Tahawwur Hussain Rana, who has been recently convicted on two counts of providing support to terrorism in the Denmark plot and to LeT with co-accused David Coleman Headley, said he was unaware of the terror activities of Headley.
Rana had provided cover and funds to Headley unknowingly, a recently unsealed document reveal. He has asked the judge to conduct another hearing in his case.
The documents which were ordered to be unsealed by Judge Harry Leinenweber on July 19 at the request of Chicago Tribune newspaper reveal that Headley had explicitly told the agents that Rana was not aware of his activities and he did not knowingly allow him to use his business as cover.
It contradicts the affidavit filed in trial of Headley's statements regarding Rana that he knowingly provided cover and funds in support of terrorism.
Moreover, Headley also gave explanation for Rana procuring airline tickets for him as 'Rana was simply repaying a loan'.
A lack of knowledge regarding Headley's true activities and a non-terrorism reason for Rana paying for airline tickets undercuts the only tangible elements that would link the Rana to either providing or conspiring to provide material support to terrorism.
Headley's exculpatory statements regarding Rana cut against the government's case for probable cause in two significant ways.
First, the statements provide straightforward evidence indicating that there was not probable cause to search Rana's home and businesses.
According to Headley, Rana was innocent.
Rana, through his attorney Patrick Blegen, has requested Judge Harry Leinenweber to conduct a 'Franks hearing' in which the statements made by police officers in an affidavit that was used to obtain a search warrant in which evidence incriminated him are false and constitute perjury or reckless disregard for truth.
Rana's residence was searched based on statements made by Headley and those statements are not credible, the documents state.
So Rana's house was not searched based on truthful evidence.
Because of the omissions, the magistrate judge reviewing the affidavit was left entirely unaware of evidence exculpating Rana.
Moreover, the government's own qualms about Headley's credibility were also hidden, the documents say.
Second, assuming the government did not believe Headley's statement about Rana, the statements undercut all of his other statements that were used to support probable cause, the documents state.
The omission of the exculpatory statements altogether avoids the obvious awkward situation, asking the magistrate to credit and discredit Headley's statements all at the same time.
