Mahjoub special hearing – on the ‘Solicitor-Client Privilege Motion’

Friday, December 17, 2010

Mahjoub special hearing – on the ‘Solicitor-Client Privilege Motion’, that was the result of a CSIS witness telling the court that CSIS has been listening to phone conversations between Mohamed Mahjoub and his lawyers since 2001.

Elizabeth Block and Brydon Gombay attended the hearing and below are their reports:

Elizabeth Block wrote:

I was in court today. Brydon Gombay came too, and probably understood more than I did, which wouldn't be hard.

The required documents arrived at the government lawyer's on Tuesday night, and Mahjoub's lawyer didn't get them until last night or this morning. She hasn't read them, let alone analyzed them.

The judge had some questions: What does this motion seek (by any of production of documents) that wasn't covered in his judgement re: Jaballah? Some of this material may have to be dealt with in camera, with the special advocates.

Judge Blanchard had ordered Mr.Tyndale – Ministers’ Counsel - to produce materials - logs of solicitor-client calls. (I understand that CSIS and CBSA were ordered by the court quite a while ago NOT to eavesdrop on solicitor-client phone calls, but they have gone on doing it anyway.) This material has to be kept away from the trial judge, so he is not contaminated by it (whatever that means).

Brydon Gombay wrote:

I have little to add, except to say that everyone recessed for over an hour during the morning, and returned appearing good humoured, as though they had settled things in camera to everyone's (relative) satisfaction. It is interesting to observe how legal minds are expected to compartmentalise their knowledge in this way - but I was left with the impression that anything which may have been important took place outside the courtroom. My understanding was that Mr. Kapur, one of the special advocates, spoke of a document or documents which he had just glimpsed briefly after they came in to his Ottawa office, and which they would not all be able to discuss until next Tuesday - but I might well have got that wrong. It doesn't make much difference, anyway; the fact remains that he had knowledge he was not free to discuss until next week, but which he felt would cast new light on the issue under discussion. He remarked that he was not free to speak openly about any of this.

The Ministers’ Counsel (Mr. Pearce) agreed to produce the remaining CBSA intercepts as soon as possible. The special advocates will review all this and discuss with Judge Blanchard whether there is further need for another appointment with today's sitting judge – Judge Alto. He will make himself available for January 13 in case he is needed again. Madame Duhamel, Public Counsel, (Mr. Mahjoub’s lawyer) emphasised the fact that they want access to all the intercepts, from 2007 until now. Witnesses will be called on January 11 and 12, when the special advocates should also be present. Almost more time was spent by all parties cloistered outside the courtroom rather than in it.

This matter will be continued on Thursday, January 13th, if possible, i.e. if the required documents have been produced before then.

Mahjoub Hearing – Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Hi all:

I attended today’s hearing starting at about noon. Jean Smith also came in the afternoon.

The hearing continued from yesterday with the testimony of U.S. lawyer Joshua Dratel, expert in ‘U.S. national security and terrorism’. From questions by Public Counsel Yavar Hameed, he continued to speak about the ‘U.S. Embassy Bombings’ in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 by Al Qaeda operatives and the trial that ensued in which he defended one of the accused. A lot of Mr. Dratel’s testimony told about one star witness in particular, a former Al Qaeda operative and businessman in Sudan who fled his bank debts and Al Qaeda and ‘sold himself’ to the U.S. government, agreeing to cooperate in return for $ million, and witness protection for his extended family of 12 in the U.S and a variety of other perks. Mr. Dratel pointed out that this witness’s first testimony to U.S. marshalls was videotaped without the knowledge of the prosecutors and when this video evidence was revealed it was noticed that his story had changed many times – with him creating a more important picture of himself when testifying in court. In short he was ‘selling himself’ to his captors but this to Mr. Dratel made him a completely unreliable witness. Mr. Dratel has asked and is still waiting for a retrial for his client who was convicted based largely on the testimony of this witness.

There are many other details of this person and others as well that I won’t go into here. A general conclusion that one can draw is that the reliabiltity of any witnesses used by the U.S. to put people behind bars is called into question when the witnesses they used were trying to save their own skins and were busy ‘selling themselves’.

A more specific set of conclusions was given in Mr. Dratel’s affidavit part of which he read out in court, to the effect that there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Mahjoub ever had any connections to any terrorist acts or training while he was working at Damasine (sp) Farm in Sudan in the mid - 90’s. In fact the clincher for me was Mr. Dratel’s statement that, “he had never heard of Mr. Mahjoub prior to preparing for this hearing.” He also pointed out that his knowledge of events of the Embassy bombings is always at the forefront of his mind because he is often interviewed by media about the Embassy bombings – and he has never seen or heard Mr. Mahjoub’s name. It was stated during this hearing that there were 277 co-accused connected to the Embassy bombings and Mr. Mahjoub’s name is not one of them.

The Ministers’ Counsel tried to cast doubt on Mr. Dratel’s testimony because so far he has been unsuccessful in obtaining the retrial of his client even though it is known that the main witness was unreliable, but I think Mr. Dratel acquitted himself well.

There may be some gaps in this report but I hope it gives you some sense of today’s testimony.

The ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate’ hearings were recessed at the end of this afternoon and will not resume until Monday, January 10, 2011.

However, a ‘Solicitor-Client Privilege Motion’ will be heard this Friday, December 17 starting at 9:30 am, due to the revelation by a CSIS witness at these hearings that CSIS has been listening to phone conversations between Mr. Mahjoub and his lawyers, since the year 2000. This hearing will be presided over by a Judge Alto.

I am unable to attend due to my son having his second surgery in a week at Hamilton General Hospital on Friday. If anyone can attend and email me a report I will post it on this blog.

Thanks for your support and see you in court in January.

Mahjoub Hearing – Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Hi all:

I attended much of the hearing today. It consisted of the examination by Public Counsel Yavar Hameed and cross-examination by Ministers’ Counsel (a woman whose name I didn’t get), of a Mr. Joshua Dratel who heads a New York City law firm. He was called to be a witness by Public Counsel because of his expertise on ‘U.S. National Security and Terrorism’. See http://tinyurl.com/25puxch

Mr. Dratel is one of the editors of The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib http://tinyurl.com/273xep8

He has been a defence lawyer for about ten years (30 years altogether) for at least one of the accused in the ‘Embassy bombing trial’, related to the U.S. embassies that were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, allegedly by the Al Qaeda organization. Mr. Dratel has also defended some Guantanamo detainees and has won awards for his work.

Most of the day’s arguments that I heard consisted of the Ministers’ Counsel’s attempts to discredit Mr. Dratel’s expertise, saying that being a defence lawyer does not make one an expert on terrorism or an expert on a Canadian case such as the one being heard. Public Counsel made the case that Mr. Dratel is indeed a renowned and experienced defence lawyer and an expert on international law whose testimony will bear on the present case.

Over the lunch recess from 1:45 until 2:30 pm, Justice Blanchard made his decision and just after 2:30 pm, Justice Blanchard announced that indeed Mr. Dratel was an expert witness that should be heard in his court. Public Counsel proceeded to examine Mr. Dratel and we heard quite a bit about the history of Al Qaeda; how and why it formed and about its activities and those of bin Laden and others in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Soviet occupation; the bin Laden activities in Sudan and other parts of Africa – some of which involved legitimate businesses and agricultural operations, as the court heard previously from Professor Wark. Several of the co-conspirators in the Embassy bombings were named as well.

The testimony of Mr. Dratel continues tomorrow – Wednesday, December 15 and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the history that has affected all of us since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Court sitting is to resume on Wednesday morning, 9:30 am, December 15, 2010 at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W. (near Osgoode station), 6^th floor, room D.

Please consider attending even if it is for one or two hours.

Mahjoub Hearing – Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Hi all:

I attended just this afternoon’s portion of today’s hearing. Mohamed told me that the main item arising from the morning was a revelation by the witness, a Mr. Flanagan, a CSIS manager, that CSIS had monitored telephone conversations between himself and his lawyers on a regular basis. Mohamed said that Judge Blanchard expressed some displeasure at this evidence. During a brief exchange that I heard in the afternoon a Public Counsel (Mohamed’s) lawyer described the morning testimony as amounting to ‘abuse of process’. The Minister’s Counsel, in his reply said this was an overstatement and that there was no evidence presented as to whether CSIS had ever used information that it had gleaned through this lawyer-client evesdropping. I couldn’t hear whether there will be any follow-up to this testimony.

Much of the 70 minutes of the afternoon hearing was spent on scheduling issues around having expert witness Dr. Fawaz A. Gerges, (Professor of Middle Eastern Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is an expert on Middle Eastern affairs), attend hearings – probably in January. An issue was how long he needed to come from England. The Public Counsel were ordered to have a firm schedule of witnesses by this Friday afternoon. Two potential witnesses mentioned were Mahmoud Jaballah and Mohamed Mahjoub.

The last issue had to do with a complaint by CBSA that Mohamed has breached one of his conditions by receiving up to 9 packages of documents couriered from his lawyers to him sometimes from Montreal since September. Under Court order ?, paragraph 9, CBSA has the right to examine any packages delivered to Mohamed but not ones coming from his lawyers. CBSA has demanded to see any packages delivered and Mohamed has refused, citing lawyer-client privilege. CBSA is proposing to send agents to Mohamed’s apartment every time he receives a package but Judge Blanchard said that if they do they are only to look upon the outside of the package to determine if it is from the lawyers and are not supposed to ever open said packages. He ordered both sides to resolve the issue within one week.

Judge Blanchard also announced that the Harkat decision will be delivered tomorrow – Thursday, December 9, 2010.

Court was adjourned with sitting to resume on Tuesday morning, 9:30 am, December 14, 2010 at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W. (near Osgoode station), 6^th floor, room D.

Four friends of Mohamed were in attendance today. Please try to attend even if for a brief time.

Thanks to all

Mahjoub Hearings - Week of November 29 to December 1, 2010

Hi all:

I have little to report about the Mahjoub hearings this week because I did not get to court. I have been occupied with the serious illness of one of my adult sons – having to do with some deterioration of two vertebrae in his neck. There has been no resolution of his illness so far but perhaps there will be some information this week as his family doctor is trying to have him admitted to Hamilton General Hospital likely for a surgery biopsy.

Mohamed did speak to me and I was also speaking to Barney who came to court on Wednesday, and from what I can remember, the early part of the week was spent examing a CSIS agent that Mohamed knows, regarding CSIS policies and procedures dated from 1997 to 2010. Not too much happened on Wednesday but one of Mohamed’s court appointed supervisors, El Sayed, was examined by Public Counsel, I assume about his relationship to Mohamed. The Ministers’ Counsel did not choose to cross examine the witness.

Court was adjourned Thursday and Friday but will resume on Monday, December 6, I assume at 9:30 am.

I do know of several people who attended court this week and thank them for their persistent attendance. I know that it encourages Mohamed to have people attending even if just for a short time and it lets the court know that the public is interested in this human rights case. It was interesting to note that one of the Wikileaks, quoted former CSIS head Jim Judd as saying that (my paraphrasing) Canadian courts were too soft and allowed human rights considerations to interfere with CSIS’ attempts to deport people – without a hearing.

During the first two days of next week – December 6 to Dec. 9 or 10, Ministers’ Counsel is calling their own witness – I don’t know who. Then in the latter part of the week, an expert witness will testify - Dr. Fawaz A. Gerges, Professor of Middle Eastern Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is an expert on Middle Eastern affairs and is often called as a commentator on CNN Europe and possibly BBC. He is a very good speaker.

Hearings are located at 180 Queen St. W. (near the Osgoode station on University), 6^th floor, room D.

See you in court

Mahjoub Hearing - Thursday, November 25, 2010

Hi all:

Below is a report on two days of hearings, Tuesday Nov. 23 and Wednesday Nov. 24 from the perspective of Brydon Gombay who has been attending the hearings regularly this week.

The hearing today continued in much the same vein with Public Counsel Yavar Hameed completing the examination of Professor Wark and Ministers’ Counsel David Tyndale beginning the cross-examination. The cross-examination seemed like a game of wits with Ministers’ Counsel trying to trap Prof. Wark in the wording he had used and Prof. Wark extricating himself from these traps. The cross-examination will be completed one day next week.

The hearings recommence on Monday, November 29 at 9 am with an expert witness Lisa Given, a librarian who will testify on the ‘credibility of source documents’. It is alleged that the Ministers have not followed accepted procedures with respect to these.

Later in the week another expert witness will testify - Dr. Fawaz A. Gerges, Professor of Middle Eastern Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Some of you with ‘yahoo.com, yahoo.ca and rogers.ca domains may not have received some messages recently, apparently due to my bulk mailing. I will try smaller batches and no more messages until Monday or after.

Brydon wrote:

“The word I was forgetting was "insubstantial," which, accompanied by his frequent use of the word, "substance," may well have been deliberate on the part of Wesley Wark. He certainly made it clear that he felt much of the evidence of Mahjoub's association with people named in government documents was insubstantial, and he wished to see something more substantial. He was frank in admitting he did not speak Arabic, had not been to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, and so on - but these facts fell rather flat, I thought, since I imagine all the lawyers knew that already. Otherwise his expertise was clear, and I noticed the judge paying careful attention and taking notes about what he said. But perhaps all this was from the day before - yes, that was about his choosing to focus on public education about such matters more than on academic articles to advance his career. He made it clear that he realised academic articles reach a much smaller audience than does an op ed.

Yes, next day there was discussion of evidence available to Egyptian authorities which could well have been based on torture, At one point a lawyer was trying to pin him down on comparison "by analogy," and he was careful to say that could be plausible, but was not based on evidence. At one point he suggested it would not be possible for Mahjoub to be in Pakistan and Sudan at the same time, and that CSIS might have had conflicting intelligence about where he was. He spoke more than once about CSIS cherry-picking to make a case, putting in one part of an intercept but leaving out the parts which didn't suit them (or so I understood from the legalese he seems to use as well as do the lawyers). He was firm about saying that Jaballah should not be considered a significant "contact" of Mahjoub's, since Jaballah clearly distrusts M, and is angry at and biased against him (this seemed not to accord with an association that CSIS had attempted to make in documents which of course I have not seen, so it's supposition on my part about the import of this evidence). CSIS had not conveyed the entirety of the intercept. The US and Canada rely on Egyptian sources for information about who these people are and what they do, and extraordinary rendition is part of all this. Canadian knowledge could thus have been "polluted" by such evidence. The CIA is implicated here, with its aim to "get them off the streets," though now the Obama administration has disavowed the practice of extraordinary rendition. Still Canada is reliant on foreign intelligence based on torture, which affects the possible veracity of the intelligence [he didn't speak of the morality of torture, but that was surely implied].

There was some discussion of how the tool used by intelligence gatherers, the "threat matrix," was based in trying to make linkages and seek out what could be diagrammed associations between and amongst different actors - complex links to map group memberships, a practice started by police trying to trace memberships in criminal gangs. Here what CSIS had done was "insubstantial." The intelligence community needs to add "substance" to its list of "contacts." He then went through a list of three significant such contacts, saying that the "substance" of Mahjoub's contact was not provided, or that CSIS fails to "substantiate" the association. In one case (Al Duri?) Mahjoub remained in contact after both had left Sudan, with regard to investments Al Duri made for Mahjoub. Certain contacts - like Kahdr, were indeed a national security concern, but the question of guilt by association was raised. Once again, WW said CSIS was unable to provide "substance."

I could not swear to the accuracy of all of this in a court of law, but what I've written here is based on the notes I took, and I tried to pay close attention, though of course there was a lot about "returnees from Albania" and "vanguards of conquest" which I failed to understand, so have not mentioned here. Jean Smith and John Valleau were there too, and might be able to tell you more.”

Mahjoub Hearing - Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Hi all:

I didn’t go to court today but did receive a brief report from Esther Kern who was there. I also spoke with Mohamed on the phone this evening. He seems to be catching a cold but is treating it as he knows how.

Esther’s report follows and I really appreciate it and ask anyone else who is at court when I’m not, to send me a brief comment like this that I can share:

“Just to let you know, I did spend some time in court this afternoon and found it to be most interesting! (Professor) Dr. Wark was testifying about the “extraordinary rendition practices” of the US and how Canada is involved. He also talked a lot about the Egyptian government and their role in torture and imprisonment. There was some information about the (Returnees from) Albania trials, and I have no idea what that is about. There were eight observers there at the time. (three of them were Mohamed’s supporters according to Mohamed; the rest were court staff or security people plus of course Mohamed and his interpreter).

Mohamed also told me that Professor Wark’s testimony was excellent and even more detailed than that which he gave at the ‘Torture Motion’ hearings last spring. Yesterday, Mr. Tyndale, the Ministers’ Counsel, tried to destroy Professor Wark’s reputation as an ‘expert witness’, so Mohamed said it was heartening to hear Judge Blanchard introduce Professor Wark as an ‘expert witness’.

Mohamed told me that Professor Wark’s testimony will continue tomorrow morning (Thursday) under the examination of People’s Counsel Yamar Hameed, beginning (please note) at 9 am with court adjournment at 3 pm.

After tomorrow (Thursday), hearings will resume on Monday, November 29. Mr. Tyndale is scheduled to cross-examine Professor Wark beginning on Tuesday, November 30. I’m not sure what is scheduled for Monday.

Note: Court does not sit on Friday.

Thanks to all who have attended this week!

Federal Court is at 180 Queen St. W. (near Osgoode station), 6^th floor, room D.

Mahjoub Hearing - Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Hi all:

I just arrived home from today's court hearing which was mostly a debate between Public Counsel Yavar Hameed and Ministers’ Counsel Mr. Tyndale over whether the qualifications of Professer Wesley Wark, a Canadian expert and media commentator on intelligence and terrorism issues, make him an expert witness to testify regarding the Reasonableness of the Security Certificate on Mohamed Mahjoub.

I think tomorrow (Wednesday) will be more interesting because I believe Prof. Wark will get to testify about the Mahjoub case.

Thursday is supposed to be the day that a CSIS agent is examined regarding their policies and whether they have always adhered to their policies when dealing with Security Certificate cases. That will be the last day of hearings this week unless some time is required on Friday – but that would be exceptional.

Court begins at 9:30 am and usually goes until about 4 pm. You can attend at anytime and today's lunch break was from just before 1 pm 'till 2 pm but is up to the judge to decide.

Seven different people attended today, including one from out of town, David Milne of Belleville. Yusuf Mahjoub also attended for part of the afternoon with his mother Mona.

It is really good to have people interested in the case coming and going.

Also, there doesn’t seem to be a problem with people speaking briefly with Mohamed on breaks. He told me that.

So remember, the hearing is at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W. Toronto (near Osgoode station), 6^th floor, Room D.

Mahjoub Hearing - Monday, November 22, 2010

Hi all:

Six of us attended today’s hearing at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor. Barney and Gail Lorimer even came from out of town. Unfortunately the day wasn’t very productive. Court went from 9:30 am to approximately 10:30 am when it was adjourned until 1:30 pm but didn’t recommence until 2 pm. Then it proceeded until about 3:15pm.

The events that transpired and the reasons for adjournment were as follows: the first item of business was a request from the Ministers’ lawyers – ‘ML’ - to have the ‘Public Counsel’ – ‘PC’ - (as Mohamed’s lawyers are known) sign an undertaking that purports to protect ‘the Service’s’ (name for CSIS) sources – to keep them confidential. This undertaking had been signed by M.’s previous lawyers but not by his new team.

The essence of the undertaking is three questions that they are instructed to never ask a witness: 1.whether the witness has ever been a source for ‘the service’;

2. whether the witness has ever been approached by ‘the service’; and

3. whether the witness ever had a conversation with ‘the service’; and any question about the nature of a conversation with ‘the service’.

Judge Blanchard ordered ‘Public Counsel’ to sign the undertaking.

However later, prior to court commencement in the afternoon, one of M.’s lawyers told us about an article appearing in today’s SUN newspaper entitled: ‘CSIS accused of spying on GTA mosques’, by Tom Godfrey – http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/11/21/16249006.html

which produced speculation that there could be a connection between this news revelation and the urgency to have the ‘Public Counsel’ sign the undertaking.

The matter which required the early adjournment was the ML having presented to PC just this morning, copies of a new version of a summary related to M. which was different in some respects to an earlier summary in PC’s possession. PC had asked for this new summary last week(?) sometime. Comparison of the two summaries by PC is essential prior to examining an upcoming CSIS witness, so they asked for and were given the adjournment in order to study the new document. The ML lawyer said that he had sent the new summary to the ‘special advocate’ lawyers who were in the courtroom and one of them vehemently denied that they had received the new summary. Judge Blanchard reprimanded the ML for not producing this summary in a timely manner and ordered the adjournment until 1:30 pm. So that PC could study the new summary.

A third matter was the request by ‘Public Counsel’ last week or earlier(?) to be given the Redacted (some sections blacked out due to ‘national security) CSIS Policy documents from 1997 to 2010 – related to all of those individuals under Security Certificate warrants. Judge Blanchard had given a court order for these documents to be delivered to the court and the lawyers. PC wanted to have these documents for prior study and to be available for the examination (cross-examination?) of a CSIS agent who was present all day outside the courtroom. Public Counsel wanted to see these documents so they could determine how CSIS policies have changed over the years and if ‘the service’ agents have actually adhered to their own policies as part of their actions toward the Security Certificate individuals.

At the commencement of the hearing at 2 pm, the ML still could not produce the Redacted Policy Documents and all the ML lawyer was able to say was that it takes time for redacted documents to be produced and could they not go ahead with the court schedule of examining the witness, to which the Judge Blanchard pointed out how ridiculous it would be to do that without PC being able to see the Policy Documents first. Judge Blanchard’s response to the excuses given for the failure of ML to obey a court order and produce these documents was to dismiss the excuses and say in a firm voice, “Why isn’t the document(s) delivered?” Mr. Blanchard said he was disappointed in both sides for failing to communicate with each other better.

The ML promised the documents by some time later in the week.

PC said they would be ready to examine the CSIS witness according to court schedule. Judge Blanchard asked if the next witness, *Wesley Wark could be ready for tomorrow (Tuesday) and Wednesday and that was what was planned with the CSIS witness (who didn’t know his schedule immediately) being put off until Thursday.

Judge Blanchard then warned both sides that he was not there to ‘babysit’ the lawyer teams and that they were wasting the court’s time; it was not his responsibility to be sure that documents and witnesses were present according to court schedule.He ordered both sides to spend the rest of the afternoon meeting with each other to plan future hearings. He reiterated the schedule of court sitting – Monday to Thursday of each week for awhile.

Court was adjourned at about 3:15 pm

*Professer Wesley Wark – Faculty of Social Sciences; Graduate School of Public and International Affairs

Professor Wark is one of Canada’s leading experts on intelligence and national security issues. He is a Past-President of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies (1998-2000 and 2004-2006). He serves on the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council on National Security and the Advisory Committee to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Mahjoub Hearing - Thursday, November 18, 2010

Hi all:

I attended Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor, with Mohamed and his translator today. The hearing was about an attempt by the Ministers lawyers to quash the subpoenas by M.’s lawyers to call former Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Immigration Minister Diane Finley, (who must have signed security certificates) plus an assortment of deputy ministers and at least one former CSIS lawyer. The hearing actually took place in Ottawa and was televised from there as was our 3 images sent to Ottawa so the participants there could see us.

The Minister’s lawyers used every argument they could think of to prevent any of these potential witnesses from being called - calling the subpoena request an abuse of process. They said that the requests were not specific enough, that parliamentary privilege and lawyer-client privilege would prevent these witnesses from speaking. Judge Blanchard showed some frustration with the request for quashing of the defence request by saying that some previous CSIS witnesses at the last set of hearings this fall were not forthcoming with any information so wouldn’t it be good to have some witnesses that could shed some light on the security certificates. This all took two hours before the lunch break.

After lunch, I just stayed for one hour but M.’s defence – Y. Hameed, stated again why he wanted these witnesses called – they have first hand knowledge of the reasons they signed the security certificates. Judge Blanchard also challenged the defence on the redundancy of calling witnesses if there was already written testimony available. I’m sure I didn’t understand everything that was said and I did not have any sense for how the decision will go – at the time I left. I felt like Judge Blanchard was challenging the arguments of both sides about equally.

Please remember that the Mahjoub’s review of the ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate’ begins at 180 Queen St. on Monday, November 22, 2010 at 9:30 am. I hope we can have a good turnout at the beginning of these sessions.

I spoke this afternoon to Mary Foster who is on tour with Abousfian Abdelrazik in Saskatchewan and she suggested an idea that we try to either focus on having a good turnout one day of the week or have people pledge to attend on certain days. What do you think?

In order for Mohamed to be freed It is important for us to show an interest by attending the hearings even for one or two hours at a time.

See you in court