- 02 Jul 2003 03:09
#16556
Just look at this... American audacity has surpassed all levels!!!
This person was arrested and sued in the US because he had dared trade with Cuba while he was in Canada. Notice that he is a Canadian citizen!
Businessman James Sabzali still subject to stiff sentence for trading with Cuba
• U.S. government officials recently decided that the extremely grave crime of selling chemicals to purify water in Cuban hospitals is a “matter of national security”• Thus, this Canadian citizen faces a increased sentence of up to 62 months and a fine that could rise to $5 million USD • An anthem to respect for human rights.
BY GABRIEL MOLINA
ALMOST three years after being accused of trading with the enemy, Canadian James Sabzali still cannot understand why selling chemicals to purify drinking water in Cuban hospitals warrants him being kept under house arrest in Philadelphia for more than 12 months.
He is currently awaiting a new trial to know the magnitude of his sentence or if he will be exonerated of the charges for which he is accused.
Despite being a Canadian citizen, 44-year old Sabzali could be sentenced to from four to 200 years’ imprisonment and fined up to $250,000 USD on each charge. Federal prosecutor Joseph Poluka has asked for a sentence of 41-51 months as a minimum and conservative calculation. But government officials recently determined that water purification is a matter of national security and therefore the prison term could rise to 62 months and the fine up to $5 million USD.
Also found guilty with Sabzali were brothers Stefan and Donald Brodie (54 and 58 years old respectively), both U.S citizens and president and vice president of the firm. The case received little coverage in the mainstream U.S. media despite the fact that Sabzali, as a Canadian citizen, is obliged to ignore the embargo as part of his country’s legislation against extraterritorial measures (Canadian Extraterritorial Act), as trading with Cuba is legal in Canada. In fact, Canadian companies are obliged to inform Ottawa if they receive orders from the United States not to export to the island for political or legal reasons.
James Sabzali, born in Trinidad and formerly resident in Hamilton, worked in this city from 1991-1996 as a sales representative and marketing director for Purolite International Inc., an Ottawa-based firm and a branch of the U.S. Bro-Tech Corporation company. He traveled to Havana in this capacity on more than 20 occasions up until 1996. He was then transferred to Philadelphia as head of the firm in 1996 and moved to the city with his wife and two children. There he was indicted for alleged crimes committed in Canada and during the three-week trial was found guilty on eight out of 20 charges. These included sales of resins based on ion interaction effected between 1992 and 2000 to a value of approximately $2 million USD, reported Joseph A. Slobodzian, a journalist with the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The 12 remaining charges relate to shipments from Bro Tech’s offices in Canada, Mexico, Italy, Spain and Britain. These countries do not recognize the anti-Cuban legislation promulgated by the United States over the last 40 years and that Washington has been trying to impose on third nations. The products that Sabzali sold never once came from the United States but from Britain and Canada.
According to the BBC, Sabzali has become the first Canadian to be tried and sentenced to house arrest for violating the U.S. law of trading with the enemy, that dates back to 1917, and which has been updated, increased and discredited by Washington in order to utilize it against the island. The harsh sentence came as a surprise, given that in the past the courts had preferred to impose fines of several thousand dollars, except in the case of one Spaniard, who was given a prison term at the end of his Miami trial, of which he only served a few months.
Sabzali’s new trial was ordered by a federal judge in Philadelphia on June 16, after she had expressed concern over the strong language used by the prosecution in its closing arguments, according to a report by Steve Eckardt.
“It is never proper to throw around such inflammatory language in a criminal trial,” stated McLaughlin, adding that the prosecution’s repeated charges that the defense was lying served to “stir up the jury”. Defense lawyer Gregory Craig – widely known as President Clinton’s legal representative during the Lewinski case – said that the prosecutors’ outburst was inadmissible practice that completely undermined the trial.
Sabzali’s lawyers also put forward the argument that when the embargo was initiated in 1962, President Kennedy had not declared any state of emergency for that country. The prosecution contested that the 1996 Helms-Burton Act in effect negated this obligation.
But no one has questioned the laws that apply to “trading with the enemy,” with respect to the absence of a declaration of war against this “enemy”; a condition that, according to law, must be approved by Congress.
The incorrect conduct of the DA’s office would require dropping the conspiracy charge as well as the other 20. But the judge rejected a motion for acquittal and maintained the 76 charges against Sabzali for violating the embargo and conspiracy that emerged from the five-year investigation prior to the trial, which concluded in October 2000, reported Eckardt.
“Good news, but not great news,” said Sabzali, in an interview. “It’s a break in the case. When you have to start fabricating evidence and lying to secure a conviction, it shows something is wrong.”
Sabzali is very upset that the judge has decided not to acquit him. In an e-mail to his supporters, he stated that the judicial dictates show there is a shady deal in the making.
In an interview, federal prosecutor Joseph Poluka stated that his office was reviewing the ruling and referred to it as “appealable”.
“We’re considering every option,” he declared. “The two key possibilities are an appeal or a retrial.”
Last year, the Canadian government’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs and International Trade objected to Sabzali’s trial, terming it unacceptable that should be charged with something that is not a crime in his country. But to date, it has waited for the outcome without taking any action.
The trial generated protests in Canada, as many deem it to be a case of the United States attempting to impose its laws on its northern neighbor. From the first day of the three-week trial, the Canadian daily The Toronto Star urged the government to protest against this extraterritorial application of the law. In an editorial entitled “Its not our embargo”, the paper stated that the ruling was nothing more than a Cold War relic and an inexplicable violation of Canadian sovereignty, with the ironic reality that the very same day, a U.S. firm would announce sales to Cuba in the region of $100 million USD.
And then there was the unmistakable voice of Congressman Lincoln DÃaz Balart, alleging that Sabzali’s business transactions took place before the law was passed — despite his objections and with serious limitations — that currently allows sales of medicines and food products from the United States to Cuba.
Canadian group NSCuba wrote to the ministers for foreign affairs and international trade in April 2002, asking for the government’s plan of action in relation to the Sabzali case. In reply, minister Bill Graham explained that the Canadian position was to consider the law as an extraterritorial application and informed the group that he was in contact with the defense lawyers in order to ensure Sabzali would receive an adequate defense.
However, Reynald Doiron, the Foreign Office spokesperson then stated that Mr. Sabzali knew the risks he was taking when he moved to the United States. He added that what the government rejected was the fact that Sabzali could be charged in the United States for activities in which he took part when he lived in Canada, as that represented an attack on Canadian sovereignty.
The sentence should have been announced on June 28, 2002 but one year was to go by before a decision was made, and one that was not what Poluka was hoping for. The revocation of the verdicts against Sabzali and the two U.S. citizens would appear to end their house arrest for the time being.
Hearing of the new trial, Sabzali’s wife, Sharon Moss, said, “I have no idea what’s next. I hate to think about going through this another time. We can only pray.”
Whatever the result, if one compares Washington’s threats against France and other European Union countries with the Draconian measures that have been applied against Cuba for the last 40 years – of which Sabzali’s case is a vivid example – the European position to a large extent recalls the Munich Pact agreed in September 1938 that was so much lamented by certain powers.
The Sabzali case clearly illustrates the maliciousness, ferocity and cruelty of the war against Cuba – euphemistically termed an “embargo” by the U.S. government – which would now seem to be forgotten by certain European Union leaders. The latest fashion from Washington is to pose the idea that the “embargo” is a pretext to conceal economic failures. All right then! Lift the pretext!!
This person was arrested and sued in the US because he had dared trade with Cuba while he was in Canada. Notice that he is a Canadian citizen!
Businessman James Sabzali still subject to stiff sentence for trading with Cuba
• U.S. government officials recently decided that the extremely grave crime of selling chemicals to purify water in Cuban hospitals is a “matter of national security”• Thus, this Canadian citizen faces a increased sentence of up to 62 months and a fine that could rise to $5 million USD • An anthem to respect for human rights.
BY GABRIEL MOLINA
ALMOST three years after being accused of trading with the enemy, Canadian James Sabzali still cannot understand why selling chemicals to purify drinking water in Cuban hospitals warrants him being kept under house arrest in Philadelphia for more than 12 months.
He is currently awaiting a new trial to know the magnitude of his sentence or if he will be exonerated of the charges for which he is accused.
Despite being a Canadian citizen, 44-year old Sabzali could be sentenced to from four to 200 years’ imprisonment and fined up to $250,000 USD on each charge. Federal prosecutor Joseph Poluka has asked for a sentence of 41-51 months as a minimum and conservative calculation. But government officials recently determined that water purification is a matter of national security and therefore the prison term could rise to 62 months and the fine up to $5 million USD.
Also found guilty with Sabzali were brothers Stefan and Donald Brodie (54 and 58 years old respectively), both U.S citizens and president and vice president of the firm. The case received little coverage in the mainstream U.S. media despite the fact that Sabzali, as a Canadian citizen, is obliged to ignore the embargo as part of his country’s legislation against extraterritorial measures (Canadian Extraterritorial Act), as trading with Cuba is legal in Canada. In fact, Canadian companies are obliged to inform Ottawa if they receive orders from the United States not to export to the island for political or legal reasons.
James Sabzali, born in Trinidad and formerly resident in Hamilton, worked in this city from 1991-1996 as a sales representative and marketing director for Purolite International Inc., an Ottawa-based firm and a branch of the U.S. Bro-Tech Corporation company. He traveled to Havana in this capacity on more than 20 occasions up until 1996. He was then transferred to Philadelphia as head of the firm in 1996 and moved to the city with his wife and two children. There he was indicted for alleged crimes committed in Canada and during the three-week trial was found guilty on eight out of 20 charges. These included sales of resins based on ion interaction effected between 1992 and 2000 to a value of approximately $2 million USD, reported Joseph A. Slobodzian, a journalist with the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The 12 remaining charges relate to shipments from Bro Tech’s offices in Canada, Mexico, Italy, Spain and Britain. These countries do not recognize the anti-Cuban legislation promulgated by the United States over the last 40 years and that Washington has been trying to impose on third nations. The products that Sabzali sold never once came from the United States but from Britain and Canada.
According to the BBC, Sabzali has become the first Canadian to be tried and sentenced to house arrest for violating the U.S. law of trading with the enemy, that dates back to 1917, and which has been updated, increased and discredited by Washington in order to utilize it against the island. The harsh sentence came as a surprise, given that in the past the courts had preferred to impose fines of several thousand dollars, except in the case of one Spaniard, who was given a prison term at the end of his Miami trial, of which he only served a few months.
Sabzali’s new trial was ordered by a federal judge in Philadelphia on June 16, after she had expressed concern over the strong language used by the prosecution in its closing arguments, according to a report by Steve Eckardt.
“It is never proper to throw around such inflammatory language in a criminal trial,” stated McLaughlin, adding that the prosecution’s repeated charges that the defense was lying served to “stir up the jury”. Defense lawyer Gregory Craig – widely known as President Clinton’s legal representative during the Lewinski case – said that the prosecutors’ outburst was inadmissible practice that completely undermined the trial.
Sabzali’s lawyers also put forward the argument that when the embargo was initiated in 1962, President Kennedy had not declared any state of emergency for that country. The prosecution contested that the 1996 Helms-Burton Act in effect negated this obligation.
But no one has questioned the laws that apply to “trading with the enemy,” with respect to the absence of a declaration of war against this “enemy”; a condition that, according to law, must be approved by Congress.
The incorrect conduct of the DA’s office would require dropping the conspiracy charge as well as the other 20. But the judge rejected a motion for acquittal and maintained the 76 charges against Sabzali for violating the embargo and conspiracy that emerged from the five-year investigation prior to the trial, which concluded in October 2000, reported Eckardt.
“Good news, but not great news,” said Sabzali, in an interview. “It’s a break in the case. When you have to start fabricating evidence and lying to secure a conviction, it shows something is wrong.”
Sabzali is very upset that the judge has decided not to acquit him. In an e-mail to his supporters, he stated that the judicial dictates show there is a shady deal in the making.
In an interview, federal prosecutor Joseph Poluka stated that his office was reviewing the ruling and referred to it as “appealable”.
“We’re considering every option,” he declared. “The two key possibilities are an appeal or a retrial.”
Last year, the Canadian government’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs and International Trade objected to Sabzali’s trial, terming it unacceptable that should be charged with something that is not a crime in his country. But to date, it has waited for the outcome without taking any action.
The trial generated protests in Canada, as many deem it to be a case of the United States attempting to impose its laws on its northern neighbor. From the first day of the three-week trial, the Canadian daily The Toronto Star urged the government to protest against this extraterritorial application of the law. In an editorial entitled “Its not our embargo”, the paper stated that the ruling was nothing more than a Cold War relic and an inexplicable violation of Canadian sovereignty, with the ironic reality that the very same day, a U.S. firm would announce sales to Cuba in the region of $100 million USD.
And then there was the unmistakable voice of Congressman Lincoln DÃaz Balart, alleging that Sabzali’s business transactions took place before the law was passed — despite his objections and with serious limitations — that currently allows sales of medicines and food products from the United States to Cuba.
Canadian group NSCuba wrote to the ministers for foreign affairs and international trade in April 2002, asking for the government’s plan of action in relation to the Sabzali case. In reply, minister Bill Graham explained that the Canadian position was to consider the law as an extraterritorial application and informed the group that he was in contact with the defense lawyers in order to ensure Sabzali would receive an adequate defense.
However, Reynald Doiron, the Foreign Office spokesperson then stated that Mr. Sabzali knew the risks he was taking when he moved to the United States. He added that what the government rejected was the fact that Sabzali could be charged in the United States for activities in which he took part when he lived in Canada, as that represented an attack on Canadian sovereignty.
The sentence should have been announced on June 28, 2002 but one year was to go by before a decision was made, and one that was not what Poluka was hoping for. The revocation of the verdicts against Sabzali and the two U.S. citizens would appear to end their house arrest for the time being.
Hearing of the new trial, Sabzali’s wife, Sharon Moss, said, “I have no idea what’s next. I hate to think about going through this another time. We can only pray.”
Whatever the result, if one compares Washington’s threats against France and other European Union countries with the Draconian measures that have been applied against Cuba for the last 40 years – of which Sabzali’s case is a vivid example – the European position to a large extent recalls the Munich Pact agreed in September 1938 that was so much lamented by certain powers.
The Sabzali case clearly illustrates the maliciousness, ferocity and cruelty of the war against Cuba – euphemistically termed an “embargo” by the U.S. government – which would now seem to be forgotten by certain European Union leaders. The latest fashion from Washington is to pose the idea that the “embargo” is a pretext to conceal economic failures. All right then! Lift the pretext!!
...till there's no blood left to spill!
- By litwin
- By FiveofSwords
- By Pants-of-dog