¹ Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. & Multicultural Ass’n of S. Or. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90493, at *98 (D. Or. Nov. 6, 2008) [hereinafter Al Haramain].

² Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi & Al Barakaat Int’l Found. v. Council and Comm’n (E.C.J., Grand Chamber, Sept. 3, 2008), available at < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005J0402:EN:HTML>.

³ Case T-256/07, People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran v. Council of the European Union (E.C.J., Court of First Instance, Dec. 4, 2008), available at< http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008A0284:EN:HTML>.

⁴ Al Haramain, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90493, supra note 1, at *3.

⁵ Id.at *6.

⁶ Id.at *7.

⁷ Id. at *70.

⁸ Id. at *89.

⁹ Id. at *97.

¹⁰ Id.

¹ I refer to plaintiff Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. as AHIF-Oregon throughout this opinion to distinguish it from the world-wide organization of the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation headquartered in Saudi Arabia, which I refer to as AHIF or AHIF-SA. 9

² OFAC is a component of the United States Department of the Treasury.

³ See 31 C.F.R. § 594.310 (SDGT defined to mean “any foreign person or persons listed in the Annex or designated pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 21, 2001”). 10

⁴ His name is also spelled Al-Aqeel. For purposes of consistency, I will refer to him as Al-Aqil.

⁵ The government recognizes some confusion about this amount. Plaintiffs refer to it as $180,000, the government knows of only the $150,000 donation, but Seda and AlI-Bu the withdrew a total of $151,000 from the bank. Plaintiffs have not indicated whether the $180,000 they mention includes the $150,000 donation.

⁶ Zakat is one of the five pillars of lslam, requiring the payment of a percentage of annual income to support the poor. The government contends that such income can be used to support terrorist organizations. AR0598.

⁷ AHIF-Oregon does not pursue Count IV of its Supplemental Complaint (that OFAC’s designation/redesignation was based on privileged attorney-client communications). As I stated in ruling on plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket #69), the Sealed Document has been removed from the administrative record. Accordingly, I dismiss Count IV of plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint. 11

⁸ Under the IEEPA, “[t]he President may issue such regulations, including regulations prescribing definitions, as may be neccssary for the exercise of the authorities granted by” the IEEPA. 50 U.S.C. § 1704. Similarly, the President through Executive Order 13,224, delegated authority to the Secretary of Treasury to “promulgat[e]... rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and UNPA as may 12 13 be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order.” E.O. 13,224 at § 7.

⁹ Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell designated three Chechen organizations as terrorist groups in February of 2003 pursuant to Exec. Order 13,224. The organizations were “responsible for committing numerous acts of terrorism in Russia, including hostage-taking and assassination, that have threatened the safety of U.S. citizens and U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.” AR0713.

¹⁰ There are a number of cases brought by the Humanitarian Law Project challenging the criminal sanctions for providing “material support or resources” to foreign terrorist organizations under the AEDPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. See Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F.3d 1130 (9^th Cir. 2000), partly aff’d en banc, 393 F.3d 902 (9^th Cir. 2004), and on remand, Humanitarian Law Project v. Gonzales, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (C.D. Cal. 2005), aff’d, 509 F.3d 1122 (9^th Cir. 2007). These cases will be referred to as “HLP/AEDPA” in order to distinguish them from another case brought by the Humanitarian Law Project challenging tbe IEEPA and E.O. 13,224, in which there are two opinions. Those opinions-Humanitarian Law Project v. Treasury, 463 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (C.D. Cal. 2006), and on reconsideration, Humanitarian Law Project v. Treasury, 484 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2007), appeal docketed, No. 07-55893 (9^th Cir. June 22, 2007)-will be cited in short form as HLP/IEEPA.

¹¹ Indeed, AHIF-Oregon could not likely successfully argue that it was entitled to notice prior to the blocking order. Other courts have determined that the government’s interest in protecting assets from dissipation overrides the individual’s interest in a pre-blocking hearing. Holy Land Found., 333 F.3d at 163-64; Global Relief Found., 315 F.3d at 754; IARA, 394 F. Supp. 2d 34, 49-50 (D.D.C. 2005), aff’d, 477 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

¹² The government suggests that this test is inapplicable since the blocking action is not the normal law enforcement undertaking, but it offers no alternative standard to apply.

¹³ Indeed, Can explained that under the TWEA “[w]hen property (1982). This less stringent standard applies to the regulated community, not the general public. is seized, all title to the property vests in the United States ....” 820 F. Supp. at 109.

¹⁴ AHIF-Oregon did not pursue its claim that the seizure of its records constituted an unreasonable search and seizure without 18 probable cause. The government acted pursuant to a warrant. This portion of AHIF-Oregon’s Count VIII is dismissed with prejudice.

¹⁵ AHIF-Oregon also alleges in the Complaint that the designation and redesignation violated AHIF-Oregon’s right to freedom of speech and association. Since AHIF-Oregon’s designation and redesignation were not based on speech or mere membership in AHIF, as I have concluded above, its First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association have not been violated. 19

¹⁶ Similarly, AHIF-Oregon argues only that it has standing to challenge the “designation authority employed by defendants against it[.]” Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 41; see also Pls.’ Reply at 20; Supp. Comp. Count VI. AHIF-Oregon was designated by OFAC, not pursuant to the President’s authority. Accordingly, it does not challenge the vagueness or overbreadth of the President’s designation authority. 20 21

¹⁷ The government suggests that a less strict vagueness inquiry applies where the affected party has the opportunity to address the issue in an administrative process. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates. Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498 (1982). This less stringent standard applies to the regulated community, not the general public.

¹⁸ Terrorism is defined to mean “an activity that: (a) Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (b) Appears to be intended: (1) To intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (3) To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.” 31 C.F.R. § 594.311.

¹⁹ “Otherwise associated” has been defined to mean “(a) To own or control; or (b) To attempt, or to conspire with one or more persons, to act for or on behalf of or to provide financial, material, or technological support, or financial or other services, to.” 31 C.F.R. § 594.316.

²⁰ Plaintiffs’ adequately plead this claim in Count III of their Supplemental Complaint.

²¹ AHIF-Oregon initially challenged the policy believing it barred AHIF-Oregon from raising funds in the United States. The government clarified that AHIF-Oregon may seek a license to establish a legal defense fund. Furthermore, the government has clarified AHIF-Oregon need not identify specific sources of funding. Finally, AHIF-Oregon’s single sentence asserting that OFAC’s new policy was not issued pursuant to notice and comment procedures of the APA is not sufficient to properly assert a violation of that statute.