Federal prosecutor Charged with drunk-driving and wrong-way driving

John O’Brien The Post-Standard 3/04/11

A longtime Syracuse federal prosecutor was charged this week with driving drunk after he was pulled over going the wrong way on Interstate 81 in the North Country.

State police charged Gregory West with driving while intoxicated, driving the wrong way on a one-way street, and driving with an open container of liquor. State trooper Jeffrey Stevenson pulled West over as the assistant U.S. attorney was driving his 2006 Toyota Tundra south in the northbound lanes of 81 in the town of Pamelia at 10:19 p.m. Tuesday.

West, 59, of Syracuse, had a blood-alcohol content of 0.17 percent, state police said. He was “cooperative and a complete gentleman” with Stevenson, the trooper said.

West has been a federal prosecutor in Syracuse for more than 30 years. Among the defendants he prosecuted were members of the Mafia and former Syracuse Mayor Lee Alexander.

All letters should be sent to:

LAW OFFICE OF PETER GOLDBERGER

50 Rittenhouse Place Ardmore, PA 19003-2276

(610) 649-8200 FAX(610) 649-8362

E-mail peter.goldberger@verizon.net

August 1, 2010

Peter Goldberger* Pamela A. Wilk

To: Supporters, Friends and Family of Rafil Dhafir

From: Peter Goldberger, Dr. Dhafir’s lawyer

Re: letters to the Judge in connection with resentencing

As you probably know, Dr. Rafil Dhafir will be facing resentencing before United States District Judge Mordue in federal court in Syracuse some time in the coming months. The resen- tencing was ordered by the Second Circuit court of appeals. The appellate court’s opinion says that we appeared to be right in our argument that the “sentencing guidelines” for the offense of “money laundering” were miscalculated. (Sending overseas the proceeds of a “fraud” – that is, the fundraising for Help the Needy – was deemed to be a form of “money laundering.” Because of the amount of money that HTN raised, and the way the federal sentencing guidelines calculate the seriousness of various offenses, the guideline for “money laundering” wound up over- shadowing the other charges.) Therefore, Judge Mordue was directed to consider whether the sentence should be different (shorter, that is) after taking into consideration the correctly calculated guideline range. Our position, however, is that there is nothing to stop Judge Mordue from reconsidering any other aspect of the sentence if he is persuaded to do so.

Some of you may be thinking of writing supportive letters about Dr. Dhafir to the Judge in an effort to help Rafil receive the lightest possible sentence. The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the most effective way to do this, in terms of when and where to send the letters, proper manner of addressing the Judge, and some suggested do’s and don’t’s about content.

The letter should be addressed (but not sent) to:

Hon. Norman A. Mordue Chief U.S. District Judge James M. Hanley Federal Bldg. 100 So. Clinton Street Syracuse, NY 13261-7236

The proper manner of addressing the judge at the beginning of a letter is “Your Honor:” or “Dear Judge Mordue:”. The letter should refer to Rafil Dhafir by name either between the address and the salutation (such as with a “Re:” line), or in the firstsentence. The letter should also include a signature, as well as the date and your address (either in the top right corner or under your signature). These seemingly little things help emphasize that you understand the seriousness of the forum in which you are expressing your opinion, and that you stand behind and take personal responsibility for what you say. For this reason, e-mail is not nearly as suitable as a traditional letter, written as a separate document.

Very important: please make sure that you DO NOT MAIL YOUR LETTER DIRECTLY TO THE JUDGE — MAIL IT TO MY OFFICE (at the address on this letterhead) or e-mail it to me as an attachment. (But frankly, the judge is an older gentleman and will probably react better to a real letter, showing a signature in ink. So I reiterate that I prefer and suggest that letters be signed and mailed to me, not sent by e-mail lacking a real signature.) Sending the letters to my office rather than directly to the judge is critical because, although you of course will include in your letter only what you consider to be information that will be helpful to Rafil at sentencing, there is always a possibility that someone may unintentionally include something that could actually be harmful. Before I forward any letter to the judge, I need to read and check it in light of my experi- ence, so that I am confident that we submit only potentially helpful material. In addition, I will be submitting all the letters to the judge at one time, in an organized way, with a covering memo from me which among other things will point out the recurring themes in the letters and will probably quote from some of them. I cannot do this effectively if the letters don’t all go through my office.

As to content (and I offer these examples only for purposes of general guidance, of course), you should of course identify in the letter how you know Rafil (relationship, etc.) and for about how long. If you have only read about his case, but do not know him personally, say so. If you do know him personally, it can be very effective to include a specific and heartwarming example of Dr. Dhafir’s generous, sincere, devout and/or loving character or history of religious and community service. More general letters about a lengthy and positive relationship in which Rafil has been a trustworthy and caring friend, neighbor, doctor to you or someone you know, colleague or family member are also helpful.

In contrast, it would not be useful to declare that Dr. Dhafir is or must be innocent or to express resentment against the fact that he was selected for prosecution or as to his treatment by the FBI, the prosecutors or the judge; there is always a risk that such sentiments will be attributed to him and held against him. Although he has denied any criminal wrongdoing, you should not focus on this. After all, the judge must sentence him as if Rafil were guilty. It makes no sense to tell the judge what you think an appropriate sentence would be for an innocent person, because obviously there is no such sentence and it just makes your letter that much less persuasive. Also, bear in mind that the judge may grant the press access to any letters he receives, treating them as public records like any other court document. Anything you write could be quoted in a newspaper or on a website, associated with your name.

If you want to discuss the fact that the Bureau of Prisons has sent Rafil far away from home, and kept him in conditions (the “Communications Management Unit”) that make the usual family phone calls and visits nearly impossible, and which restrict his religious exercise, etc., as a way of suggesting that the length of the sentence be reduced, that’s fine, too. I will be using that fact to point out that whatever prison term is imposed at the resentencing will have a significantly more punitive impact on him than a sentence of similar length ordinarily has on the average defendant.

I am not saying that anyone should restrict what he or she has to say about the Dhafir case in any other forum. And I am certainly not suggesting that anyone write anything that s/he does not believe to be the truth. But the one and only audience for letters addressed to the court in relation to resentencing is Judge Mordue. What might have a positive effect on him, in this case, at this time, is what I am discussing. So as you can see, my suggestion is that the most effective focus would be on Rafil as a person, and not on any feelings as to his guilt or innocence, about the excesses of the “war on terror,” the cruel effects of the pre-2003 sanctions imposed on Iraq or their aftermath, about discriminatory treatment of the Muslim community in this case or generally, or about unfairness in the criminal justice system. Ordinarily, it is not helpful to tell the judge explicitly that someone “has been punished enough” or is “not a real criminal” or that he does not deserve to be in prison, even though that is certainly the final impression we want the judge to have after reading all of the material submitted.

I would like to have your letters no later than two weeks prior to sentencing (we will know the date several weeks in advance; I will let the family and his supporters know exactly as soon as I hear). That way, I can review them, suggest changes if neces- sary, receive any revised letters, and organize them all as part of a cohesive sentencing package for Rafil that I can submit to the judge in advance of the resentencing date. Since I do not expect sentencing to occur until at the earliest late September, if you can get them to me by the week after Labor Day that should be fine.

Thank you all in advance for your help and continuing support to Dr. Dhafir, especially at this important time.

To the editor:

Dr. Rafil Dhafir, a respected oncologist, is now in his 6th year of a 22-year sentence, never even having been granted bail for white-collar crime and breaking the sanctions on Iraq. These sanctions caused the death of 1.4 million people. Dr Dhafir provided food and medicine to alleviate deaths from polluted water and starvation in a country where we had destroyed the water purification and sewage treatment plants. According to the government, Dr. Dhafir donated $1.25 million of his own money over the years. He is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana in a unit which severely restricts his contact with the outside world.

In contrast Oscar Wyatt, a Texas oil billionaire, finished his one year sentence in November of 2008 for conspiring to funnel illegal kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime, wire fraud, and violating U.S. laws governing dealings with Iraq during the Oil for Food program. Mr. Wyatt pleaded guilty to paying $200,000 dollars in kickbacks to officials in the regime. He was accused of funneling millions of dollars of kickbacks through front companies to Saddam Hussein’s regime. Prosecutors said Mr. Wyatt imposed on a close relationship with Saddam Hussein to obtain the first contract under the Oil for Food program, and to continue getting lucrative oil deals after other American companies were shut out prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Mr. Wyatt’s sentence was ameliorated by time spent in a half-way house followed by home confinement.

Bob Elmendorf
Malden Bridge, NY

See Denis Halliday’s letter to the Post-Standard last year, “Do we want Dhafir’s justice to be America’s?”

To the Editor:

I was very pleased to see that you published a letter from Denis Halliday, former U.N. assistant secretary general, who resigned after a distinguished 34-year career because of the brutal sanctions against Iraq. I’m sorry that you did not include the last paragraph of his letter for your readers to see, as this was the paragraph that spoke most directly to them.

In that paragraph, Halliday urged people to ask themselves about their own responsibility and complicity in what is happening to Dr. Dhafir and other Arabs and Muslims around the country. He said:

“Dr. Dhafir has become a victim of American injustice that applies a double standard. He is being swept up in anti-Islamic, anti-Arab madness that has corrupted the American justice system. It is past time that all humanitarian-minded, decent Americans ask ourselves: Is this the justice system we want? When American Values and American democratic principles are endangered, we must take on the responsibilities of citizenship. We must reverse these prejudicial practices before it is too late.”

Please let your readers know that Dr. Dhafir’s appeals brief – submitted on Feb. 8 – is available at www.dhafirtrial.net. It will enable them to see a whole side of Dr. Dhafir’s story that has never had any coverage in your newspaper.

Katherine Hughes
Syracuse

To the editor:

On February 26, 2003, Dr. Rafil Dhafir, a prominent Syracuse oncologist, was arrested and 150 Muslim families interrogated in connection with a charity established to provide humanitarian aid to children suffering in Iraq. As we approach the fifth anniversary of that arrest, it seems pertinent to question the continued persecution of Dr. Dhafir, an Iraqi-born U.S. citizen of some 30 years.

Many Americans generously assisted, directly and indirectly, the Iraqi people who were being killed and starved due to the impact of United Nations sanctions imposed – at the insistence of the U.S. and Britain – after the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait in early 1991. Dr. Dhafir was one of those Americans who generously gave his time and financial resources. He founded “Help the Needy” for that purpose and raised millions of dollars in food aid and medical assistance for the Iraqi people.

Other U.S. citizens who sent humanitarian aid to Iraqi children and adults in defiance of UN sanctions had civil fines imposed by Washington, but none were imprisoned. In contrast, Dr. Dhafir is serving 22 years for his humanitarian outreach in defiance of the sanctions that many, myself included, consider to have been genocidal. Does this mean that a different standard is being applied to U.S. citizens who are Muslim? Dr. Dhafir’s extraordinary sentence, in combination with the establishment of a special federal prison to isolate Arab and Muslim inmates, indicate that the answer is yes.

Dr. Dhafir has become a victim of American injustice that applies double standards. He has been swept up in anti-Islamic, anti-Arab madness that has corrupted the American justice system. It is past time that all humanitarian-minded, decent Americans ask ourselves: Is this the justice system that we want? When American values and American democratic principles are endangered, we must take on the responsibilities of citizenship. We must reverse these prejudicial practices before it is too late.

Sincerely,

Denis J. Halliday
Former UN Assistant Secretary-General,
Head of the UN Humanitarian Program in Iraq 1997-98,
Member, Dr. Dhafir Support Committee Advisory Board.

It took a month of lobbying but the Post Standard finally published Mohamed Khater’s letter.  It was followed by this editor’s note:

“Our Sept. 19 story did state that Dhafir was prosecuted for planning to use contributions to support a terrorist organization. And you are right–Dhafir was never charged or tried on any terrorism charge.
“Government prosecutors did bring up terrorism allegations before the judge in the sentencing stage in hopes of achieving a longer prison sentence. The Post-Standard editorialized on that tactic, calling it unfair.
“Our Sept. 19 story did not fully explain that all, and thus was misleading. When the error was brought to our attention we ran a correction on Oct. 11. On the same day we published a letter on the topic from the Dr. Dhafir Support Committee.
“Some of the other assertions in your letter are far less convincing, however. Our staff writers reported accurately that the jury convicted Dhafir of multiple fraud counts based on government evidence that he used money intended for his charity for business investments in Syracuse and the Middle East. To convict Dhafir, the jury was required to find that he intentionally defrauded donors.
“He was also convicted of intentionally evading taxes, intentionally defrauding Medicare, and making false statements to Medicare when asked about it. The judge, in calculating restitution, concluded that Dhafir defrauded donors of more than $500,000, defrauded Medicare of $316,000 and evaded $400,000 in taxes.”

——————-

Katherine: As someone who sat through almost all of the 14 weeks of proceedings, below are my thoughts on the Editor’s Note:

* Defrauding donors of $500,000.

Dr. Dhafir had money in the Middle East and, on occasion, instead of sending dollars to the Middle East, he exchanged his money in the Middle East for money collected here in this country. Although this kind system of “mixing money” is anathema to western culture, it is a common way of doing business in Arab and Muslim cultures (this system of exchange is known as Hawala). It was clear from the trial that Dr. Dhafir had employed this system of “money exchange” on occasion, but the government gave no evidence to support the view that Dr. Dhafir had stolen the money.

See: Case Not Proven, which addresses the charges other than Medicare charges.

* Defrauded Medicare of $316,000

The whole Medicare case (25 counts) was based on a single rule called “incident to” (incident to the Dr.’s treatment). The government does not dispute that patients did indeed receive medical care and chemotherapy medicine. It is saying that because Dhafir’s office filled the forms in wrongly, the office is entitled to no reimbursement. Medicare fraud usually consists of fictitious patients and imaginary illnesses, Dhafir’s case had none of this.

On the day Mrs. Dhafir was sentenced the head prosecutor, Michael Olmsted, was asked how much of the $62,000 that Mrs. Dhafir was to pay back to Medicare was spent on Medicine, he was unable to say.

Dr. Dhafir was asked the same question and said that 90% of it was spent on medicine, and that in 2002 Medicare reimbursed his office less than it had spent on medicine alone. A look at the records would confirm or refute this, but Dr. Dhafir has been continually denied access to his own records that were taken from his house and office on the day of his arrest.

For coverage of the Medicare part of the case see: Dr. Dhafir’s Trial Concluded Today.

And: Dr. Dhafir letter to Medicare.

* $400,000 in taxes

Dr. Dhafir’s charity, Help the Needy, was using the tax exemption number of another charity. This is not uncommon practice among charities and many charities do this without penalty. According to Barrie Gewanter of the NYCLU, ordinarily this kind of think is addressed by the State telling the charity that they are doing wrong, shutting it down until it’s sorted out, and then letting them operate again. (See “Access” with George Kilpatrick: A panel discussion about the case of Rafil Dhafir in the wider context of civil liberties. WCNY Public Television, Wednesday, October 26th, 11pm.)

The $400,000 in taxes are because Dhafir himself donated very generously over the years. (According to the government, he donated $1.4 million over the years.) The government is also currently going after the taxes it says should have been paid by other people who donated to Help the Needy. It is holding the Dhafir’s responsible for that loss of tax revenue and has, consequently, has put a lien against the Dhafir family home.

—————–

Some things to think about:

Seven government agencies investigated Dhafir for five years, how much did this cost the taxpayer? Why was the defense not allowed to address at trial the fact that the government only brought these charges after finding no link to terrorism? (This turned into a brick wall that the defense kept hitting, prosecutors could hint at more serious charges, but the defense was never allowed to follow this line of questioning.)

If the government was indeed interested in restitution, why didn’t it let Dhafir work for the 33 months that he was held without bail before sentencing? He could easily have paid off all the money in this way. He was a wealthy man while working, earning around $500.000 a year, with very little outgoing expenses: he lived in the same house for many years and his mortgage was paid off long ago, and drove a 1992 Nissan Sentra unitl 2002.

Medicare people who testified were confused about the “incident to” rule. Government Agent Cynthia Pangallo who had testified for the government in 10 cases involving Medicare did not know when the “incident to” rule went into effect. This is despite the fact that the prosecution contacted her during the proceedings to prepare testimony and that she had three weeks during the Christmas break to prepare her testimony before appearing on the witness stand.

Mrs. Dhafir testified that under “electronic filing” Medicare did not accept anyone else’s number other than Dr. Dhafir’s. (Much of the case revolved around whether Dhafir’s office should be reimbursed at 85%, as it would if a nurse practitioner was administering care, or at 100%, if the doctor himself was administering care.)

Write to, Paul Riede, Editorial Page Editor: priede@Syracuse.com with copies to, Michael Connor, Executive Editor: mconnor@syracuse.com and, Stan Linhorst, Senior Managing Editor: slinhorst@syracuse.com (Paul Riede told Mohamed 10 days ago that he would talk to the Post Standard executive editors about publishing the letter and get back to him; he hasn’t.)

Mohamed and his wife, Magda Bayoumi, are very active in the peace and justice community here in Syracuse and both attended almost all of the 17-week trial.

———————–
Mr. Riede,

It is imperative that you publish the Op-Ed piece written by Mohamed Khater which corrects the further injustice that the Post Standard has perpetuated on Dr.Dhafir. Those of us who have followed Dr. Dhafir’s case are well aware of the facts and the lies. When I read what I know are untruths about the case, published by this paper, I question the integrity of this paper’s reporting. This Op-Ed piece sets the record straight and I feel provides a small slice of justice for Dr.Dhafir. It is your duty to inform the public on this matter.

Sincerely,

Christina Essig
Syracuse, NY
————-
Dear Mr. Riede:

I am a Post-Standard subscriber. I have also followed the case of Dr. Rafil Dhafir closely over the years. I urge you to publish Mohamed Khater’s letter to the Post-Standard as an Op-Ed piece, at the earliest opportunity. It is an eloquent piece and contains much that is important for your readers to read and understand. It would be a courageous and, ultimately, very fair act on your part; I hope that you will allow this letter to see the light of day.

Yours respectfully,
Fred Karpoff
Syracuse
—————
Subject: Please publish Mohamed Khater’s letter to the Editor as an Op-Ed piece in the Post Standard so that another perspective can be represented

Dear Paul Riede, (Editorial Page Editor at the Syracuse PostStandard)

I am writing to request that you publish Mohamed Khater’s Letter To The Editor as an Op-Ed on your editorial page. This request is made from the point of view of a citizen who is outraged at the nomination of Attorney Glenn Suddaby for a Federal Judgeship after the way that he’s persecuted Muslim members of our communities by bending the truth, entrapping them and using “sting operations” and “secret evidence” to obtain convictions.
Having Mohamed Khater’s excellent letter (which looks at the prosecution and conviction of Dr. Dhafir from the perspective of his innocence of the charges brought against him by Glenn Suddaby) in the accessible form of a citizen editorial will do much to balance your previous reporting on the case.
As a member of the Capital District community where we’ve seen the same kind of prosecution/persecution of two other Muslim men (Yassin Aref and Mohammed Musharref Hossain) by Glenn Suddaby I believe that it’s important to tell the other side of the story whenever possible and to allow your readers to think for themselves and to independently determine the worthiness of this nominee for a Federal Judgeship.
I was recently very positively impressed by your paper’s news coverage of the September 29th demonstration that took place in Syracuse against the continuation of the Iraq War. The articles and photos were excellent and I got a good impression of your standards of reporting and of serving your readership by providing wide ranging information on a variety of important topics.
With hopes that you will continue to provide such information on this very important topic of possible prosecutorial misconduct.
Mickie Lynn
Delmar NY 12054
————————-
Dear Mr. Riede:

I am writing to urge the Syracuse Post Standard to publish, as an op ed piece, Mohamed Khater’s letter outlining the charges and facts concerning Dr. Dhafir. I write as a citizen concerned about the fear that has arisen in this country against Muslims and how we have allowed them to become victims without the civil rights of which we are so proud. I look to the press to be independent, to work thoroughly to investigate all facts, to be that fourth branch in the balance of powers to protect all people.

Sincerely,
Priscilla Fairbank
—————–
Dear Mr. Riede,

Regrettably, miscarriages of justice are far from unknown in these
United States. Many people of integrity and good will believe, with
cause, that the trial of Dr. Rafil Dhafir was not only a miscarriage
of justice but an abuse of power. The Post Standard seems to have
taken a position which condemns Dr. Dhafir for suborning terrorism
and it seems to repeat that position quite often. I believe it is
only fair to present the opposing view as articulated by good people
such as Mohamed Khater. I am writing to ask you to publish Mr.
Khater’s letter, which was in response to your article of September
19, about tapping US attorney Glen Suddaby to be a federal judge, as
an op-ed piece.

Sincerely,
Thomas Giacobbi, LMSW
————————

Dear Mr. Riede,

I respectfully urge you to publish Mohamed Khater’s letter in the Syracuse Post Standard as an op-ed piece. Mohamed Khater’s letter makes many excellent points, all of which I am in complete and unequivocal agreement with. Dr. Dhafir was never convicted on charges of terrorism and it is important that this fact be made known. Please see http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2005/txdv05200502101440.htm which details the charges.

Dr. Dhafir is a humanitarian, pure and simple. He showed his love for his patients here by treating many of them free of charge. He showed his love for the people of Iraq by compassionate gestures which point the direction all of us would take if confronted by 500,000 deaths of children under five in our own country, caused by sanctions imposed by another.

Sincerely,

Bob Elmendorf
Secretary, Dr. Dhafir Support Committee

Thank you,
Katherine Hughes
For The Dr. Dhafir Support Committee

Dear Mr. Connor and Mr. Linhorst:

The Syracuse Post-Standard’s recent article on Glen Suddaby’s nomination to a judgeship included a number of unfortunate inaccuracies regarding the trial and conviction of Dr. Rafil Dhafir. While I applaud you for publishing Rafi Ziuddin’s letter pointing them out, your lack of correction of the earlier article and your pairing Mr. Ziuddin’s letter with one supporting the prosecution’s point of view continues to give Post-Standard readers a misleading impression of the case, the issues involved in it, and the appropriateness of Mr. Suddaby’s nomination.

I urge you to publish two letters setting the record straight, one from the Dr. Dhafir Support Committee and the other from Mohamed Khater. Mr. Khater and the Support Committee have deep roots in the Syracuse community and probably know more about Dr. Dhafir’s convoluted and confusing case than anyone else around. They also do an admirable job of clarifying both the facts of the case and the troubling issues involved, issues affecting the civil liberties of us all.

I also urge you to publish a correction to your article on Mr. Suddaby’s nomination.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely yours,
Jeanie Shaterian
Berkeley, CA

I was angered when I read “Suddaby Tapped for Judgeship,” by Mark Weiner and
Jim O’Hara, on the Post-Standard website. The article stated that
“[Suddaby's] office prosecuted Dr. Rafil Dhafir, a Manlius oncologist, on
charges he planned to use charitable contributions to support a terrorist
organization in Iraq. Dhafir was sentenced in 2005 to 22 years in prison.”

This statement is false. The government never charged Dhafir with terrorism other than through media smear. He was never allowed to defend
the terrorism charge in court. When it became clear that Dr. Dhafir was in
no way, shape or form associated with terrorism, Suddaby’s office
manufactured some bogus charges of Medicare fraud in order for the
prosecution to save face. The result was that a man who had devoted his
life to healing the sick, who provided chemotherapy free of charge to cancer
patients who could not afford it, and who gave over one million dollars of
his own money to help indigent Iraqis, was sentenced to prison for 22 years.

I thought that one of the reasons that George Bush invaded Iraq was to
help those who were being persecuted by Saddam Hussein? Yet an American
citizen who does just that is falsely convicted and sent to prison by a Bush
appointee…how ironic.

Considering Suddaby’s history of overzealous prosecution with little
evidence and his reliance on smear campaigns and entrapment to obtain
convictions, I hardly see him as a “middle-of-the-road, smart, effective
guy” as Senator Schumer describes him. Furthermore, there is reason to
believe that his prosecutions of Dr. Rafil Dhafir, Aref and Hossain were
motivated by political pressure to obtain trophy convictions in the war on
terror. I urge all who care about the carriage of justice to contact their
representatives and let them know that Suddaby is not fit to be a judge.

Sincerely,
Rafi Ziauddin

Response to Rafi Ziauddin’s letter, published September 30, 2007:

Dhafir not jailed due to ‘bogus’ charges

To the Editor:

In his letter Sept. 26, Rafi Ziauddin stated that Dr. Rafil Dhafir was found guilty of “manufactured” bogus charges of Medicare fraud.”

Would these be the same charges his wife pleaded guilty to? (I believe I read in The Post-Standard that she pleaded guilty to Medicare fraud.) Would it be fair to say that had Dr. Dhafir pleaded guilty to those “manufactured bogus Medicare fraud charges,” as his wife did, he would still be in Manlius, “healing the sick and helping indigent Iraqi’s”?

Bob Stewart
Liverpool

Katherine: I hope that the Post-Standard will publish the Dr. Dhafir Support Committee letter that was sent to them and Mohamed Khater’s letter, then perhaps Bob Steward might begin to get a fuller picture of just what the government has done in the Help the Needy case. The Weiner/O’Hara article also erroneously says that Dhafir was funding terrorist organizations in Iraq; there were no terrorist organizations in Iraq when Saddam Hussain was in power, Hussein had a monopoly on terror.