Noor Saga- $50K For No Court Decision

On April 30, 2010, Magistrate Thompson released a decision lifting the restraining order against Hany Saqr. This led to confusion in the community. In what follows below I will attempt to highlight the important parts of the magistrate's 22 page decision. I just want to remind the reader that the issue before magistrate Thompson was only the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. This means that the Plaintiff (American Islamic WAQF, Farag et al) asked the court to keep the restraining order against the Defendant (Hany Saqr) in place until the court ruled on the whole complain several months down the road. It was not a decision about who was a board member.

According to the magistrate, the longstanding view is that a preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy” and it requires a substantial burden on the part of the moving party.

He wrote, " Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Magistrate finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a likelihood that it will prevail on the merits of its causes of action for declaratory judgment, that Plaintiff has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued, that Defendant successfully demonstrated that numerous parties outside of the litigants in this action would be prejudiced or adversely affected and lastly, that the public interest would not be impacted by the expiration of the Temporary Restraining Order . Therefore the magistrate denied the Plaintiff’s request and corresponding motion for a preliminary injunction." This only means that the restraining order against the Defendant is lifted but the case would continue to go to trial as scheduled with Judge Fais.

To arrive to this decision the parties spend close to a revised estimate of $50,000, which, according to court testimony, was their own personal money, not the money of the organization.

Most of the hearing centered on whether the "disputed board members" were true Board members of AIW or members of NICC board. The Defendant claimed that these "disputed board members" were invited as guests to these AIW board meetings. On this point here is what the magistrate concluded:

"Upon review of all the evidence, the Magistrate finds that it is clear that AIW only maintained one managerial Board of Directors, and the disputed board members did not sit on a separate NICC Board. Accordingly, the meetings of the BOD, AIW Board of Directors, and NICC are one and the same. "

" Nevertheless, the disputed board members would almost have to be classified as permanent guests or attendees at such meetings in order to justify the degree of their participation."

"There is no question that each of these individuals played a significant leadership role for the organization and were routinely extended authority from the AIW Board to perform duties and make decisions"

"In each of these instances, not only were the disputed board members copied with the meeting agenda and minutes, but they appear to have participated and acted like Board members during the meetings themselves."

In reality these disputed board members have participated and voted for more than three years, in important decisions regarding the organization and NICC (addressing finances, hiring/firing of employees, binding the organization in a loan in excess of $1,000,000.00). For the most part, there was no evidence produced that the AIW Board took any formal Board action to approve their membership to AIW Board. Equally, there was no evidence produced that these disputed board members were appointed to NICC board.

"Defendant claimed to be aware of many e-mails concerning AIW Board matters that were only circulated to the three original Board members, but he did not have them available at the hearing."

The Magistrate concludes that "no action, resolution, minutes, agenda, writing, correspondence or vote was undertaking by the AIW Board on this issue".

Most of the findings (court testimony and exhibits) discussed in this 26 page ruling were presented on this blog in a previous posting. Here are some of the new passages in this ruling:

" In spite of his testimony to the contrary, Mr. Saqr denied ever taking any action to correct these writings by questioning why non-AIW Board members have been included or why NICC Board members are participating in traditional functions of the AIW Board"

"When Mr. Saqr was questioned as to why he took steps to register NICC, he answered that he was the one that originally selected that name and developed its national recognition."

"It appears that the present controversy between the parties arose as a consequence of Mr. Saqr’s continuing scrutiny of Mr. Farag’s handling of AIW’s financial affairs, as well as Defendant’s desire to be considered for the vacant Executive Director position."

"At the same time, there was no persuasive evidence that Mr. Farag actually converted any funds belonging to AIW, but rather, he performed his duties as Treasurer in a manner that may have raised flags or be perceived with question marks to others outside of the Board "

"It was demonstrated that Defendant reacted unfavorably when informed that he was not selected to assume the vacant role as AIW Executive Director. Such a development in turn caused Saqr to question how this particular AIW Board decision was made and resulted in resentment toward Mr. Farag, as well as the others."

" It was Saleh’s contention that if the preliminary injunction is denied, the AIW Board should meet to resolve all issues, address its finances, and approve new members."

" If allowed to return, Saqr insisted that the others, referring to the disputed board members and Mr. Farag, will still participate as before, with all of them working toward the best interest of the organization."

The Magistrate encouraged the parties to resolve this dispute internally.

" This dilemma appears to call for an overture on the part of the parties to bridge the gap surrounding their differences and/or mediate the dispute for the greater good of the community once the TWO expires, given the potential damage resulting from protracted litigation."

Saqr and some others understood the magistrate decision as declaring the disputed board members as "Illegal" and called for their resignation, while in reality this was simply lifting the TRO. The legality of these disputed board members and the complaint would have to be determined later by a jury.

The next day Hassan Ayoub sent an update to the community and asked Saqr to fulfill the promise he made in court to come and work with the existing BOD. The same day Khaled Farag sent a similar invitation to Saqr, to attend the BOD meeting the next day. Unfortunately, Saqr refused to attend any such meetings.

On Monday May 3, 2010 Hassan Ayoub announced the resignation of the disputed board members and wrote his own personal reflection:

" I was warned by many with much better foresight than my own. Alas, I was too naive to comprehend the master plan behind the deliberate ambiguity. Our leaders have unfortunately fallen into the modus operandi of operating in the grey area. An area where one can always have his cake and eat it too, depending of course on the mood or the circumstance.

As many of you know, we were introduced as AIW BOD, we signed checks as AIW BOD, and we signed contracts as AIW BOD. We even hired staff and interacted with them as AIW BOD. For four years these actions were never questioned even once. In my humble opinion, we were just used as shields against community criticism. When questioned why there were only two board members, the answer was always "What are you talking about? These are all board members.", pointing to the now infamous "disputed members." We were used to give credibility and cover for million dollar loans. (which may need to be redone since there were obviously misrepresentations and possible deception involved).

At the end we were misused, lied to and deceived. It was all a ruse, a trick, a giant deception perpetrated against brothers and fellow Muslims. There was always an extra card up the sleeve waiting to be played at the opportune moment. Our time, effort, and trust were taken advantage of. The sad part, and more importantly, is that the community was also deceived. When needed we were board. When it became inconvenient, or someone's position and authority was threatened we were tossed aside. No amount of spin can ever change this fact.

However it is not all bad. By the grace of Allah this charade has been exposed. No longer can we go back to the days of one-man rule with rubber stamps in faraway lands. No longer can we work in the "grey area." As evident from this very expensive lesson, everything must be properly documented and agreed upon to be valid. All procedures must be strictly adhered to and all future appointments must have documented approval. No longer can we follow some of the rules, and bylaws and throw others, when inconvenient, to the side.

Also by the grace of Allah some very irrational and destructive individuals have been exposed before they could entrench themselves in the community and cause long term damage. We must take a lesson from this and never forget what certain individuals did.

In the end there were many opportunities for character assassination and dirty tactics, and some had much more baggage to exploit than others. I am happy that at least one side took the higher ground and refused to stoop so low. I am also happy that the court after reviewing many of the worst accusations and malicious rumors exonerated one of the most slandered servants of this community. I hope next time this happens so many community members will resist the temptation to remain seated silently on the sidelines as mere spectators, while innocent people are maligned.

I will continue to pray for the leadership of this community, and for Allah to grant them the wisdom and unselfishness to do what is best even if it be against their own selves. I will do what I can to support this organization and encourage others to support it, and Inshallah support whatever leadership emerges. I will, however, be a vocal critique when I notice injustice and wrong. Ultimately, to Allah we belong and to him we shall all return, and to him will be the final judgment. Hasbi Allahu wa ni'mal wakeel."

Sadly enough, only a very few people publicly thanked Ayoub and the others for their years of services. I would like for the history to mention that Br. Hassan Ayoub supported, with his time, knowledge and money, this NICC project from the very beginning. To Hassan and the others, I simply say: Jazakumallahu Khayran and may HE forgive all of us for our shortcoming.

In summary:

For $50,000 in court and attorney fees this magistrate recommendation was received but became empty of any legal meaning, because the case was withdrawn.

And The Saga Continues.