UNITED STATES V. ARIF DURRANI GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION TO ARIF DURRANI'S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

• Document Type: FOIA
• Keywords: IRAN CONTRA
• Keywords: SCANDAL
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0001474388
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 39
• Document Creation Date: June 22, 2015
• Document Release Date: January 10, 2008
• Case Number: F-2000-02383
• Publication Date: September 9, 1991

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
BRI"CC,
UNITED STATES
V.
B-90-090(TFGD)
B-86-59 (TGFD)
ARIF DURRANI
September 9, 1991
GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION TO ARIF DURRANI'S SECOND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
The government objects to each of the seven requests for
production contained in the defendant's Second Request for
Production of Documents, received on July 25 and 26, 1991.
No useful purpose could be served by requesting additional
classified documents from the CIA until the Court has had an
opportunity to consider the government's objections in light of
the claims made in both the original and amended 2255 motions. It
is clear from the requests the defendant has made that Mr.
Durrani is on a fishing expedition wholly unrelated to the claims
raised in his original 2255 Motion, l and the claims now raised in
1The suggestion in the defendant's July 21 Reply to the
Government's First Response to his First Request for Production
of Documents that there is a "possibility of [Manuel Pires']
indirect involvement with the United States government" raises a
theory wholly at odds with the defendant's previously proffered
versions of events and one which the Court, after all these
months of delay by the defendant, should not permit him the
latitude to pursue through unrestricted discovery.
APPROVED FOR RELEASE
DATE: NOV 2007
 the Amended 2255 are even more amorphous than those advanced in
the original Motion.
The Original 2255 Claims
In the original 2255 Motion, the defendant alleged that
exculpatory evidence concerning the.following was suppressed at
his trial:
(1) Oliver North's presence in London between September 28
and October 2, 1986;
(2) CIA efforts to procure Hawk missile'system parts for
delivery to Iran from sources other than the Department of
Defense;
(3) The statement of a Belgian witness, Tony Van de
Meersche, that Manuel Pires once told him that Pires was working
for the U.S. government;
(4) Involvement of his company, Merex, with the CIA in
importing ammunition;
list;
(6) [same as (2)]
(7) A memorandum from William Casey.
Durrani also claimed in the 2255 Motion that the prosecutor
suborned perjury at trial from Michael Sneddon of the National
Security Council; Charles Moyer of the Central Intelligence
Agency; and Brenda Carnahan of the Office of Munitions Control,
U.S. Department of State.
Finally, Durrani claimed that because he was induced to
(5) Placement of Bell helicopter parts on the munitions
 3
procure the Hawk parts he exported illegally by Manuel Pires, who
was allegedly "requested and authorized to act on behalf of the
United States government, the CIA and Oliver North of the NSC,"
his prosecution was barred by the concept of "due process
estoppel," and that his sentence was disproportionately long
compared to others convicted of violating the Arms Export Control
Act.
Durrani failed to support any of these claims with a single
shred of admissible evidence, or any other showing which would
have entitled him to a hearing on these claims. Notwithstanding
this utter lack of evidence, the government requested that the
matter be set down for a hearing on the suppression of
exculpatory evidence and subornation of perjury claims, and that
the defendant be required to produce competent evidence in
support of the claims or abandon them. Although the original 2255
has been pending since March, 1990, and since then the defendant
has had nearly 18 months to investigate and conduct some
discovery, no affidavit or other similar statement of provable
facts underlying his claims has ever been produced. Now the
original 2255 has been amended, and the nature of the amended
claims is even. broader and less specific than those in the
original Motion.
Scope of the Inquiry
At trial, and since, the defendant has specifically claimed
that his attempt to export Hawk system parts in October, 1986,
 without the required State Department license was specifically
authorized by Oliver North of the National Security Council in a
face-to-face meeting in London between September 28 and October
2, 1986, as part the hostage negotiations with Iran.2 Durrani
also testified that his customer Manuel Pires set up the meeting
with North, and that Pires had previously done business with
Richard Secord and Albert Hakim, although Durrani disclaimed any
involvement with any shipments made by Secord and Hakim.
Because of this testimony, even though Durrani has produced
no admissible evidence that Oliver North was in London during the
September 28 - October 2, 1986 time period, the government
agreed to provide at least the-Court with all available evidence
concerning North's whereabouts for the relevant time period. The
only evidence on this question which is in the undersigned's
possession is the Oliver North notebooks. Other information has
been identified by the Independent Counsel but cannot be made
available until security procedures are completed. However, based
on discussions with the responsible officials, no evidence
discovered so far supports Durrani's claims.
In light of Durrani's claims that Manuel Pires was an
associate of North's and the charge that the CIA witness
committed perjury concerning any resort by the CIA to third
2At one point in his testimony, Durrani said he learned
Pires was buying Hawk missile system parts for the U.S.
government in September, 1986 (3/24/87, 236-241).
 parties in procuring the Hawk system parts delivered to Iran,
document searches have also been done in an attempt to discover
any relationship between Pires and the Hawk procurement. No
evidence has been discovered so far to suggest that Pires had any
involvement with the U.S. government's shipment of Hawk parts to
Iran or with Oliver North.
Groundless Discovery
In his first Request for Production of Documents and through
subpoenas, Durrani sought not only information about the
whereabouts of Oliver North and the role of Manuel Pires, but
also documents on a variety of subjects which have on their face
no relevance to his claims.
For example, Durrani subpoened George Cave, who served under
contract to the CIA as an interpreter.in the hostage negotiations
with Iran. He has also asked for documents concerning meetings
Cave supposedly attended with Iranians in Washington, D.C. in
July and September, 1986; in Frankfurt in July, and in London and
Madrid in August, 1986. The CIA has found no documents responsive
to these requests. In his trial testimony, Durrani claimed that a
person he identified as his Iranian contact (Rahim Malekzadeh)
told him in 1985 that he was dealing with George Cave and Oliver
North. (3/24/87 Tr. 220) Since George Cave did not become
involved with the Iranian hostage negotiations until March 5,
 19863, it is obvious that this was simply another instance of
Durrani name-dropping with no first hand knowledge.4 The only
other mention of Cave during the Durrani trial was in a
stipulation involving Exhibit 609, a list of parts delivered to
Cave by an Iranian representative in Paris in April, 1986. This
list was similar but not identical to the shopping list Durrani
supplied to Radio Research in mid-1986.
Now, Durrani has expanded his document request to seek
records of meetings supposedly attended by Cave in Frankfurt in
October, 1986 (after Durrani's arrest), as well as in Washington
in September, 1986.
Nowhere in the original 2255 or in the record of this case
is there anything to support even the inference that Cave has
anything useful to contribute to a resolution of the question of
whether exculpatory evidence was withheld or perjury was
committed at Durrani's trial.
The Court recently denied the Motion to Quash the subpoena
issued to George Cave as moot, presumably in light of the status
conference at which counsel indicated they would attempt to
handle the witnesses originally subpoened by the defendant
3Draper, A Very Thin Line, p. 291. Similarly, North's first
contact with the Iranians was in Frankfurt on February 19, 1986.
4The Court will recall that Durrani also invented contact
with Howard Teicher of the National Security Council during his
trial testimony, and that Teicher appeared in the government's
rebuttal case and denied any knowledge of Durrani.
 7
through depositions. The undersigned has attempted to obtain from
defense counsel a statement of the information about which he
seeks to depose Mr. Cave, so that the, CIA can authorize Mr. Cave
to testify. A deposition of Mr. Cave in lieu of his public
appearance will be a waste of time unless the parameters of the
deposition are established with enough specificity to permit the
CIA to authorize Cave to testify.
In August, defense counsel took the depositions of Barbara
Studley and John Singlaub in Washington, D.C. Neither witness
had any knowledge of Arif Durrani or his claims; neither has any
known involvement in or knowledge of the "Iran" portion of the
Iran-Contra affair; both have met Manuel Pires only within the
last two years and neither provided any testimony suggesting any
involvement by Pires with the U.S. government or Iran-Contra.
Without some advance explanation to the Court of the relevant
testimony defense counsel expects to elicit from George Cave, the
Cave deposition offers no greater prospect of usefulness than the
Studley-Singlaub examinations and, because of Mr. Cave's
relationship with the CIA and exposure to classified information,
the difficulties of conducting such an examination are extensive.
Second Request for Documents
Examination of the most recent Request for Production of
Documents demonstrates how far afield Durrani is seeking to go
from the allegations which the Court must address.
 Request #2/1: A memorandum from William Casey to the Chief
of the Near East Bureau on October 8.1986, re ardin a meeting
with Roy Furmark. Appended to this Response as Exhibit 1 is an
excerpt from A Very Thin Line, p. 441, which describes the
document the Request seeks. Furmark was fronting for a group of
Canadian investors whose money had been used to fund Lake
Resources' acquisition of the parts shipped to Iran from the CIA.
There is no suggestion that they were at all involved in
procuring the actual parts or that their involvement was relevant
to the shipment made by Durrani on behalf of Pires; this money
was used to pay the CIA for the parts. Moreover, this document
was generated after Durrani's arrest.
Request #2/2: Records of a meeting in Frankfurt. West
Germany on October 6-8. Appended to this Response as Exhibit 2
is an excerpt from A Very Thin Line, p. 420-427, which describes
the meeting the Request apparently references. Again, the Court
can see that there is no apparent connection between this meeting
and any claim made by Durrani, and it occurred after Durrani was
in custody.
Request #2/3': Records of a meeting in Washington, D.C. on
September 19 21 1986. Appended to this Response as Exhibit 3 is
an excerpt from A Very Thin Line, pp. 410-415, which describes
the meeting the Request apparently references. There is no
apparent relevance of this meeting to any claim by Durrani,
 either.
Request #2/4: Report of a member of Hostage Location Task
Force.
Request #2/5. Delivery of Hawk spare parts by anyone
affiliated with the United States on August 3 or 4, 1986.
These references apparently comes from the Tower Commission
Report, pp. B-144-148, and has to do with the August shipment of
the parts stockpiled in Israel while the North-McFarlane visit
was undertaken in May, 1986, after the release of hostage Jenco.
See A Very Thin Line, p.388, and footnotes, appended to this
Response as Exhibit 4 along with the referenced pages of the
Tower Commission Report.
Request #2/6: List of snare parts for Hawk missile
batteries given by Kangarlou in Frankfurt, Germany on February 24
or 25, 1986. Appended to this Response as Exhibit 5 is an
excerpt from A Very Thin Line, pp. 284-289, which describes the
meeting the Request apparently references. Not only is there no
apparent connection between this meeting and any claim by
Durrani; there is no reference to a list of spare parts, either.
Request #2/7: Documents concerning the involvement of any of
seven persons or one company with purchasing arms for or
exporting or importing arms to Iran from any country from January
1. 1983 to December 31. 1987. Except for Manuel Pires and
Richard Secord, none of the other names have ever been mentioned
in connection with the Durrani case.
 10
The government has already unsuccessfully searched for
documents establishing.any connection between Manuel Pires and
the U.S. government for the period up to August 1, 1987, which is
the only question with any conceivable relevance to the 2255
Motion. While there is no dispute that Manuel Pires trafficked
in arms with the Iranians during the period 1983 thorugh 1987, it
would be irrelevant to this proceeding to document that fact. And
Durrani at trial disclaimed any involvement in any of the Secord-
Hakim shipments of weapons, which undermines any claim of
relevance for Secord's activities.
Effect of the Amended 2255
Durrani's claim of government authorization for his
activities has all along been specifically grounded in the
alleged directions provided to him personally by Oliver North and
in the relationship he swore under oath that Pires had with North
and the CIA. While it is a very interesting exercise to revisit
the Iran-Contra affair in light of information which has come to
light since Durrani's conviction, the defendant has failed to
point to a single piece of evidence which supports his claims
that exculpatory information was withheld from him and that the
government knowingly presented perjured testimony. Nor has the
defendant produced a single piece of evidence which suggests that
the jury's assessment of his credibility was in error.
Now, the 2255 Motion has been amended to eliminate the
 11
original allegations that the prosecutor deliberately withheld
exculpatory evidence and suborned perjury by the CIA and NSC
witnesses. As will be more fully set forth in the Government's
Response to the Amended Motion to Vacate and Set Aside ("Amended
2255"), which is being prepared for filing, this Office now
opposes any hearing on the merits of this Amended 2255 because
the defendant has utterly failed to comply with the requirements
for obtaining a hearing.
Certainly, the government opposes any further discovery
until the defendant at a minimum makes the showing of competent
evidence required before a hearing may be scheduled. Because of
the-quasi-criminal but technically civil nature of a 2255
proceeding, the Court has broad discretion in authorizing
discovery. It is unfair for an already-convicted defendant to be
allowed to advance totally unsupported claims and then to be
authorized to conduct wide-ranging discovery with no prospect
that the discovery will accomplish anything other than to waste
the attorneys' time and the public's money. Such a scenario
undercuts the purposes of the criminal discovery rules and the
rules of evidence, and would allow a convicted defendant much
broader latitude to rummage through the government's
investigative files than that afforded to any person awaiting
trial.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government opposes the
 12
movant's Second Request for Production of Documents and asks that
the Court review and limit the defendant's discovery demands to
documents and witnesses demonstrably relevant to the proceedings
pending before the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD N. PALMER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
HOLLY B. ITZSI ONS
ASSISTAN91 UNITBJY STATES ATTORNEY
ct05086
915 Lafayette Blvd.
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[phone]
CERTIFICATION
A copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, this
9th day of September, 1991, to William B. Bloss, Esq., Jacobs,
Grudberg, Belt & Dow, P.C., 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606, New
Haven, CT 06503.
 EXCE5 Fi"o 1
P(cH 0bR6 S C ITGD
N TEx i 0 f=
M IF-MCJAA,O-b L) ki
 Tom. F - cD
F7OTlN Qi 3
 !rsion
as always just within reach and
st hopes had been held out for
86, when at last a real Iranian
and his entourage. For a while,
garlou, was important enough
n decisions. "'
interested mainly in obtaining
unable to commit himself on
agreement to another meeting
tcome of the Frankfurt discus-
again within reach. This time
a major Iranian figure, Speaker
end and enable the Americans
m Island meeting to take place
er his return from Frankfurt.
gotiator, was put on the alert
lent. He waited three months.
Dpeared that might have dis-
1.
cord and Hakim on March a,
who had led him to believe,
of right for mtg [meeting] in
ed Phoenixes. North quickly
way we can delay this much
pull out. all stops." 2
now significantly increased its
;till considered the NSC staff
could not resist getting more
7th out of trouble.
THE DIVEt,,,ION [291]
On March 5, the CIA contributed one more of its own to North's
entourage. He was George Cave, a retired CIA veteran, who had been
called back as a consultant on Iran owing to his fluency in Farsi. Cave
had first known Ghorbanifar in 1980 and the following year had rec-
ommended breaking off with him. Chorbanifar, Cave said, had provided
information that did not check out and had demanded exorbitant financial
payments. When Ghorbanifar was apparently taken on again in 1984,
Caves suspicions had led to the polygraph tests which Chorbanifar had
failed and to the "fabricator notice" which had warned all and sundry
against any dealings with him. In January 1986, when he heard that
Ghorbanifar was back again, Cave had again made his distrust known
and had helped to design the new polygraph test, which Ghorbanifar had
again failed. Cave thought that that was the end for Ghorbanifar-pre-
maturely, as had been the case with so many other rumors of Ghorban-
ifar's downfall.'
The CIA was instrumental in putting Cave into North's operation.
The Near East Division's Tom Twetten was disturbed by the use of
Hakim, who had allegedly been involved in some illegal arms or tech-
nology sales to Iran. Twetten went to Clair George, the Operations chief,
to get Hakim out and Cave in; George went to.Casey; Cave came in,
though Hakim was also a hard man to get rid of.4 With Cave, Allen,
and Twetten working with North, the CIA had no trouble monitoring
the Iran affair-and bearing more responsibility for it.
When he was called in on March 5 and told about the Iran operation,
Cave says that it was "quite a shock" and that he was "very alarmed."'
He met that same day with North, whom he had not previously known,
and came in for an even greater shock.
Two days later, they were on a plane together heading for Paris-to
meet with Ghorbanifar.
On March 7, 1986, North, Cave, and Twetten met Ghorbanifar and Nir
in the French capital. As usual, Ghorbanifar claimed to have everything
under control and said that there was nothing to worry about. He was,
Cave wrote in a memorandum that same night, "very relaxed and said
that everything was arranged." He spent at least a half hour talking about
how indispensable he was-."how careful we must be in dealing with
these guys and how we needed such a person as him to guide the way
he knew how to handle them. "6
Twetten recalled that in an early exchange of recriminations about
which side had been most at fault in the past, Ghorbanifar was not
abashed. The Americans were unhappy because no hostages had been
released. Ghorbanifar countered that the Iranians were so unhappy with
 Fxfl ~6 ~ T
e Fe.n c ed on P . c3
~~ x + T
 ,,N LINE OUT OF C NTROL 11441]
iat he was being cut out. Furmark
: made the comment, you know,
e contras. "85
ome up twice-once from Allen
Furmark. The latter was more
banifar, who had-according to
diversion in the first place, now
-e operation.
asked Furmark to see Casey to
plete the contract so Ghorbanifar
t his money, and that is the basis
a mutual friend, John Shaheen,
s old comrade-in-arms from the
firm. Furmark said that he. had
November 1985 and apparently
half an hour. Furmark's version
Mr. Adnan Khashoggi and I
ige financing for Ghorbanifar
:ld that Mr. Ghorbanifar was
to him the bridge financing
can only be paid if the Amer-
and then Iran. will pay Mr.
en Khashoggi will be paid.
ing vein:
s) was in Khashoggi's mind.
:anadians, which is what I was
far was thinking of talking to
committee. I mentioned two
ian and Senator Leahy.
i not give anything away:
as paid into Lake Resources,
:count. He said I don't think
is not my operation. Sounds
I told him that it was being
I will look into it, and then
to call Poindexter and have
iot there.
As Furmark was leaving, Casey asked him to "see one of my guys and
give them all the details of everything that you know about it, which I
said I would do."" As for the operation itself, Casey obviously knew
better than to attribute it solely to the Israelis.
We have Casey's memorandum of his meeting with Furmark. It pro-
vides some additional details and shows that Casey was apparently most
worried about the Canadian involvement:
1. A New York man whom I haven't seen in some years came
in to tell me that he is currently working for Adnan Khashoggi and
is involved in transactions involving Iran.
2. Khashoggi apparently got some Canadian investors to put S 15
million into a company called Lake Resources which was to acquire
goods for shipment to Iran. The Canadians are said to have put up
their money as a loan which was repayable in 3o days. As of now
they have been waiting five months for their money and are very
close to doing something to recover money put up since May 15
without any collateral or signatures. Credit Suisse in Geneva is in
some way involved in this. Khashoggi put the group of Canadians
together but feels their panic about their money is such that he will
not be able to control it for long. He believes that members of the
Canadian group have been talking to [Senators) Leahy, Cranston
and Moynihan. They are claiming that the latest shipment was $10
million short because 63 pieces were defective and 299 were missing.
3. The final message was that the only way to handle this matter
is to supply the rest of the equipment or agree on a refund of X
number of dollars or repay $io million. 18
Furmark later said that he had told Casey that the loan from the
Canadians was long overdue, not that it was repayable in thirty days, and
not that it was without any collateral. Furmark also claimed that he had
said that Ghorbanifar "was talking about talking" to the three senators,
not that the Canadians were talking to them, and that the Canadians
had put in $io million, not $15 million.89
But Casey was now forewarned. Furmark should have been enough
to set alarm bells ringing.
6
If Furmark was not enough, Allen should have been more than enough.
After Furmark had left on October 7, Allen and Gates came to see
Casey. According to Allen, his purpose had been
 re jPe-c .ncec~ of Tek-t
 2 T; rt x A .O+ T A T S~
fD '' O 7 6~ S ~~~ y A A
nij
y fD C9 2 y p? S flJ rp? y O f=ib 6i
MCI
? g .,, o rt
~ TA C to o -?o m C aF
n A < R7 C ly9 C 7c" Vr .
2 0 b A D O '~
Oi 3 N 47
=~~.SaTaac~
O s
R 3
(
A N
n ? O
C n
A nAi
O ? T
A o
fD
rt C ~
A O -e
C w
.; 3 -oo 3r'Z-'-
y "+ e ?
n Di co M4 < (1) n Q ?.h . CT O S y O m a y
y p~ 7 vi y? O Q~Q y r O y qQ
H - S A 3 T C U C C rf y C C C'
Cl.
e O
O _ n
~.fCo .~+d^00 C rtCA =~ SC ~C O T(o O
rt .' nr 3 n A
a~ =- ~ ~ y W" y 3 L Q'
O ^h to "r y rt C..`'< n d Q~ '+
Ors p C G.~ W . T 3 A h~ T ~.+ S C
OO?yS C^?r(~orryr?'rC.?',. c`,30p~,.rt o-'}
(D n y{ y rt tD O (np ~' C C _S R 0
91.
N y N O fS Oa O y ~? C? iif T O O CS. n y ~?
a, z
y T Ctn S(D A S S rt ~?
'A eb
'C A A C C uAi ~. "?? n -?~ fn` G. ~ i _ f'D n_ ~` C~
O
Q:
R W
.
~
y C 6~ y
(np ."fi y R 6i y
l~9 3 ~rt~ ?
C ~ O rn' uOi
A z y o
N O S (Cp 00
O ? (nD b? ."~ ~
C O(~. Ai O 'rp_' 4. < '~ p f0
p.. 9 C cD d-1 O 7AC-? C. _. C
~-' O y C < rt
S G. ? O 0 C ,
~ C 7.j C SO CM
Or '~ y'~ ~ S ~....J....3 ?~
O. S
fD
rt 0 ~s QO C w C C
S a
'"'~56~ W S~fC
O C D C rt'.
y
S(^'p Qm '(per C ~ .C.,
fo ~ C y fS..+ fo ~
cr 11 = C/)
q?.ni
.
 -Z A A "~ lS- y
~ O a~O O _ ~ SD.,
G fD A
O vi H S ?-~ O _ 7 C.. O~rt O.
O rb -4 4 O O C-8 m
61
A O- n O O C: O N 0 O y
1 .y,r? ' `~ b y 67 `T Pip pj o
O, A !D ~O O SSO N QQ
a. rD
O O _.
y o~ 9 S y S S C o -` rna
= O T