIF respectfully requests entry of apreliminary injunction requiring defendants to (a) provide BIF with copies of the seizeddocuments; (b) return the property seized from BIF's offices and the home of Enaam Arnaout;an d (c) unblock BIF's funds on a monthly basis to allow BIF to pay its operating and charitable


5/6

FindLawWWW.F INDLAW .COM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)Plaintiff )v. ) Case No. 02 CR 414

)BENEVOLENCE INTERNATIONAL )FOUNDATION, INC., and ENAAM M. ) Judge Joan B. GottschallARNAOUT a/k/a ABU MAHMOUD a/k/a )ABDEL SAMIA, )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERDefendants Benevolence International Foundation, Inc. ("BIF") and Enaam Amaout, BIF's

Chief Executive Officer, are charged with making and using felse declarations signed by Amaout underpenalty of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1623. Defendants have moved to dismiss the indictment.For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.BackgroundDefendant BIF is an Illinois not-for-profit charitable organization incorporated in 1992.

Defendant Amaout has been employed with BIF since 1993. He has been the CEO since 1998. OnDecember 14,2001, pursuant to the emergency search provisions of the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., the FBI seized financial and business records from BIF'sPalos Hills, Illinois office. The FBI also searched Arnaout's home and seized certain of his and hisfamily's personal effects. On the same date, acting pursuant to the International Emergency EconomicPowers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., the Treasury Department issued an order blocking BIF'sassets and records pending further investigation.


6/6

2 of 6 DOCUMENTSGLOBAL RELIEF FOUNDATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL H.

O'NEILL, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Defendants-Appellees.No. 02-2536

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT315 F.3d 748; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 27172

October 29,2002, ArguedDecember 31,2002, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:[**1] As Amended January 24, 2003. Rehearingdenied by, Rehearing, en bane, denied by Global ReliefFound, Inc. v. O'Neill, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6708 (7thCir. 111., Apr. 4, 2003)

PRIOR HISTORY:Appeal from the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 02 C674. Wayne R. Andersen, Judge. Global Relief Found.,Inc. v. O'Neill, 207 F. Supp. 2d 779, 2002 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 10494 (N.D. 111., 2002)DISPOSITION:Affirmed.

CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff corporationappealed an order of the United States District Court forthe Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, whichdenied the corporation's request for an injunction againstdefendant Secretary of the Treasury's blocking all assetsof the corporation.OVERVIEW: The corporation was an Illinois charitablecorporation that conducted operations in approximately25 foreign entities, including Afghanistan, Albania,Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Palestine,Russia, Somalia, and Syria. At issue was 50 U.S.C.S. 7702(a)(l)(B). The corporation argued that theInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act(IEEPA), 50 U.S.C.S. 1701-01, did not apply to

corporations holding charters issued in the United States.Th e court found that the property of any corporationchartered within the United States was not necessarilydomestic United States property. The corporation readthe word "interest" in 1702(a)(l)(B) as referring to alegal interest, in the way that a trustee was legal owner ofthe corpus even if someone else enjoyed the beneficialinterest. However, the function of the IEEPA stronglysuggested that beneficial rather than legal interestsmattered. The statute was designed to give the UnitedStates President means to control assets that could beused by enemy aliens. Th e corporation conducted itsoperations outside the United States; the funds wereapplied for the benefit of non-citizens and thus werecovered by 1702(a)(l)(B).OUTCOME: The district court's denial of thecorporation's request for.an injunction was affirmed.LerisNexis(TM) HEADNOTES - Core ConceptsGovernments > Federal Government > ExecutiveOffices[HN1] See 50 U.S.C.S. 7702(a)(l)(B).Civil Procedure > Justiciabil ity > M ootness[HN2] When relief is possible, a lawsuit is not moot.One application of this principle is that suits seekingmoney damages cannot become moot unless thedefendant satisfies the plaintiffs demand.Business & Corporate Entities > Corporations >Shareholders & Other Constituents > Disregard ofCorporate Entity

T4 B5 BIF Legal Fdr- Entire Contents- Court Docs- 1st Pgs Scanned for Reference 279

Documents

Transcript of T4 B5 BIF Legal Fdr- Entire Contents- Court Docs- 1st Pgs Scanned for Reference 279