ATTORNEYS AT LAW
5029-A Backlick Road
Annandale, Virginia 22003

Dear Members of the Committee:

You have asked whether it is legal for donors in this country to make donations to the Free Dr. Ashqar Committee Fund (FDAC), I understand that these donations are collected for the purpose of funding the defense for the Dr. Ashqar in his legal matters, particularly those pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Based on the review and assumptions outlined herein, we are of the view that donations are not illegal under U.S. law, as is outlined herein below in more detail, and that donors therefore could not be punished for making donations to the Fund (we do not opine as to tax deductibility of donations).

In reaching the Opinions set forth herein, we have assumed that and to our knowledge there are not facts inconsistent with the following (the “Assumptions”):

1. The Fund has established a bank account in which all proceeds will be deposited and accounted for.

2. The Fund has been and will be hereafter operated in accordance with its stated purpose – i.e, the funding of a legal defense and related expenses –and not used for any illegal purpose, such as funding terrorism or other criminal activities.

First, we have uncovered (and are aware of ) no United States law that would criminalize or otherwise prohibit a person from donating to the Fund. The Fund has not been designated, frozen or blocked pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act or the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, so no license from Treasury or the States Department is needed. Should Dr. Ashqar hereafter be so blocked, the Treasury or State Department might seek to require the Fund to obtain a license at that time; however, so long as one were applied for and obtained, donations to the Fund would remain legal.

Second, a law that purported to outlaw the solicitation, making or collection of donations to a legitimate legal defense fund would likely be unconstitutional. The right of personal actions to peaceably assemble, to band together, if you will, to petition the government is enshrined in our First Amendment. Would-be donors are fully entitled to band together to fund a defense, i.e., to petition the government, for one such as Dr. Ashqar. As the Supreme Court explained:

At issue is the basic right to group legal action, a right first asserted in the Court by an association of Negroes seeking the protection of freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The common thread running through our decision in NAACP v. Button, Trainmen, and United Mine Workers is that collective activity undertaken to obtain meaningful access to court is a fundamental right within the protections of the First Amendment. However, that right would be a hollow promise if courts could deny associations of workers or others the means of enabling their members to meet the costs of legal representations. The injunction in the present case cannot stand in the face of these prior decisions.

United Transp. Union, 401 U.S. 576 585-86, 91 S. Ct. 1076, 1082 (1971).

Liability may not be imposed merely because an individual allegedly belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence. For liability to be imposed by reason of association alone, it is necessary to establish that the group itself possessed unlawful goals and that the individual held a specific intent to further those illegal aims. “In this sensitive field, the [government] may not employ ‘means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.’”

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co, 458 U.S. 886, 920, 102 S. Ct. 3409, 3429 (1982)

The opinions expressed herein are solely for the use of the Fund’s organizers, their successors or assigns, and their counsel. The opinions may not be relied upon by another person or party without the prior written approval of the undersigned. The opinions expressed in this letter are limited to the matters set forth herein and no other opinion should be inferred beyond the matters expressed as stated. We assume no obligation to supplement this opinion is any applicable laws change after the date hereof, or if we become aware of any facts that might change the opinion expressed herein after the date hereof.

We express no opinion as to the law of any jurisdiction other than that of the State of Virginia and the federal law of the United Stated, without giving effect to the application of any contrary principles of conflict of laws, as to which no opinion is expressed.

Sincerely,
Ashraf Nubani, Esq.