Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:25, 22 June 2025

Revision as of 14:30, 22 June 2025

Line 95:

== The civil case ==

Following the closure of the HLF offices, Shukri Baker and Ghassan Elashi lodged a civil case to unfreeze HLF assists and reverse the designation of the HLF as a Terrorist Organisation. The case was held before Judge [[Gladys Kessler]], a [[Bill Clinton]] appointment. The Executive Order was based on an "administrative record" explaining the reasons behind the decision to designate the HLF as a terrorist organisation. The report claimed that the HLF was a front for Hamas.

The report contained a number of documents including one that claimed Shukri Baker was a member of Hamas. None of the statements quoted were taken under oath. The key claim was a list of 70–80 orphans who had received support from the HLF and that they were children of Hamas fighters. Baker and Elashi's lawyers analysed the list and found that only three of the fathers were involved in armed resistance. They had been killed preparing a bomb. They also noted that the list contained children of 11 men killed by Hamas for collaborating with the Israeli secret services. Another document contained a statement from a former manager of the HLF Jerusalem office which the lawyers were able to prove was a fabrication.<ref>Peled. pp. 102, 103</ref>

Before the case could proceed and be presented to a jury Judge Kessler dismissed the case and ordered that all evidence submitted be struck from the record. This decision was appealed. The [[Circuit court#Federal courts of appeals|Circuit Court of Appeals]] found that Judge Kessler had been mistaken in dismissing the case but that since this was a special case involving national security they would let the decision stand. The appellants were denied permission to appeal to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]].<ref>Peled. pp. 105, 106</ref>

In 2003 the HLF's lawyers learnt that there was a criminal investigation underway. Their lawyer, John Boyd, later said they regretted filing the civil case since it led the Government to abandon the original charges which had been so effectively refuted and create a completely new case.<ref>Peled. pp. 102, 107</ref>