MILNET Brief
  The Lodi Five, Updated 10/27/2006

Verdict for Hamid, Deadlock for Umer Hayat
After years of saying, "It could happen here", MILNET's Chief Editor was still amazed when the FBI announced a case of suspected terrorist activity in Lodi, California, only a few hours from his domicile.  This report, which promises to be a working document with detailed coverage of the case, could easily be centered near your home town.  For that matter, right next door. 


Analysis of Arrest Warrant Affadavits    Profile-Umer    Profile-Hamid    Associations of the Lodi Five    Updates
Arraignment    Discovery    Status Hearing     The Documents     U.S. Federal Court System





 Hamid Hayat and Umer Hayat
(U.S. Eastern California District Court)
 		Hamid Hayat
(ABC News) 30
 Umer Hayat



Atty Saad Ahmad, Shabbir Ahmed, Immigration Judge Murry
(San Francisco Immigration Court)
 Shabbir Ahmed
(Lodi News-Sentinel) 30		 Muhammad Adil Khan


(Sidebar from The San Francisco Chronicle, 6/9/2005)  31


Wake Up Call

Northern California awoke a few days ago to a chilling thought.  Terrorists are among us.  In the tradition of Jihadists all around the world, it appears that five (so far) alleged terrorists are living and operating in Lodi, California.  The "Lodi Five" were being watched by the FBI for at least one year.  The central rallying point for the Five appears to be a radical muslim mosque first planned for the East Palo Alto area and then migrating to Lodi, California, where costs for building and utilities are much lower.  The original mosque was reported to have been founded by Fuji Muslims who migrated to East Palo Alto, but a cleric from Pakistan moved some of his followers from East Palo Alto to Lodi and reportedly established a more radical version of the mosque. there.  Interestingly, an existing Lodi Mosque helped the creation of the new Mosque, only to later file a lawsuit against the newer Farooqia Islamic Center.

The result was a bit of western culture shock, a lawsuit by the East Palo folks not wishing to have the Farooqia Mosque name attached to the new Mosque in Lodi and the "original" Lodi Mosque claiming the new Farooqia Islamic center leaders defrauded them of more than $200,000.

In the FBI case, two father and son pairs and a cleric were arrested in a two week period.  The FBI claims that one father paid for his son to go to Pakistan to train with Al Qaeda.  The customs service stopped them both last year as they were leaving for Pakistan, taking along $27.000 in cash. 28 Federal law sets the limit for cash removal to $10,000, and the pair had not declared the money  A large amount of the cash was confiscated and the two were charged, with most of the money being confiscated as the fine.  It is not clear yet whether either served any jail time are if the charges remained or were dropped, and some reports indicate that eventually all the money was returned to the family in the U.S.

In any case, this put the pair on the FBI radar and subsequently the son was stopped later as he returned to the U.S.  The plane was diverted to Toyko, Japan and refueled while agents interviewed Hamid Hayat.  The FBI could not hold Hayat at the time and he was allowed to continue to his destination.  Later he was again interviewed by the FBI and voluntarily agreed to take a lie detector test.   After allegedly lying to the FBI when interviewed, the younger man reportedly conceded he had trained in a Pakistani Al Qaeda training camp. 

Both the cash to Al Qaeda and training with Al Qaeda are federal capital offenses under the Anti-Terrorism Act and Death Penalty Act of 1996 5 and the U.S. Patriot Act 4  enacted after 9/11.

The other father and son pair may also be charged with illegal cash transaction under the support to terrorist groups provisions of the same law.  Incidentally, the surveillance was most likely conducted under a FISA warrant, allowing the FBI certain latitudes for surveillance of those suspected of operating as an agent for a foreign government.. Extension of the FISA warrant process and the provisions of the Patriot Act are coming due for reenactment and  civil libertarians are whining.  Obviously, it is clear that the terrorist threat requires reenactment of these measures.


 In any case, MILNET speculates that the new Farooqia mosque was to serve as both a cover for the cell's activities in Northern California (Lodi is on Highway 5 north of Stockton, California some 45 minutes south of the California State capital in Sacramento), as well as perhaps another radical, virulent Islamic teaching ground like many others being watched by the FBI.   The "mainstream" Lodi Muslim community, however, may be innocent, unwitting cover for the others.

Others, less inclined to believe the Hayats are part of terrorist cell scoff at the FBI's arrests, implying that the ice cream vendor and his son are simply the victims of a misunderstanding.  This spin is supported by the grandfather of Hamid Hayat, one Qari Saeed-ur-Rehman, a  well known cleric in Pakistan. 
Qari Saeed-ur-Rehman

Not a New Phenomenon

The radical Islamic teaching in the U.S. is not something new.  Steve Emerson, a former Public Television and CNN reporter has documented 2 the Wahhabist teachings in a number of mosques in major cities throughout the U.S. -- teachings such as "kill the infidels, cleanse the earth of non-believers" and "support the Jihad through martyrdom so you will go to heaven" among other anti-American vitriol. Emerson's expose first published in February, 2002, shocked many yet clearly has been forgotten.  The Lodi case may point out that the anti-American thrust is not limited to only major citites.


OPINION:

While the Lodi Mosque's teachings have not been documented (perhaps later we will see some of the FBI's evidence?) and the Muslim community in Lodi certainly cannot be condemned en masse for the actions of a few radicals, it is this kind of event that scares non Muslims and Muslims alike.  Certainly if fairly low profile Muslims unwittingly offer cover to Jihadists in a small town like Lodi, then doesn't logic imply that any Muslim community could be sheltering similar Jihadists without knowing?

The Muslim community in Lodi is reportedly (Fox News 1 and CNN) in shock;  stunned and fearful, literally running from anyone asking questions about the affair.  MILNET only hopes that fear and prejudice created by the events of 9/11 do not spur violence in the sleepy town, and that restraint and concern is shown to those innocent of any wrong doing.  One MILNET source stated the concern succinctly..."Reactions are hard to control, and some good old boys who live in Lodi may get out of control." 3

BRIEFING CONTINUES:

In the meantime, the FBI maintains they have a solid case against the five and that further charges and possibly additional arrests will occur as they follow their remaining leads in the investigation. The accusations should be a clear wake up call, and certainly not the first. The list of cells found in the U.S. since 9/11 is frightening, as is the fact that they continue to be found. 

OPINION:

Ignoring the smoke trailing upward from a forest of trees is not simply attempting to be tolerant, it is begging for a forest fire.  And for liberal minded media attempting to downplay the events in Lodi, and intimating that the FBI has overstepped its authority or trampled on civil rights of Muslims only serves to fan the flames that allow terrorist cells to flourish in our midst. The war of civilizations we are living through today continues to be forgotten by the hand wringers and the fire that will result may reach out to our homes, schools and businesses.  And yes, this can happen -- even in a small town like Lodi. 

Many of us will stand in front of and protect an innocent Muslim in Lodi.  However, like anyone standing next to a crime scene, the community in Lodi must put up with questions and suspicion until the guilty parties can be identified and confirmed.  This is an unfortunate but necessary requirement of citizenship as well as visitors to this nation.  Civic duties requires you participate in ferreting out the evil from the good.  Yes, we used the word evil.  Yes, there are terrorists among us.  And yes, it is logical that many if not most will be Muslim. 


The Trend Toward Irrational Media Coverage

A local TV station has implied that the FBI is ONLY looking in  Muslim communities for terrorists, an all out lie.  The lie also defies logic and follows that irrational and continuing trend of political correctness.  An example is the trend to call an illegal immigrant an undocumented immigrant. Quite recently the Mayor of Fresno, California, himself the son of an immigrant, was lambasted for using the term illegal immigrant to describe illegal aliens in this country.

The trend defies rational thinking. If you want to solve the illegal immigrants problem, you must look at those with hispanic descent and ask them for proof of their right to be in this country. This is not due to prejudice but to the facts and statistics -- there are millions of illegal immigrants, and the vast majority (high 90 percentile) are hispanic. Moreover, hispanic gangs are exceedingly becoming more and more dangerous and they are chock-full of illegals.  The danger of these gangs has spread from the barrio into mainstream life.  Recent incidents of law enforcement officers nationwide being targeted by these gangs and then perpetrators fleeing across the border into Mexico is becoming a significant

Yes, it is inconvenient for hispanics to be questioned, but it is a logical step. If someone is in this country illegally, they are illegal immigrants.  Federal law requires them to be removed AND makes it a federal crime to provide shelter or to interfere with their removal.  For decades the liberal angst has made it impossible to police illegal immigration.  Even following 9/11 and the obvious dangers of a porous border were brought to light, political correctness still reigns supreme, some cities opting to force their employees to defy federal law and not ask status of nor report illegal aliens.

To somehow claim the term is humiliating or stigmatizes illegal aliens of any race is simply stupid.  Fox News' Alan Colmes (Hannity and Colmes, 6/11/2005)  suggested that to use the term illegal immigrant implies that illegal aliens are a blight on society, as if the opposite were true. The fact is, and the Mayor of Fresno knows this well, illegals (of any race, thank you) ARE a blight on our society.   Just look at the emergency rooms of hospitals and the welfare costs associated with "don't ask" policies enacted in many so called sanctuary cities.  It is a nationwide epidemic, not just limited to the southern states.  For instance, a city in Connecticut recently cried for help saying, "enough is enough"..7

Similarly, if you want to find Jihadists, you certainly can start with those in the Muslim community. This is not racial profiling, nor is it necessarily religious profiling.  As Emerson has reported in his book, there is plenty of "business" for the FBI in the Muslim community.  It is only logical that looking elsewhere is necessary, but may prove highly unproductive.  MILNET's position is that not investigating a logical link to terrorism is the worse kind of political correctness and was a factor in the disaster of 9/11.  For more information on why the Muslim community is a logical place to look for Jihadists, look at MILNET's briefing on Wahhabism.

BRIEFING:

We are not alone in our judgment that political correctness such as the media is showing today is very dangerous.  The recent report 9 on cooperation (actually the lack of) between the CIA and FBI indicates what several other commissions have already told us.  The two major organizations concerned with intelligence in this country failed to pass on information to the sister organizations and thus aided the 9/11 terrorists in their attack. Clearly, concern over careerism fostered by political correctness were factors in the management failures at both agencies.  Interestingly, the supervisors in these cases are not named, and thus it is impossible to determine if the FBI and the CIA have taken appropriate action against those individuals.  Somehow, "assurances" from management that management has been punished appropriately don't sit well here.  Political cronyism appears to be covered by a concern for the privacy of those responsible for failures in intelligence community. The MILNET position is that such failures are immensely more important that a "Slap on the wrist". A trail, conviction for dereliction of duty and negligent homicide might be more appropriate.

Recently, the trend to obfuscate in the media has continued with one local newspaper failing to mention the Lodi Mosque, the Muslim faith, nor the immigration status and original countries of the accused.  This political correctness only serves to disarm the public -- similar to "a perpetrator allegedly stole a vehicle, allegedly ran over a child, and the allegedly fled the scene without filing an accident report."  This scatter brained reporting failed to identify the perpetrator as "a black man, aged 28 and wearing bling-bling and pants lowered below the waistline showing underwear is wanted for vehicular murder and hit-and-run" as the police report stated.  This kind of tomfoolery is both asinine and dangerous.  The next step in this obfuscation will be the removal of photos of the suspects because doing so would identify both his person AND his race.


Enter the Helpful

Within days of the media blitz on Lodi in response to the criminal complaint filed by the FBI, liberal support groups began to appear.  The most prominent is the controversial CAIR -- Council for American-Islamic Relations.  CAIR's involvement may provide some financial system to the Hayat's however their help hardly places them in good stead.  CAIR's record is not exactly clean.  It's leaders and members have been included in criminal or terror investigations, indictments, and convictions.  One of its board members is especially controversial having said the U.S. must become a nation under Islamic law.  For more information see the Daniel Pipes article on CAIR's Legal Tribulations.  22

Combined with the Liberal California media, it is clear that the indicted pair will have many advantages in their Sacramento trail should that come to pass.

At the hearing on 6/21/2005, it appears CAIR was in attendance, presumably to lend support to the defendants, finding the attendance amongst a packed courtoom curious to see and hear the proceedings for themselves.

CAIR also seems to be attempted to try the case before cameras prior to the hearings, insinuating that the government is simply persecuting the Hayats because of their religion.


Updates:


October 27, 2006:  BRIEFING:  Hamid Hayat's Defense delivers Motion for New Trial.  Not surprisingly, the Defense calls into question key elements of the evidence presented by the prosecution, hoping that the judge will order the new trial.  Judge Garland Burrell set the motion hearing for 1/29/2007, leaving Hamid Hayat in jail.

[OPINION]:  However, in reading of the long document, it is not at all clear the defense has proved its case that somehow the first trial was somehow deficient.  MILNET believes that the judge will turn down the request for a new trial and Hamid's defense will require going to an appellate court.

August 25, 2006:  BRIEFING:  Umer Hayat Sentenced to Time Served.  As expected, Judge Burrell sentenced Umer Hayat to time served for lying to Customs officials and the FBI about the sum of money he was carrying to Pakistan, the original offense which brought the father and son pair to the attention of authorities.  Also as expected, the local newspaper in Sacramento where the Federal Trial was being held, provided full front page coverage for Hayat protraying him as a mistreated honest citizen.  His son Hamid awaits sentencing after being convicted of providing support to and attending terrrorist training in Pakistan, as well as lying to the FBI about those events.  Unless there is a successful appeal made for Umer, this ends the reporting of the OMER trial by MILNET.  Hamid's sentencing will be covered when it occurs.

June 1, 2006:  BRIEFING:  Umer Pleads Guilty!  According to the New York Times:
"Federal prosecutors in Sacramento announced Wednesday that they had obtained a guilty plea from a Pakistani-American ice cream truck driver who was accused of lying to the authorities during a terrorism investigation.

The driver, Umer Hayat, agreed to plead guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and customs officials about how much money he was carrying on a trip from California to Pakistan in 2003, said McGregor W. Scott, a United States attorney for the Eastern District of California. Mr. Hayat had told officials during a stopover in Washington that he and his family were carrying less than $10,000, while prosecutors said the amount was more than $28,000."
.
.
.
"In exchange for his plea, federal officials said they would dismiss all previous charges and recommend that Umer Hayat receive a sentence of three years supervised release. Since his arrest in 2005, Mr. Hayat has served 330 days in jail and 30 days of home confinement, prosecutors said. Sentencing is Aug. 18" 50
According to Umer Hayat's attorney Johnny Griffin, the Sacramento Bee reports:
"The plea deal to drop the terror-related charges shows that "Umer Hayat is not a terrorist," 49
The Bee also reports that the prosecutors will agree to let Umer Hayat use time served already as his sentence, allowing him to remain out of jail.


April 26,2006: BRIEFING: Verdict! Hamid Hayat was found guilty on all but one minor count in the indictment. The jury specifally noted on all the guilty verdicts that Hamid Hayat was convicted of a crime involving terrorism. A day following the verdict one of the jurors complained of coercion, however this was to an investigator of the Defense and did not speak at the trial, and the defense is mounting a mistrial motion. Umer Hayat's jury deadlocked and his new trial has been set for June 5, 2006. Umer is out on a new $390,000 bond, Hamid remains in jail pending the motions and the sentencing trail (no date set yet).

April 20, 2006: BRIEFING: Judge Burrell directed the jurors in the Hamid Hayat case not to consider transfers of monies to Hamid's uncle in Pakistan as material support to terrorists, possibly setting up ground for appeal of a verdict undesirable to the prosecution. He used the indictments statement that Hamid personally attended a terrorist training camp as providing material support, and that the money is not mentioned.

April 19, 2006: BRIEFING: The Jury in the Umer Hayat case asked to review the trial transcripts of FBI agents testimony in the case. Judge Garland Burrell appeared not to want to have days spent repeating the entire testimony, and the Jury responded by eliminating that contained in the video tape (a six hour marathon session). Also, the Government prosecutors asked the Judge to consider sealing the verdict in Umer Hayat's trail so as not to predjudice the Hamid Hayat jury (or vice versa one would presume). The Defense vigorously argued that the defendants should not spend one day more in jail than is necessary. The issue of sequestering the second jury then came up with Judge Burrell taking the matters under consideration.

April 18, 2006: BRIEFING: The Jury deliberating in the Hamid Hayat case requested direction from Judge Garland Burrell regarding funds transferred by Hamid to his Uncle, a known terrorist supporter in Pakistan. The Judge did not make an immediate ruling.

April 13, 2006: BRIEFING: On a day that ended with both cases in the hands of their prospective jurors for deliberation, the Defense once again trotted out an attempt to attack the credibility of FBI witness Nassem Khan, in this case, with the jury present for Umer Hayat's trial. The Defense's theory is that Naseem Khan lied to agents and in his testimony when he claimed that Hamid and Umer attended Jihadist training camps, not simple religous training in Pakistan. The Prosecution contends that Hamid is talking about terrorist training apart and different from religious training and that Khan is stating his understanding of what Hamid is telling him through repeated conversations about this special training outside the Madrassah.
Defense attorney Johnny Griffin contended that the agents knew they could persuade Umer to say what they wanted him to say, playing both on his lack of good English and his strict religious believes. The prosecution rebutted that no one is going to say their son is attending a terrorist training camp in order to please an FBI agent, and that the Defense's contention is unsupportable. In one case, the prosecution states that Hayat volunteered information and clearly did not hesitate to argue with agents in the interview. In the taped interviews Umer is clearly not cowed or trying to please the agents, rather appears to be relieved to at last telling the truth. The Defense refutes that interpretation.

Griffin also attempted to further paint the witness Khan was an accomplished lier using statements he had issued in another venue that he had met some of the 911 terrorists. However, Griffin brought no evidence forward that might prove Khan was lying.

Griffin then went overboard by accusing the FBI of knowling supporting the lies despite knowing they were lies.

April 5, 2006: BRIEFING: The Defense supposition that the Hayats are victims of an ovezealous government law enforcement agency continues. The Defense focused on FBI interviewer (read interrogator) Gary Schaff's use of leading questions with the Hayats. In particular his interview with Hamid where he uses leading questions to get Hamid to answer in the affirmative.

The contention is that the use of leading questions is somehow prohibited, unfair, or at worst illegal all of which are fiction. Indeed, the methodology is a known and accepted practice of accomplished interrogators and perfectly acceptable and legal.

In the Hamid interview, Schaff clearly says he led the son of the ice cream vendor using words he had heard Hamid utter when being interviewed by another agent, Harry Sweeney, Schaff watched from another room. Again, the Defense tried to make an issue of this, hoping that perhaps the jury would be fooled into believing this was unacceptable behavior.

Newspaper reporting of the exchanges then begins to demonstrate an incredible bias, starting to focus on the agent agreeing with the Defense, when in actuality he is acknowledging that he in fact led Hayat on several occassions, almost proud of the accomplishment.

The Defense also attempted to say that Schaff introduced the idea of Jihadist training camps, not Hayat, however, prosecutor Assistant U.S. Attorney S. Robert Tice-Taskin countered with questions that led Schaff to answer that he had based the questions on testimony of the government cooperating witness Naseem Khan, a witness that at the time the Hayats did not know was providing them with information. Again the Defense tried to make an issue of this, but the prosecution was dismissive stating that the witness' testimony would stand on its own.

This all followed a real red herring in the case, when Defense Attorney Wazhma Mojaddidi brought in James Lazor an American who traveled to Balkot, Pakistan in February of this year, finding the areas under contention being held by Pakistani military, implying that there was no way Hamid or his father could have traveled there without permission, and certainly not to attend a training camp. Under cross, Lazor admitted he had no idea, nor did the Defense over any evidence as to the status of the area during the times Hamid is known to have traveled there. This essentially made the entire testimony useless and a waste of time.

3/2006:  BRIEFING: The trials for both Hamid and Umer began at times with both juries present, at times with one or the other present as different witnesses from the government gave their testimony. Hamid's defense seems to be centered on the concept that his statements to the FBI's CW (Cooperating Witness) was nothing more than fictional accounts that were part of an attempt to brag -- make himself look important in the eyes of his friend. The Government of course refutes that interpretation and points to nearly identical statements made to the FBI examiners when Hamid flunked his lie detector test and began to recant his testimony during the test. On 3/8 and 3/9 of 2006, the court was shown portions of the Umer Hayat interview video tape (full length is said to be approximately 10 hours). This was a powerful recant of his lie detector statements and provide a chilling look at the depth of the conspiracy. Umer stated that four Lodi men, who were trained in Pakistan (including his son Hamid), were instructed to return to Lodi and receive further instructions in the Jihad from a local Lodi Mosque Imam. He stated that they were holding secret meetings with the Imam, later stated to be Maulana Shabbir (Imam Shabbir Ahmed of the Lodi Mosque). More shocking is that Umer stated that there would be planning for attacks against targets in Washington, D.C., including the Pentagon. The defense insists that the agent's method for interrogation puts words in Umer Hayat's mouth and he simply, stupidly agrees, joining the so called fiction, at one point agreeing as agent Shiff explains how the terrorists want to return from Pakistan and attack the White House or the Pentagon and kill Bush or Rumsfeld.

In an interesting side story, a number of television stations have had to legally apply for copies of the video tapes shown in open court and as of 3/15/2006 no determination by the court has occurred. Presumably, the TV stations (appear to be local, however one at least is an NBC network affiliate) will broadcast portions or perhaps unedited versions sometime in the future.

2/2006:  BRIEFING: As the trial date draws near, the defense makes motions to dismiss much of the evidence stating it is irrelevant, as well as attempts to get several counts of the superceding indictment thrown out claiming the counts are the same and extraneous. There is also a charge that the government's behavior in the case is intended to contaminate the jury pool by releasing prejudicial information. A total of nine of these charges are made in a "Motion Limine" which is later denied by the Judge. The trial date goes forward with trail documents lining up, and finally on Wednesday, 2/15/2005, the first jury was impaneled.

1/2006:  BRIEFING: A flurry of motions resulted in confirmation of Umer Hayat's release on bail, and Hamid's continued detainment. The defense made another attempt to seek all possible evidence in the case from every federal agency that could or might have conducted an investigation. This motion was deferred until the trail, presumably so the judge see if the trial provides any reason to grant the motion. Meanwhile the government continues to bring in evidence under the rules of CIPA. The government also requested a dual jury enpanelment, with both juries serving in the same courtroom, but with different locations for deliberation, and no communication between juries. Also, in the last week of January, the government filed a redacted version of a document. The document, the full content of which will be protected by CIPA, releases the details of testimony pending from a cooperating witness (CW) who spoke with Hamid in while the defendant was in the U.S. and in Pakistan. The testimony will reportedly coorberate Hamid's own statements about attending a terrorist training camp and other statements which resulted in the charges found in the superceding indictment.

12/2005:  BRIEFING: The government filed a superceding indictment which adds actual terrorism charges. Umer Hayat was released on bail (with extremly well spelled out terms for release and continued relief from detainment). This only after contentious haggling over the value of real and personal property offered as bail, some of which may result in perjury charges against others stemming from possible claims of property ownership, etc.

11/04/2005:  BRIEFING:  Umer Hayat is about to be released on bail.  The Defense has argued that real estate property amounting to some $1.5 million held by Umer Hayat is sufficient to tie him to the community and to prevent his fleeing prosecution.  The Government contends that a terrorist would not care one whit about the state of the family home or those who live it in.  The government has also pointed out that one of the residences proposed as part of the $1.5 million is not in the hands of Umer, but rather the title is in the hands of another son.

In an interesting side note, it was apparently just realized by someone that Umer Hayat's personal information is contained in various documents that have been available to the public in both written and electronic form for some time.  Ooops.  The Judge ordered the clerks to seal the information until such time as redacted versions are available.  As a courtesy, MILNET has removed the two most recent (and most extensive) documents containing personal information in the case. OPINION: Earlier documents have been available since June of 2005 and redaction is both a fool's errand, as well as a waste of taxpayer's money.

ANALYSIS:  While the dollar amount is being contested, the real estate's value is of smaller consequence than the defense's statement that Umer Hayat, not yet proven guilty of supporting a terrorist, is not likely to flee with the family residence and means for support at stake. 

OPINION:  The American justice system appears to be working for Umer Hayat in this case.  Since the assumption is of innocence, the government has a hard time convincing the Judge to hold him with the family fortune, as it were, being held by the government as bond.  This is despite the obvious conclusion that a terrorist supporter is very likely to subscribe to the believe that their cause if far more important and overrides the needs of the man's family.  We shall  see if this opinion holds true.  If Umer Hayat does not flee, then those who believe he is innocent will simply say that proves he is not the terrorist supporter the government says he is.  Of course, even an innocent verdict only proves the government could not gather the evidence necessary to convict, not that Umer is or is not a terrorist.  The system works, and the system fails.  Our only consolation is that it appears the best system around so far.


10/19/2005:  BRIEFING:  After a flurry of opposing documents and proposed orders, Judge Burrell has agreed to allow the appeal of Umer Hayat's bail forward, meanwhile keeping both defandants in jail.

The defense meanwhile has presented affadavits proposing that a) Umer Hayat is not a flight risk because he is selling his house in Pakistan and therefore has no reason to return there, b) that the triggering event for the government watching the Hayat's and intercepting them leaving the country with $28,000 of cash was all a misunderstanding (citing who the money was received from and where it was going), and c) that Umer Hayat is not dangerous.  The government refutes c) on the grounds that Umer Hayat, stated otherwise in a statement (which has already been submitted) to the FBI.

ANALYSIS:  The government's appeal is weak in part as it is yet to have been proven that either Hayat is dangerous, and second they cannot prove any of the triggering cash actually made its way to terrorists (at least from information that is in the public view).  It is quite possible that Umer Hayat will be released on bail, and then it will require FBI agents to surveil him in case he may decide to flee despite the bail and the defense attorney's assurances.

10/07/2005:  BRIEFING:  The government reapplied for CIPA protection for evidence in the new indictment (support of terrorism), indicating they are turning over yet more classified evidence for review by the judge.

9/28/2005:  BRIEFING:  Judge Gregory G. Hollows signed an order requiring the government to file an appeal brief on or before 10/11/05, and that any release be stayed pending review of its appeal by Judge Burrell 57 is GRANTED.   A hearing for reconsideration of the stay t is scheduled for 9/29/2005 before Judge Gregory G. Hollows.

ANALYSIS:  What appears to be dueling Judges is actually the normal course of events, the defense going before another Judge hoping for even impartiality in the case for reconsideration of the stay on Umer Hayat's release.  The government is carefully manuevering to ensure that Umer is held until the appeal is heard, such that if the appeal overturns the release, it becomes a moot point if Hayat is released and then flees the country or cannot be found to re-incarcerate.

The terror indictment (providing material support to terrorists) is a simple case for the government to prove and may not require as much legal hoopla as indicting him as a terrorist, since the case centers on the governments ability to stop Hamid Hayat from carrying out his and the cell's plans in the U.S.  As the U.S. Attorney (McGregor W. Scott) said in a press release, "Whatever was taking shape in Lodi isn't going to happen now".  46  If convicted of the charges Hamid Hayat may serve up to 31 years in prison.  The A.P. article states that the government's filing indicates "prosecutors said the FBI found a book in Hamid Hayat's room entitled "Virtues of Jihad" by Mohammad Masood Azhar, who they say is "founder and leader of the known Pakistani extremist group Jaish-i-Muhammed." 46 

OPINION:  The defense continues its attempts to release Umer Hayat by immediately asking for reconsiderations of every negative order by the court.  The strategy appears to be working, as the Umer Hayat release was acquired using this approach.  In as much as Judge Hollows would have had to make an obvious error in his determination, the appeal on the release of Umer Hayat is likely to fail, and he will be released pending trial.  Some might believe with his son in jail pending that same trial, and a $1.2 million bond, that Umer will not skip bail.  However, he will be facing a stiff prison sentence if he remains.  He also has property and family in Pakistan, so he may very well choose to flee, deciding that his son's case is lost and remaining in the U.S. will do nothing for his son.

9/27/2005:  BRIEFING:  Government requested and was granted a stay on the release of Umer Hayat pending the governments appeal before Magistrate Judge Burrell.

9/26/2005:  BRIEFING:  Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows released Umer Hayat on Bail stating it was his determination that the father of indicted terrorist Hamid was not a flight risk.  The Judge set the bond in the amount of $1,200,000.

9/22/2005:  BRIEFING:  DOJ returned an indictment against Hamid Hayat for providing material support to Terrorists stemming from sworn testimony witnessed by FBI agents back in June of this year and an ongoing FBI investigation into the Lodi Five "cell" in Lodi, California. 

9/14/2005:  BRIEFING:  The bond hearing date was reset to 9/23/2005 with agreement of the defandants on 9/14/2005.

9/12/2005:   BRIEFING:  Attorneys for the two remaining accussed (Hamid and Umer Hayat) have requested a bond hearing with Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/19/2005.  (Motion for reconsideration of Bond)

8/23/2005: BRIEFING:  A flurry of legal activity as the defense team for the Hayats enters a motion for reconsideration of bail.  Government opposition centers on the case law -- simply put, unless the defense can show some new evidence that was not considered by the Judge who denied bail and ordered detention it is far past the time to re-request bail.  In as much as the defense had the legal path of submitting the cause of any such conditions to the District Appeals Court and did not take advantage of that avenue, Defense has lost the right to now challenge the decision at this late date.  A bail hearing was set before an impartial Judge in the case, Judge Drozd.  On 8/23/2005, Judge Drozd ruled for the government and a reconsideration was denied thus denying the issue of bail to be revisited, the accused will remain in custody.

ANALYSIS:  This was perhaps the last bid for the release of the Hayats before trail, certainly continuing their custody through the October CIPA hearing date set to 10/07/2005 by Judge Burrell on 8/05/2005 (see below). 

The next phase will be the review of the classified material by Judge Burrell at which time he may or may not determine evidence to be deemed related to the case and therefore required to be placed in discovery before the defense -- requiring its release.  At that time, it becomes incumbent upon the government to determine if they wish to declassify the evidence for trail or to provide grounds for other defense motions that could result in dismissal of the charges.  It should be noted that this was the course of events used in the Moussaoui  44 terrorism case, the defense attempting to force such a decision upon the Department of Justice. However, Moussaoui is slated to begin trail in January of 2006, with the court sealing classified evidence and most of the proceedings relating to that and other predjudicial information until the penalty phase of the trial commences.  One can only assume this is intended to insure the jury pool is not contaminated until CIPA rulings by the Judge, and further rulings on defense motions to exclude evidence during the trial.

8/18/2005:  BRIEFING:  An unrelated case in Torrance, California (near Los Angeles) turned a few eyebrows for court watchers in the Lodi Five Case.  One of the three arrested is Hamad R. Samana, a Pakistani citizen, age 21.  He is said by the FBI to have lead the "ring" which used robbery to finace their cell.  Arrested with Samana were Levar H. Washington,  age 25 and Gregory V. Patterson, both recent convert to Islam in prison, and both jailed on nearly a dozen robbery charges.  "authorities have been looking into allegations that the plot was conceived by two inmates at California State Prison, Sacramento, Peter Martinez and Kevin Lamar James" 45

8/12/2005:  BRIEFING:  In an Associated Press article, David Kravets reports that Immigration Judge Anthony Murry refused to grant bail to Shabbir Ahmed after FBI agent Gary Schaff reported that he believed that Ahmed and others were:

"...in the fledgling stages of opening a terrorism training camp in Lodi, a town of 62,000 about 30 miles south of Sacramento. Schaaf did not say what type of terrorist attacks were planned, but he said Ahmed was acting as an intermediary for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. 

Ahmed's lawyer said that if his client was connected with terrorism, he would be facing criminal charges rather than just being charged with overstaying his visa.

Ahmed was one of five men connected to the mosque arrested in June." 39

In other testimony Schaaf said that

"...orders or word would come from Shabbir Ahmed," the agent said Hayat told investigators.

Federal prosecutors recently acknowledged that the government had infiltrated the Pakistani community in Lodi and secretly recorded dozens of conversations over three years.

...the elder Khan got his directions from Jalaluddin Hoqqani, a Taliban commander tied to bin Laden. [FBI Agent] Schaaf provided no details of the training camp that allegedly was to be opened in Lodi, but said "individuals would be taught ... to commit acts of violence against the U.S."" 40

ANALYSIS:  It appears that the FBI is disclosing more information about their investigation into alleged terrorist activities in Lodi.  The fact that the FBI is releasing this information at an immigration hearing indicates that perhaps they may be reading other charges connected with the other two alleged Lodi conspirators.  It should be noted that there may also be a strategy to simply expose and force out of the country those non-citizens involved -- witness the fact that former Imam Shabbir Ahmed, Mohammad Adil Khan and his son also part of the "Lodi Five", have agreed to be deported from the U.S. 38

8/09/2005:  BRIEFING:  Shabbir Ahmed, being held on immigration charges, was charged by the Department of Justice with conspiracy to create a terrorist cell.  According to a Fox News Alert, Ahmed who was previously named in immigration charges and appeared before a Judge in San Francisco's immigration court, was named in an affadivit by an investigating FBI agent looking into the Lodi terrorism operations there.  Ahmed has been the subject of intense scruitiney and dubbed a member of the "Lodi Five" by MILNET's chief editor.  Also previously held by the government were Muhammad Adil Khan and his son Mohammad Hassan Adil who were NOT named in the complaint.  For more information on the former Imam Ahmed, see the excellent article by Rone Tempest and reprinted on the web site Militant Islam Monitor, "How Visa System Failed to Flag Lodi Imam" 37 


8/05/2005:  BRIEFING:  Judge Garland Burrell granted the governments motion to exclude, vacating the trial date of 8//23/2005 and moving the Classified Information Protection Act hearing to 10/07/2005 at 11:00 am, and a trail status hearing for 3:00 pm that afternoon. 

ANALYSIS:  This opens the way for the government to pull together the necessary evidence from the various agencies in the U.S. government and in the opinion of MILNET, to provide for maneuvering room in other areas of the terrorist investigation of the suspected terrorist activities in Lodi, California.

8/4/2005:  BRIEFING:  After several minor events, including the assignment of a security officer to aid the court in assessing classified documents, the Government offered a motion requesting Judge Burrell to vacate his previous order denying the motion to exclude the provisions of the speedy trail act as well as vacate the order for the trial to begin on August 23.  It is not clear when the Judge will rule on this new motion, however, time is running out as the pretrial conference is set for 8/19/2005.  At that conference, it will be exceedingly difficult to delay the proceedings with waiver of the speedy trail act given that the defandants were arrested on June 7, 2005.   The Judge ordered a Trial Confirmation Hearing on 8/5/2005. 

ANALYSIS:  With the assignment of the security officer to handle classified information per the requirements of the The Classified Information Protection Act, the Government is preparing to go forward with the trial.  However, this also makes it possible for the court to look at classified document ledgers that indicate the number and topic matter of documents the government might wish the Judge to view en-camera, and opens the way for proofing the Government's contention that the discovery requests made  by the defense are not only onorious but impossible to fulfill in the alloted time.  This may tip the judges hand, making it rational to not only vacate the motion to exclude but the trial start date as well.  See the Case Summary (Docket) to see the details of various court activities since 7/15/2005.

7/21/2005:  BRIEFING:  British authorities have linked the London bombers to Pakistani terrorist Harood Rashir Aswat, who was sent to Oregon to build a Jihadist training camp and who is well known to the CIA and the FBI, through their terrorist informer James Ujaama. 

OPINION and ANALYSIS:  Public acknowlegement of that linkage may release the government to disclose information in the Hayat case they could not have released prior to the London bombings and subsequent disclosures. Or perhaps the government will use this opportunity to declassify that information in the hopes of destroying would-be support for similar operations in the U.S.  See the MILNET 7/21/2005 Briefing on the export of Pakistani Militant Islamic Jihadists.

7/16/2005:  BRIEFING:  Former Imam and teacher of both Hayats and former Imam Shabbir Ahmed, Mohammad Adil Khan has agreed to be deported from the U.S. 38 
According to the Sacramento Bee,

"...immigration officials characterized the deportation as a preventive tool."

"As part of this ongoing investigation, (immigration officials) and other agencies involved are using a range of strategies, including both criminal and administrative proceedings, to remove any potential threat to the community," said Ronald E. Le Fevre, San Francisco chief counsel of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

"ICE will not allow foreign nationals to use the United States as a haven for activities that potentially put our nation or other nations at risk."

The surprise agreement, announced during a hastily called immigration hearing in San Francisco, came amid the FBI's ongoing probe of al-Qaida connections in Lodi, a San Joaquin farming community of 62,000."


7/15/2005:  After a flurry of motions, one of which included a motion to extend the preparation time for the trail, the newly assigned Federal Magistrate, Judge Gerald Burrell denied the Motion to Exclude (see documents section below) and reaffirmed the trial date to begin on 8/23/2005.

OPINION:  In doing so, Judge Burrell appears to have agreed with the Defense that preparation for the "lying to FBI agents" charge does not require a complex prepartion.  The government strategy will now have to focus on incarcerating the Hayat's, and then focus on the alleged terrorism charges.

7/08/2005:  BRIEFING:  Sacramento Bee staff writers Stephen Magagnini and Dorothy Korber claim court documents have been obtained that give much more detail on the connection between the Lodi Five as well as involve others who may have attended Jihadist camps from the area.

"The FBI is investigating the possibility that six other Lodi-area men attended terrorist training camps in Pakistan in addition to Hamid Hayat, the initial suspect arrested in the government's ongoing probe of al-Qaida connections in the San Joaquin city.

According to federal court documents obtained by The Bee, Hamid Hayat and his father, Umer, claimed the suspected Lodi jihadists reported to Muhammed Adil Khan and Shabbir Ahmed, two imams they say came to the Lodi Muslim Mosque from Pakistan to groom students for terrorist training camps.

Khan and Ahmed are being held for allegedly violating immigration laws, and through their attorney have denied being involved in terrorist activities."

"...In the documents, the Hayats are said to have outlined the following chain of command:

The alleged Lodi-area jihadists "would take their direction" from Shabbir Ahmed, who answered to his former madrassah (religious school) teacher in Pakistan, Adil Khan. Khan, in turn, took orders from the operator of the terrorist training camp near Rawalpindi, Fazler Rehman - whose "boss" is Osama bin Laden."

"...Before coming to Lodi, Adil Khan was a teacher and administrator at the Jamia Farooqia School, a madrassah with 4,000 students in Karachi founded by his father, Salimullah Khan.

Bin Laden, in a 1998 news conference, counted the scholars of the Farooqia school among his supporters, according to the documents.

The documents say Umer Hayat alleged "that Jamia Farooqia prepared its students for jihadist training camps" and that "Adil Khan's purpose in America is to develop a U.S.-based madrassah which would serve the same purpose as the madrassahs in Pakistan."

According to the documents, Adil Khan first came to America in the 1980s to raise money for his father's Jamia Farooqia school. The highly educated, urbane Khan soon became a welcome speaker at mosques across the country, including the one in Lodi.

In the late 1990s, Adil Khan acted to create his own school in America, and set up the nonprofit Jamia Farooqia Islamic Center. He told supporters the school would be open to boys and girls, Muslims and non-Muslims.

When he learned the Lodi mosque had bought 7 acres to establish its own school and Islamic center, he formed a collaboration.

In the spring of 2001, Adil Khan moved to Lodi to serve as imam. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he reached out to Christians and Jews, signing a joint declaration of peace.

In early 2002, he recruited a former student from Pakistan, Shabbir Ahmed, to take over as imam while Adil Khan concentrated on developing the Lodi school.

Ahmed, 39, has admitted that, while he was an imam in Islamabad, he gave several fiery anti-American speeches after Sept. 11 in protest of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. But, at his June 24 immigration hearing, he denied urging people to kill Americans.

"Having come here I see human value and respect for human life - even animals are taken care of here," he told the immigration judge.

The documents claim Hamid Hayat "advised he would get his Jihadi mission orders from Shabbir Ahmed, who would get the initial order from Muhammed Adil Khan." Hayat refused to say how he knew this, or what such a "mission" might entail.

During his own interrogation, Hayat's father identified several additional members of the Lodi mosque trained in jihadi camps who "take direction from Shabbir Ahmed" and who were taught to target financial institutions and government buildings in the U.S., according to the documents" 34


7/06/2005:  BRIEFING:  The governmnet submitted two motions to the court of Judge Garland Burrell as ordered -- the first is a Motion to Exclude, which requests the waiver of the Speedy Trial Act provisions based upon the complexity of the case.  This 20 page document outlines the difficulties and complexities of the case, both from the governments viewpoint, as well as due to additional requirements laid upon the government by the defense's request for discovery from some 40 plus federal agencies including much of the U.S. Intelligence Community.  See the MILNET trial briefing for more details.

The second motion was a Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, specifically to prepare the court for Classified Information Procedures Act processes, and request general relief in order to conduct the necessary procedures for at least one classified document that must be reviewed under CIPA procedures.

7/01/2005:  BRIEFING:  The defandants appeared before Judge Garland Burrell.  The Government asked the court to consider that the case is complex and the court set  dates for briefings and responses concerning the Government's possible invokation of CIPA (Classified Information Procedures Act), Government's brief on 7/6/05, Defenses response on 7/10/2005 and Government's rebuttal on 7/11/2005. and a final hearing on the matter 7/15/2005.

The Judge also set a pretrial conference date for 8/19/2005 and a preliminary Jury Trial date of 8/23/2005 at 09:00 am. 

Meanwhile the defendants remain in custody.

6/29/2005:  BRIEFING:  We've added profiles for each of Umer and Hamid Hayat, as well as a graphic to depict the rather involved and at times confusing associations between the people involved according to the government's affadavit and court testimony.  We've also added the Department of Justice News Release that occurred coincident with the three count indictment levied on 6/16/2005.  And finally, we've also posted the notice that the government may be required by CIPA to withhold public scrutiny (and the defendants) of certain information in the course of the legal proceedings on the grounds of National Security, as well as the modification to Judge Nowinski's Protective Order allowing former FBI agent James Wedick to view the protected discovery information.

6/27/2005:  BRIEFING:  The 2:00 pm continuation of the discovery hearing held Friday, 6/24/2005 in the Judge's Chambers featured a continuation of the defense complaints over the government's reluctance to turn over all the necessary evidence required for discovery. However the government contended that the only burden of proof needed at this point was to bring forward evidence of the case of lying to federal agents as the indictment indicated, a point which Judge Nowinski eventually agreed in his ruling. Clarification of the protective order was discussed with Nowinski's wit and humor appearing for the first time.  It appeared all was ready for a final status hearing before setting the trial date, with some contention over what may turn out to extension of the charges, and the government's future obligation, should that come to pass, to provide new evidence in return to the discovery phase.  The court was adjourned with a status hearing to occur on July 1, 2005, in the court of Judge Garland Burrell at 9:00 am. 

In the case of the three arrested on immigration charges, their cases have been combined and will be face a bond hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 2, 2005.

ANALYSIS:  It appears the Defense's discovery efforts have run their course, and the government is not yet ready to reveal its plans for further extensions for prosecution of new charges.  It has revealed its current short term strategy, simply improve and achieve bind over on the charges of lying to federal agents.  This despite the defense's position that in order to prove lying, you must prove what the lie is -- i.e. acts of aid and support to terrorism, while the government is sticking to simply showing a massive change in story during statements to investigators (Title 18, Section 1000 (a)(2), which was named in the arrest warrant and indictment).

It may also come to pass that the government opts to separately charge the two (together or individually) with additional charges thus attempting to set up a new trial after the two are convicted of the lesser charges (its all relative, they could serve 3 to 6 years on the current charges).  This possible strategy has the benefit of allowing the government much more time to complete its full investigation of the possibly more serious aspects of the case.

The other three being held on immigration charges will remain in custody until August 2, the date of their bond hearing in San Francisco's Immigration Court.  However, it is not inconceivable that some effort by the attorney may force a bond hearing before that date.

NOTE:  MILNET's Chief Editor greeted several of the supporters of the Hayats who tend to sit in the back row of the vistitor's gallery. A number of quick questions were asked of one English speaking young man:
This impromptu interview was interrupted by the court coming to session.


6/26/2005:  OPINION:  Several MILNET visitors have written to ask why there have been so many trails against terrorists and are they really necessary -- over and above the fact we need to punish terrorists -- why shouldn't we just simply expel terrorists found in the U.S.?  Given that a number of terrorist trials have not been as effective as one might wish, isn't failure in such a trial having the opposite effect the government wants? Why is there so much effort to investigate would be terrorists? 

The obvious answers come to mind of course, punishment to fit the crime, stopping terrorism before it happens, etc.  CI Centre Professors, many of whom are former counterintelligence officers or leaders of espionage units who used to target the U.S. agree on a simple fact.  Once you expose a terrorist or espionage organization, cell, or member, you deal a huge blow to their effectiveness, and usually take them "out of service". 

That, in of itself, seems to be an excellent rationale for the exposure inherent in the trail process.  In addition there is perhaps an overall U.S. DOJ strategy in play here.  Brian Michael Jennings used the op-ed forum to state the  possible U.S. Strategy for trials of terrorists and the implication for pursuing and investigating possible terrorism suspects.  Writing in January of 2001, he stated the following (exerpted from the Rand Corporation archive of the article):

"Trials also keep terrorism in the realm of crime, stripping terrorists of political pretensions, depriving them of legitimacy. Yemen's president is no fan of U.S. policy in the Middle East, but in trying Yemeni nationals his government has decided that neither sympathies with Islam nor differences with Washington justify terrorism.

Trials offer opportunities to build the public case against terrorism and specific terrorist networks. The trial in New York will move much material from intelligence folders into the public domain--how much will be a matter of contention.

The New York trial will enable U.S. authorities to make the case against Bin Laden's network and justify, albeit after the fact, the U.S. decision to bomb his training camps in Afghanistan. The danger here will be prosecutorial zeal that blames Bin Laden for events in which his involvement is tangential or merely speculative.

Trials in U.S. courts are necessary to support U.S. requests that other nations accept the risks and bring terrorists to trial. It is hard to imagine Yemen trying terrorists if the United States itself were unwilling to do so.

Trials create a community of cooperation among the nations willing to prosecute terrorism. For a country like Yemen, legal action against terrorists can be politically painful, and imprisoning terrorists brings the risk of retaliation. This only underlines the point that cooperation in matters of intelligence and security aimed at prevention is preferable, which is what we seek.

Trials also can be used to support diplomatic efforts against governments that support or provide asylum to terrorists. The revelations that emerge from the trial in New York will increase the heat on Afghanistan's Taliban, which already faces political and economic sanctions if it does not turn over Bin Laden."  32

Thus the current "assault" (as one local liberal nutcase put it) on Lodi serves many purposes. 

Even if the FBI evidence and the DOJ prosecution fails in its attempts to convict the Hayats and punish or deport the other three of the Lodi Five, they have accomplished much of what they desired...they have turned the spotlight on a Muslim community that, admitedly unwittingly, may have sheltered terrorists.  It raises the questions in other communties, Muslim and non-Muslim alike -- "Are we unknowingly providing cover for would-be or active terrorists?"

If that results in other communities to look at their neighbors a little closer and refuse shelter to those who preach anti-American vitoral, it may make it much harder for would-be terrorists or even active terrorists to live and do their evil among us.  Of course, it also stand to reason that a true sleeper cell would not call attention to themselves as the Lodi Five appear to have done.

On the other hand, and to give the liberals their due, one has to ask the question, "do we want to sow mistrust of this nature -- who wants to live in the world of Nazi Germany where children turned in their parents for un-Nazi activities?"  It presents a classical free nation conundrum, one for which the debate will continue well after the Lodi Five's fates are decided.

BRIEFING:  What remains clear is that to ask the FBI not to look when their suspicions are alerted, is as foolhardy as letting the terrorist situation go unchecked.  Putting your head in the ground will do nothing to prevent terrorist attacks and NOT persuing leads against a person because he is an ethnic minority or because he is "nothing more than an ice cream vendor" is not only ludricous, but suicidal.

We at MILNET ferventaly hope Umer Hayat IS nothing more than an ice cream vendor with a temper.  And his son is simply a lucky boy who had a chance to visit friends and family and find a wife in Pakistan.  However, the complaint lodged by the FBI  is VERY serious, and a confession of the sort alleged is damning.  Soon, we will see if the evidence presented is compelling enough to remand the two for trial.  And then perhaps the two will get their opportunity to defend their innocence in court.

Will the Liberals admit they were dead wrong in defending the Hayats before the facts are known? Will their attacks on the FBI and the DOJ be retracted if the Hayats are convicted?  Of course not. That part of the history of this affair will vanish in a flash of rewritten history, while they move on to impede the next investigation of wrong doing.


6/25/2005:  BRIEFING:  One of the clerics arrested on Immigration charges, Shabbir Ahmed, and whose attorney said was not involved in the FBI's terrorism investigation in Lodi, was reported by the Sacramento Bee has having admitted "he gave speeches encouraging Muslims in Pakistan to "pressure Americans to stop bombing" the Taliban in Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks" 26  The Sacramento Bee story also reports that Muhammed Adil Khan, the other cleric arrested on immigration charges, was his teacher at Ahmed's Pakistan Mosque's Madrasah, adding a little more information to the relationship between the Lodi Five as well as how long the relationship has been in place.  Clearly the two migrated to the U.S. and according to Ahmed, have had a change of heart visa-vis the U.S. 

"Ahmed admitted giving five public speeches in which he "encouraged people to go to Afghanistan to defend Osama, to defend the Taliban and kill Americans."

Nishiie [U.S. Attorney procecuting the case - MILNET]  outlined this time frame: "It starts Sept. 11, 2001. A month later, the U.S. invades Afghanistan. In November and December, we have you giving the speeches in Islamabad - and in January 2002, you arrive in Lodi, California, to be an imam at the the mosque."

Ahmed defended himself, saying: "I simply said to try to pressure Americans to stop bombing."

Nishiie asked: "Didn't people riot after your speeches?"

Ahmed, responding in Urdu through an interpreter conceded: "Temporarily, people get excited and the spirit goes on. ... I was not the only speaker."

Under questioning from Nishiie, Ahmed said he spent seven years at Jamia Farooqia, a large madrassah in Karachi founded by Adil Khan's father, before becoming an imam in Islamabad.

The husky, bearded Ahmed - who said he taught at the madrassah for three years - acknowledged the school sent guerrillas to Afghanistan to wage jihad against the Russians, who occupied the country from 1979 to 1989.

Nishiie produced a magazine article about the Jamia Farooqia school that, he claimed, said the school preaches jihad (a divinely inspired defense against enemies of Islam).

"Well, if someone attacks you, you protect yourself," Ahmed responded, adding that the training was self-defense training in judo and karate.

Nishiie seemingly conceded that point, but claimed that documents show bin Laden himself once thanked the scholars at the school for their support.

Ahmed, who said he'd never met bin Laden, responded, "It does not mean all the ulemas (scholars) in the organization were included - it could mean he was talking about the many students from Afghanistan" during the Soviet occupation.

Ahmed's attorney, Saad Ahmed (no relation), said his client promoted interfaith harmony in California and has never participated in terrorist activities or terrorist organizations. In an interview with The Bee, he said Ahmed and Adil Khan - whom he also represents - are men of peace who "have never gone and fought anywhere." He added that the Lodi Muslim Mosque, under Ahmed and Adil Khan's direction, became one of the first mosques in California to allow Jewish and Christian religious leaders to speak."  26

OPINION:  The picture the Bee reporters are painting is that Ahmed was simply conforming to the Pakistani community post 9/11 and prior to his migration to the U.S.  One might believe after reading the article, that he is the victim of over zealous FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.  However, as the pattern emerges, it becomes clear that there may be more to this investigation than the first charges indicate.  The flipside of such speculation would have the Pakistanis involved in a planned attempt to insinuate themselves in a U.S. Muslim community who unwittingly would support them while they planted the seeds of sedition or perhaps worse if the original DOJ compliant is to be believed.


6/24/2005:  BRIEFING:   From the Sacramento Bee, 6/25/2005: 

"At a separate hearing Friday in federal court in Sacramento, the government agreed to immediately give the Hayats' defense attorneys a key piece of evidence against them - Hamid Hayat's videotaped confession.

The government claims Hamid Hayat, 22, admitted training at a Pakistani camp to learn "how to kill Americans." Prosecutors say he initially denied, then admitted, and now denies being trained as a terrorist.

Prosecutors also claim his father at first denied, then admitted, and now denies his son's involvment in terrorist training.

Assistant U.S. Attorney R. Steven Lapham also promised he would immediately give the defense a copy of an FBI affidavit in support of a search of the Hayats' home in Lodi.

Nowinski granted Lapham's motion for a protective order prohibiting Umer Hayat's attorney, Johnny Griffin III, and Hamid Hayat's attorney, Wazhna Mojaddidi, from sharing the contents of the tape and the affidavit with anyone except retired FBI agent James Wedick, who has been hired as a defense investigator by Griffin.

It was Griffin who made the successful demand for the evidence against his client before U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter A. Nowinski.

Griffin has also demanded any other evidence against his client, presenting the prosecution with a list of 40 federal agencies that may or may not have information on the Hayats.

Griffin added that he is very curious about how Hamid Hayat's name wound up on the United States "no fly" list of persons not allowed on commercial aircraft.

Hamid Hayat's May 29 flight from Pakistan to San Francisco was rerouted to Tokyo so the FBI could pull Hayat off the plane and question him.

Griffin also wants to know why the FBI adjusted Hayat's status so he could resume his trip to San Francisco.

In an unprecedented move, Griffin is pushing for a quick trial, which he hopes will begin Aug. 9.

Nowinski set another hearing Monday on the volume of evidence and the speed in which it must be delivered to the defense." 26

Thus the Discovery Hearing was continued to Friday, 6/27/2005, 2:00 pm. 

ANALYSIS:  We have located the original statement from U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott, initially holding a news conference on the arrests in Lodi.  The implication of this report is that all five arrests are related to the FBI's ongoing terror investigation, while the attorney for the last three (the two clerics and the son of one of the clerics) says they are not part of any terrorist investigation and that the Department of Justice maligned 23 them by announcing their arrests at the same time as the arrests of the Hayats.  That sounds suspiciously like lawyerly hyperbole, however, keeping an open mind, we have not been able to  locate criminal complaints for the three, and so far no immigration proceedings have come to light.  An unconfirmed report of a meeting between one of the clerics and the Hayats, and another unconfirmed report that the Hayat's are associated with the Farooqia Islamic Center may be nothing more than "piling on" and have nothing to do with the case, or may not even be in fact truthful.  More as we investigate further.


6/23/2005:  OPINION:  It was pointed out by a frequent MILNET visitor that the the two clerics and a younger man who were also arrested in Lodi at the same time as the Hayats were arrested on visa violations and there should be no implication that the three were involved in terrorism.    In fact, the lawyer for the three says that the government, by implication due to the timing of the arrests, tarnished the reputation of the three unfairly and unjustly.  U.S. Department of Justice officials could not be reached for comment. 

BRIEFING:  In any case, Khan is now  "..the leader in the effort to build the Farooqia Islamic Center" 24, which is the subject of a lawsuit levied by the older Lodi Mosque. The reports that the three were involved in the alleged cell may stem from the fact Khan is associated with the effort to build a new Mosque at the Farooqia Islamic Center, a location prominent in the Hayat investigation, as well as an alleged meeting between Khan and the Hayats.  Future disclosure of evidence by the FBI in the Hayat case may clear the three's name visa vis terrorism, or may further implicate them.  The discovery hearing for the Hayats is set on Judge Peter A. Nowinski's calendar for Friday, 6/24/2005.


6/21/2005:  BRIEFING:  MILNET's chief editor attended the arraignment hearing in U.S. District Court.  The Hayat's pled not guilty in a courtroom with a full gallery of visitors including a back row of muslim dressed individuals and one with a CAIR t-shirt.  The attorny for Umer Hayat (the father) Johnny Griffin, requested a formal discovery hearing, and was granted the request after minor and muted resistance from the government representative.  The hearing will be held on Friday, 6/24/2005.  The Hayat's were returned to jail.

Note:  As we left the courtroom, and rode the elevator down, the Chief Editor nodded to several of the young men dressed in traditional muslim garb and who had watched the proceedings from the back row of the visitor's gallery. Outside the courtroom, these individuals were chased by cameramen for at least one block.


6/20/2005:  BRIEFING:  MILNET has attained more information on the Muslim community in Lodi.  A local Sacremento television station interviewed Palo Alto Muslims finding links to the more radical minority in Lodi.  The radicals appear to have left Palo Alto and moved to Lodi hoping to take advantage of the lower overhead and large (2000 strong) Muslim community there.  However, Lodi's existing  Muslim community's Lodi Muslim Mosque and attendees did not seem suitable.  The radicals then began to push for their own Mosque, and in fact have chosen the name Farooqia Islamic Center, the name Farooqia being owned by others.  This has pitted the radicals against both the Lodii Muslim Mosque members and the Palo Alto Fijian Muslims.  The battle is now in the courts as the three elements battle in the legal arena. 

Meanwhile, the local community in Lodi, both Muslims and non-Muslims are working together in hopes to prevent any violence in response to the sudden interest and notirieity of the small community.  Read Terrorist Probe Shakes Lodi and its Pakistani Community 22 by L.A. Times staff writer Lee Romney to get an understanding of the two Lodi Muslim factions and the relationship with the "locals" in Lodi. 

"Farooqia Islamic Center, which was scheduled to go before the San Joaquin County Planning Commission for discussion next week.

The county counsel had asked that the hearing be postponed for another month after already being continued at the commission's last meeting because of a lawsuit filed by the Lodi Muslim Mosque against the Farooqia Islamic Center.

The lawsuit alleges Khan, and other leaders from the Farooqia Islamic Center, conspired to defraud the mosque of more than $139,000 after they convinced the mosque to sell 7 acres of property it owned. The money was used to purchase a parcel for the Farooqia Islamic Center." 19

Another report 29 by the Tracy Press outlines further the dueling Mosque situation in some detail. 

Several newspapers have stated their government sources claim the investigation has been led into other areas of California (San Francisco, Manteca, Sacramento, and Stockton) as well as Denver Colorado. 

MILNET cautions that the unnamed government sources make the "widening investigation" speculative -- for instance we know of one case where the FBI was simply in Manteca to ask questions of leaders and members of the Manteca Islamic Center, due to one of the arrested Farooqia Islamic Center's Imam speaking there.   Mohammad Adil Khan, arrested on immigration charges has been active (according to one newspaper) in the San Joaquin Valley Muslim community for at least four years.  Thus it is reasonable to beleive most contacts in the valley by the Imam could simply be innocent clerical duty and befitting one in his position.

OPINION: Meanwhile the political braying continues as Pakistani officials continue to deny what others have continued to document in Pakistan.  20  Again we caution, this blog item which cites "counterintelligence sources" does not cite any actual sources and may be pure fiction.  MILNET sources will not confirm the allegations of existing Al Qaeda training camps but do admit to Pakistani Intelligence connections to some facilities training "irregulars" said to be a leftover from the Russia-Afghanistan Mujadeen struggles.

Incidentally, the last three arrests (Ahmed, Khan, and Adil) appear to have been for "failure to meet the terms of entry visas", a minor offense, but  one which could be used to deport them if the government decides they are person non-gratus.


6/16/2004:  BRIEFING:  MILNET has confirmed the identies of the five arrested in the case so far:
  1. Hamid Hayat:  Son of Umer Hayat and grandson of Qazi Saeed Ur Rehman, a cleric in Rawlipindi, Pakistan, and leader of the Madrasah at the Grand Mosque there), charged with lying to the FBI about his attendance in a jihadist training camp in Pakistan and receiving jihadist classroom training.
  2. Umer Hayat, an ice cream vendor in Lodi, California, married to the daughter of Qazi Saeed Ur Rehman, accused of lying about his son's attending a jihadist training camp and recieving jihadist classroom training.
  3. Shabbir Ahmed, Imam of the Lodi Muslim Mosque  17 arrrested on immigration charges *1
  4. Muhammad Adil Khan   17 arrrested on immigration charges  *1
  5. his son Mohammad Hassan Adil   10 arrrested on immigration charges  *1
*1 = See Update on 6/23/2005 -- the arrests of these three (according to their attorney) may be coincidental and unrelated to the alleged terrorist plot.  Note that there is also a huge contradiction to that theory -- On 6/25/2005, Shabbir Ahmed admitted in Federal Immigration Court to have preached anti-American sentiment while in Pakistan including efforts to convince Pakistani to aid in convincing the U.S. to stop the bombing in Afghanistan post 9/11.


6/15/2005:  BRIEFING:  An Associated Press reporter tracked down a Pakistani cleric in Rawlipindi, just outside Islamabad, Pakistan whose is the grandfather of the young man in Lodi accussed of training in an Al Qaeda training camp.  The cleric, Qari Saeed-ur-Rehman, who teaches in the Madrasah attached to the Grand Mosque in Rawalpinid, near Islamabad, Pakistan says his son and grandson have never  received training from him and are not connected to Al Qaeda. 

The Madrasah trains students in Islamic tenents numbering some 500 in the Pakistan neighborhood.  FBI allegations are that the son and grandson admiteted to not only traveling o attend a seminar but that the grandson trained in a training camp called Tamal, learning the basic terrorist skills well documented on captured video tapes.  The government complaint alleges that the father admits he was invited to see Jihadist training at the camp as well. 

One MILNET contact in the U.S. government finds the A.P. reportand the grandfather's denial laughable.  "...Like he is going to admit his grandson is a terrorist...get serious."  In any case, the FBI officially said through their spokesperson that they have a strong case and that when the case goes to trial it will be clear such denials are pure propoganda.


6/10/2005:  BRIEFING: FBI has released some details of the accusations for the Lodi Five. Targets were earlier thought  to include hospitals and supermarkets, "typical soft targets'" as well as other targets of opportunity.  However, the actual complaint that was field(one was released in D.C., but a second was actually filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento) does not mention specific targets other than infrastructure.  Sources tell us the investigation has been ongoing, with some sources indicating that the illegal activities have spanned several years and that the investigation is at least as old as the detection of the one father and son pairs attempts at removing large sums of cash from the U.S.  The actual complaint alleges that the son lied to agents about his attending a terrorist training camp, but also leaves open the possibility for further charges.  (See Sources article 25 below for the DOJ briefing on the case which many media outlets ignored completely)




The Documents:
  1. First Release of Affadavit used for arrest
  2. Second (Filed) Affadavit, filed and sealed on June 7, 2005
  3. Statement of U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott, Department of Justice, 6/8/2005
  4. Detention Order - Umer Hayat
  5. Detention Order - Hamid Hayat
  6. Indictment - Hamid Hayat and Umer Hayat (3 Counts), 6/16/2005
  7. DOJ News Release, 6/16/2005
  8. Notice of Possible Classification of Evidence
  9. Order Allowing James J. Wedick to View Evidence Previously Sealed Under Protective Order
  10. Motion to Exclude (U.S. Government, 7/06/2005)
  11. Statement of Facts Table of Contents
    1. Exhibit A - Discovery Letter, Griffen to Lapham
    2. Exhibit B - Discovery Request Lettter, Mojaddidi to Lapham
    3. Exhibit C - Discovery Request Letter, Griffen to Lapham (List of Agencies)
    4. Exhibit D - Discovery Request Letter, Griffen to Lapham (Additions to list)
  12. Defense Opposition to Motion To Exclude Provisions of Speedy Trial Act
  13. Government Reply to Defense Response
  14. Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (U.S. Government, 7/06/2005)
  15. Order denying Motion To Exclude, Magistrate Gerald Burrell, 7/15/2005
  16. Motion to Vacate Previous Order  Denying Motion to Exclude, 8/02/2005
  17. Security Officer Order, 8/04/2005
  18. Order Vacating Trial date and Granting 60 Day Exclusion of the Speedy Trial Act, 8/05/2005
  19. Motion for Reconsideration of Bail, 8/18/2005
  20. Memorandum - Response by Goverment in Opposition to Reconsideration of Bail, 8/19/2005
    1. Part 1
    2. Part 2
    3. Part 3
  21. Joint Reply to Government's Response in Opposition, 8/22/2005
  22. Government's Reply to Defense's Response, 8/23/2005
  23. Minutes of Judge Drozd's Bail Hearing, 8/23/2005
  24. Motion for reconsideration of Bond, 9/12/2005
  25. Notice of agreement for change in hearing date for Motion for Reconsideration of Bond, 9/14/2005
  26. New Indictment against Hamid Hayat - Material Support for Terrorists, U.S. DOJ, 9/22/2005
  27. Order Denying Bail for Hamid Hayat, releasing Umer Hayat, Judge Gregory G. Hollows, 9/26/2005
  28. Proposed Order Staying Release of Umer Hayat pending Government's Appeal to Release, DOJ, 9/26/2005
  29. Order: Stay Granted, Requiring Government to file appeal by 9/29/2005, Judge Gregory Hollows, 9/27/2005
  30. Order:  Amending Previous Order, Government must file brief for appeal by 10/07/2005, Judge Gregory Hollows, 9/28/2005
  31. Government's Appeal to Bail for Umer Hayat, 10/07/2005
  32. Defense's Opposition to Appeal of Bail Umer Hayat, 10/12/2005
  33. Government's Reply in Response to Defense's Opposition, 10/14/2005
  34. Order to Release Umer Hayat subject to conditions, 10/26/2005
  35. Order stricking condition 5 of the Conditions of Release, 10/31/2005
  36. Order Requiring the Government to Submit a Status Report on CIPA process, 11/03/2005
  37. Bond Requirements Review Document, 11/03/2005
  38. Order Requiring Removal of Personal ID information, 11/04/2005 (NOTE:  Documents that contain personal ID information are being redacted, and the most recent have been removed from MILNET until the redacted versions are present in the public system.  This is being done as a courtesy to the court and the defendants -- there is no obligation, despite the order, to do so once a document has been made public and freely obtained. It is up to the attorney to request documents be sealed.  Some of the documents in question have been available to the public in print and internet form for many months.  The order, it seems, applies to the clerks of the court).
  39. Second Superceding Indictment
  40. Government's Trial Memorandum
  41. Government's Proposed Statement of Case
  42. Jury Instructions
  43. Voir Dire statement/questions to be presented to Jurors
  44. Government Witness List
  45. Government's Proposed Verdict for Hamid Hayat
  46. Government's Proposed Verdict for Umer Hayat
  1. Verdict in Hamid Hayat's Trial, 4/25/2006
  2. Defendant's Plea Agreement, Umer Hayat, 5/31/2006
  3. Judgment Check-off Sheet, Umer Hayat, 8/25/2006
  4. Judgment and Committment Order, Umer Hayat, 9/06/2006
  5. Motion for New Trial - Hamid Hayat, 10/27/2006
  6. Case Summary (Docket)
  7. The U.S. Federal Court System, MILNET, July 4, 2005

Sources:
  1. Lodi Shaken by Terrorist Arrests, Fox News Online, Associated Press, 6/09/2005
  2. American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, Steve Emerson, Amazon.com: Books:
  3. Source JN who wishes to remain anonymous, 6/11/2005
  4. The U.S. Patriot Act, October 2001 (MILNET Mirror)
  5. Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (SR 735) as enacted (MILNET Mirror)
  6. Wahhabism, MILNET Brief, Updated 12/23/2003
  7. Conn. Town Struggles with Illegal Immigrants, Fox News, 4/28/2005
  8. Hispanic Gangs, MILNET Brief, 3/17/2005
  9. Report: FBI Missed 5 Chances to Get Vital Intel About 9/11 Terrorists, Fox News, A.P., 6/11/2005
  10. Fifth Man Arrested in California Terror Probe, Fox News, 6/9/2005
  11. FBI: California Arrests Part of Longtime Probe, Fox News, A.P., 6/10/2005
  12. Cleric Denies Jihadist Training for California Men, Fox News, A.P., 6./15/2005
  13. FBI's Criminal Complaint, The U.S. Department of Justice, 6/10/2005
  14. Analysis of Affadavit, MILNET Brief, 6/16/2005
  15. The Jawa Report, June 8, 2005
  16. Two Lodi Men Indicted in Terror Probe, Sacramento Bee, 6/16/2005
  17. Lodi Investigation Widens; Fifth Man Arrested, Sacramento Bee, 6/8/2005
  18. Pakistan denies that terrorist camps exist after Lodi arrests, The Oakland Tribune, 6/12/2005
  19. Lodi Imam Described asd Lovable Man, Tri-Valley Herald, 6/10/2005
  20. Pakistan:  Terror Camps Scatter, Persist, Jihad Watch, 6/20/2005
  21. CAIR's Legal Tribulations, Daniel Pipes, 6/27/2003
Special Report:  The Other Side of the Picture - L.A. Times staff writer Lee Romney helps us peer into the Lodi Muslim community to offset the new image created by the arrests in Lodi.  Please read:
  1. Terrorist Probe Shakes Lodi and its Pakistani Community, LA Times, 6/11/2005
  2. U.S. Tarnished Pakistan Imams in Arrest, Rueters, 6/11/2005
  3. Agents Arrest Four Men In Lodi Thought to Be Linked to Al Qaeda, Tracy Press, 6/08/2005
  4. Statement of U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott, Department of Justice, 6/8/2005
  5. Imam Admits Criticizing the U.S. (note the Placerville hardcopy front page masthead headline is "Imam Admits Blasting U.S."), Dorthoy Korer, Denny Walsh and Stepen Magagnin, Sacramento Bee, 6/25/2005
  6. FBI Claims in Lodi Case Doubted, The Herald of Monterey, 6/12/2005
  7. Muslim murderers among us : FBI raids Lodi, Militant Islam Monitor, 6/10/2005
  8. Petitions Divide Lodi Muslim Community, Ross Farrow, Tracy Press, 6/21/2005
  9. Five Men Remain in Custody While FBI Continues Inquiry into Terror Links, Lodi News-Sentinel, 6/9/2005
  10. Terrorism Inquiry Expected to Spread, San Francisco Chronicle, 6/9/2005
  11. Terrorist Trials Serve U.S. Strategy, Brian Michael Jenkins, Los Angeles Times, 1/7/2001
  12. The Classified Information Protection Act, U.S. Law (as found in the library of the Federation of American Scientists
  13. Lodi Terror Probe Grows, Stephen Magagnini and Dorothy Korber, Sacramento Bee, 7/08/2005
  14. Pakistani Export of Militant Islamic Jihadists, MILNET Brief, 7/21/2005
  15. Terrorism 101:  A Tutorial on International Terrorism Today, MILNET Brief, July 18, 2005
  16. How the Visa System Failed to Flag Imam, Rone Tempest, L.A. Times, 7/03/2005
  17. Imam Agrees to be Deported, Sacramento Bee, 7/16/2005
  18. FBI: California Muslim Cleric Plotted Attacks, David Kravets, A.P., SFGate.com, 8/08/2005
  19. FBI Says Local Imam Plotted Terror Attacks, ABC 30 News Online, 8/10/2005
  20. F.B.I. Terror Clues In California, New York Times, John M. Broder, 8/18/2005
  21. U.S. vs. Ujamma (supporting terrorism), Findlaw Legal Briefs, undated
  22. U.S. Vs. Moussoui, Indictment, The United States Department of Justice,  October 08, 2002
  23. The United States V. Moussoui, Criminal Case Record, U.S. District Court, Virginia's Eastern District Notable Cases
  24. Terror Probe Targets Prison in Folsom, Greg Krikorian and Jenifer Warren, LA Times, 8/17/2005
  25. New Indictment Comes in Calif. Terror Case, Don Thompson, The Associated Press, 9/23/2005
  26. Video Key in Second Hayat Trial, Denny Walsh, Sacramento Bee, 3/8/2005, pgs A1 & A15.
  27. Jury Hears of Terror Plot, Denny Walsh, Sacramento Bee, 3/9/2005, pgs B1 & B3.
  28. Hayat Agrees to Plea Deal, Sacramento Bee, 6/01/2006
  29. Deal and Guilty Plea in Terrorism, Jesse McKinley, New York Times, 6/01/2006
  30. Jury Finds Hamid Hayat Guilty in Terror Case, CBS Channel 13, 4/25/2006
  31. The Agent Who Might Have Saved Hamid Hayat , Mark Arax, LA Times online, 5/28/2006


Note:  The  following terms to define sections in this report:

Term
 Meaning
ANALYSIS
 An analysis of the facts present, the "expert" or "educated" opinion of the authors, attempting to ignore any personal bias.  All analysts bring a certain amount of bias to their work, however, in sections marked ANALYSIS, the authors proofread to eliminate what could easily be bias rather than logical conclusions of the facts involved.
BRIEFING
 Substantial factual content, authors do their best to ensure removal of bias, speculation or unconfirmed facts. Typically MILNET requires more than one source and usually three.  This also includes original sources -- i.e. four newspaper deriving their stories from the same A.P. story is considered a single source.
OPINION
 An opinionated response which analyzes the information based upon life experience and may incorporate the author's pesronal bias on political issues.  OPINION will allow personal bias to color judgements and conclusions where logical conclusions may not be clearly drawn or possible to discern.
SPECULATION
 MILNET's authors may, from time-to-time, speculate as to the underlying causes, hidden facts, or rationale behind a particular issue or news story.  While speculation is usually wrong and may be dangerous, it helps the reader understand the origin of fears or concerns of people involved in and around a particular issue or event.  This speculation may also make it possible to point to answers to solving the human problems associated with certain problems -- for instance, speculating on why someone reacts violently to a suggestion might indicate how communication can be used to prevent that occurance again, or perhaps prevent it from occuring at all by taking care of the problem up front.



© Copyright 2005, 2006, Michael G. Crawford for MILNET