</li><li>Admitted, with the same response as in paragraph 14.
                    </li><li>Admitted that no license was obtained, as there is no lawful authority for such licensing restrictions on humanitarian aid.
                    </li><li>Admitted that a pre-penalty notice bearing that date was sent.
                    </li><li>Admitted

that a written presentation was sent and that it stated that delegation
members have delivered symbolic amounts of medicine, medical supplies
and (in some cases) toys, directly to public hospitals and, in some
instances, to the Iraqi Red Crescent Society for distribution. Admitted
that the presentation, referencing the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Hague
Conventions of 1899 and 1907 on warfare and the Geneva Conventions of
1949
on humanitarian responsibilities, and other international and domestic law, and advised:

“With
respect to the enforcement of this embargo, we are conscientious
objectors. We will not allow a government to dictate to our conscience.
We will not allow the U.S. government, in the name of democracy or
national security, to order us to cooperate with a strategy designed to
starve the people of Iraq, to deprive them of medicine and medical
supplies, spare parts for infrastructure, pencils for school children,
chlorine for water and sewage treatment, toys, employment, or any of
the essentials necessary to sustain daily life.

                            <br />
                        We

object to the licensing regulations which your office upholds and we,
in good conscience, will not participate. We believe it is our civic
responsibility to speak out against injustice and our moral and
religious responsibility to act on conscience: to do justice; to feed
the hungry and care for the sick. The licensing process is an
obstruction of our right to exercise these civic, moral and religious
duties. We will not participate in the enforcement of an embargo which
uses food and medicine as a weapon, which has led to the deaths of over
one million Iraqis and is a Crime Against Humanity.”

                    </li><li>Admitted.<br />

	
                    </li><li>Admitted that Defendant sent correspondence to OFAC. Denied that the regulations are lawful.<br />
	
                    </li><li>Admitted that defendant maintains a web site. Denied characterization of its content.<br />
	
                    </li><li>Admitted. Denied that there exists legal authority to issue said fine.<br />
	
                    </li><li>Defendant incorporates by reference the responses to the cited numbered paragraphs.<br />
	
                    </li><li>Denied.<br />
	
                    </li><li>Defendant incorporates by reference the responses to the cited numbered paragraphs.<br />
	
                    </li><li>Denied.<br />
	
                </li></ol>
	
                <ul></ul>
                <ol></ol>
                <p>In answering this complaint, defendant denies all allegations not specifically admitted or otherwise answered herein.<br />
                    </p>
                <p>First Defense<br />
                    </p>
                <p>The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.<br />
	
                    </p>
                <p>Second Defense<br />
                    </p>
                <p>Plaintiff’s

claims are barred by the illegality of the sanctions/licensure regime
and this enforcement action, under international and domestic law, jus
cogens and the law of nations, including legal standards and treaty
obligations arising under the Charter of the United Nations, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August
1949 and their protocols, the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws
and Customs of War on Land, the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court, and general prohibitions against crimes against
humanity, war crimes, and crimes against the peace.

Third Defense

                <p>Defendant's

conduct is privileged under the principles established at the Nuremberg
Tribunal which affords a person the privilege to disregard domestic law
where that domestic law requires a person to violate international law.
Compliance with the regulatory provisions of the sanctions program
would constitute complicity with a program unlawful under international
law, and therefore the decision not to comply with those obligations is
privileged.

Fourth Defense

Plaintiff’s
claims are barred under the doctrine of selective prosecution, that
authorities purposefully discriminated against Voices in the Wilderness
by selecting defendant for the instant enforcement action because
defendant had exercised First Amendment rights to protest the sanctions
and licensing scheme and U.S. foreign policy against Iraq. This
prosecution was advanced four years after the defendant submitted its
presentation responding to prepenalty notice. The government took no
action until the Fall of 2002 when it found itself confronted by the
momentum of a world wide movement and massive demonstrations in
opposition to the U.S. government’s drive towards war in Iraq, and
Voices in the Wilderness campaign was at the forefront of that movement
as an outspoken opponent of U.S. sanctions and the threat of preemptive
war against Iraq.

Fifth Defense

                    </p>
                <p>Plaintiff's

claims are barred for its failure to comply with the regulatory
procedure under which this enforcement action is brought. Among other
failures, upon review of the defendant’s December, 1998 written
presentation in response to the pre-penalty notice, the Director of
OFAC was required to promptly issue a written notice of the imposition
of a monetary penalty. 31

C.F.R.
575.704. The written notice of the imposition of a monetary penalty was
issued by the Director in November, 2002, approximately four years
after the submission of the written presentation.

Sixth Defense

                <p>Plaintiff's

claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of limitations,
statutes of repose, the doctrine of laches and/or waiver.

Seventh Defense

Plaintiff’s
claims are barred because the regulations under which this enforcement
action are taken are ultra vires, and beyond statutory authority. See,
e.g. 50 U.S.C. 1702(a)(3)(b)(”The authority granted to the President by
this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit,
directly or indirectly, . . . donations . . . of articles, such as
food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human
suffering except to the extent that the President determines that such
donations (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any
national emergency. . .

(B)
are in response to coercion against the proposed recipient or donor, or
(c) would endanger Armed Forces of the United States. . . “). The
applicable Presidential Executive Order 12722 specifically excluded
from its scope “donations of articles intended to relieve human
suffering, such as food, clothing, medicine and medical supplies
intended strictly for medical purposes.”

                    </p>
                <p>Eighth Defense<br />
                    </p>
                <p>Plaintiff's claims are barred under the doctrine of self-defense of others.<br />
                    </p>
                <p>Ninth Defense<br />
                    </p>

	
                <p>Plaintiff’s

claimed are barred pursuant to the First Amendment, Due Process Clause,
the 14th & th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Tenth Defense

Plaintiff’s claims are barred pursuant to the doctrines of necessity, excuse and/or justification.

                <p>Eleventh Defense<br />
                    </p>
                <p>Plaintiff's

claims are barred pursuant to the doctrine of duress, that the
defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because it was compelled to
do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to others.

Twelfth Defense

Plaintiff’s
claims are barred pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42
U.S.C. 2000bb-1, prohibiting the government from placing a “substantial
burden” on a persons’s exercise of religion “even if the burden results
from a rule of general applicability,” unless the government
demonstrates a “compelling governmental interest,” and uses the “lease
restrictive means” of furthering that interest. No such showing has
been made in this case.

                    </p>
                <p></p>
                <p>Defendant demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.<br />
                    </p>
                <p>Counterclaim against the Government of the United States of America<br />
                    </p>
                <ol>
                    <li>In

July, 1991, the U.N. Secretary General presented to the U.N. Security
Council a report by an inter-agency mission to Iraq. The mission was
headed by the Secretary General’s Executive Delegate Sadruddin Aga
Khan, and accurately reported and described the pre-sanctions
conditions in Iraq as follows:

                            <br />
                        \"As of mid-1990, Iraq was in certain respects fast approaching a standard

comparable to that of some highly industrialized nations in the sectors
of [humanitarian] concern to the present mission. A wide reaching
and sophisticated health system had been put in place, capable of
routinely providing services such as kidney dialysis treatment in
regional hospitals. The provision of clean drinking water was the norm.
. . Sewage treatment, including a number of large and technically
sophisticated plants, kept the quality of the water in the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers as a reasonable level. While poverty and moderate
malnutrition remained a problem in some areas, severe malnutrition, and
related syndromes such as marasmus and kwashiorkor, were not major
health problems ….Approximately 70percent of the food needs of the
country were met through imports from abroad…”

                    </li><li>Starting

in 1990, the United States ultimately acting in concert with many other
nations, including the United Nations Security Council, began a program
of comprehensive trade, economic, travel, military and cultural
sanctions against the people of Iraq.

                    </li><li>At

approximately the same time, the United States and other nations began
to occupy and control areas of Iraqi territory and air-space.

                    </li><li>The comprehensive nature and scope of the sanctions was unprecedented.<br />

	
                    </li><li>The

Congressional Record reflects the affirmation that, Iraqi “Sanctions,
un-precedented in their international solidarity and more massive in
scope than any ever adopted in peacetime against any nation - I repeat
- ever adopted against any nation, are inflicting painful costs on the
Iraqi economy.” 137 Congressional Record, Proceeding and Debates of the
102d Congress, First Session (No. 6, 1991) at S162.

                    </li><li>The

sanctions were ostensibly to punish the Iraqi government for violations
of international law and to create coercive or destabilizing pressure
upon the government of Iraq to comply with certain directives.

                    </li><li>As

a consequence of sanctions, there was a decline in the conditions of
life of ordinary Iraqi civilians, sufficiently severe as to cause
widespread health injuries and death. U.N. reports
in 1993 identify “pre-famine indicators” and note the persistent
deprivation, severe hunger and malnutrition for the vast majority of
Iraqi civilians.

                    </li><li>Defendant

Voices in the Wilderness was founded in 1996, and has campaigned to end
economic and military warfare against the Iraqi people. They have done
this mostly by organizing delegations to Iraq in deliberate defiance of
the U.N. and U.S. sanction regime to publicly deliver small amounts of
medical supplies to children and families in need.

                    </li><li>Their

primary focus has always been ordinary Iraqi civilians and the most
vulnerable of Iraqi society, especially children. They are volunteers -
teachers, veterans, social workers, artists, health care professionals,
trades people and people of faith - who, in the tradition of Mohandas
Gandhi, practice and advocate nonviolence as a means for social change.
As nonviolent war resisters, they oppose the development, storage and
use by any country of weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear,
chemical, biological, or economic.

                    </li><li>The

sanctions created widespread deprivation of access by the Iraqi
civilian population to goods, materials, and items, including but not
limited to medicines necessary for treatment and prevention of death,
illness and disease. The sanctions created conditions of widespread
adversity for Iraqi civilians, including the deliberate creation of
conditions known and anticipated to cause death, illness and societal
health problems of a pandemic scope.

                            T
                    </li><li>he

creation of these conditions of adversity and certain widespread
civilian death were deliberately inflicted through the sanctions
program upon the children and civilians of Iraq in order to achieve
perceived policy objectives related to the government of Iraq.

                    </li><li>The sanctions regime deliberately inflicted upon the Iraqi civilian population conditions of

life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part, ostensibly to punish the Iraqi government for violations of
international law or to create coercive or destabilizing pressure upon
the government of Iraq to comply with certain directives.

                    </li><li>The calculated

nature of this lethal program was acknowledged in 1996 by the U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright. Leslie Stahl,
correspondent for the television news show 60 Minutes, asked the
Ambassador, “We have heard that a half million children have died [in
Iraq as a consequence of sanctions] . . . I mean, that’s more children
than dies in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?” The
Ambassador responded on behalf of the United States, “we think the
price is worth it.”

                    </li><li>UNICEF

reported on April 30, 1998 that “Economic sanctions on Iraq over the
past seven years have had a devastating effect on the majority of the
Iraqi people, particularly children…Over
half of the children are dying from malnutrition, never a problem
before sanctions.” UNICEF cites the following statistics on death: a
child dies every 12 minutes; 250 people die a day; 90,000 a year
because of sanctions.

                    </li><li>In

September, 1998, Denis Halliday, former United Nations Assistant
Secretary-General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, resigned,
declaring in reference to the sanctions and licensing regime, “We are
in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and
terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.”

                    </li><li>In

February, 2000, Hans Van Sponeck, Halliday’s successor as Humanitarian
Coordinator in Iraq, resigned in protest of the sanctions program,
including the inhumane restrictions imposed by the licensing rules that
allowed a severely insufficient amount of goods to enter Iraq. Later
that week, Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Programme in Iraq,
resigned for the same reasons.

                    </li><li>In

August, 1999, UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy stated that the
health conditions in Iraq constituted “an ongoing humanitarian
emergency.”

                    </li><li>The

sanctions and licensing program constituted indiscriminate economic and
military warfare against a civilian population. It caused severe health
injuries and death through deprivation of access to necessary food,
water, medical supplies and other basic necessities, which was a
deliberate and calculated act on the part of those participating and
leading nations, including the United States. The limited licensing
exceptions were enacted to strengthen the sanctions by mollifying
growing worldwide opposition to the criminal sanctions program that
would have otherwise caused their cessation. The largest such program,
the “oil-for-food” program was “designed to be inadequate,” according
to Denis Halliday.

                    </li><li>Any

delivery of medical supplies by defendant is justified by the defense
of necessity and the defense of others, both because of the potential
and actual loss of human life, as well as the grave illegality of the
sanctions regime under international and domestic law.

                    </li><li>It

is a moral, ethical, religious, and humanitarian imperative that makes
delivery of medicine to the dying children of Iraq a medical and legal
necessity, and to do so in a manner that avoids furthering or
legitimizing the sanctions/licensing regime which would further and
exacerbate the imminent harm against which these actions were intended
to guard against.

                    </li><li>That

the sanctions program was ostensibly justified with reference to
certain political goals of the government, renders it no less unlawful
under applicable laws, including: The Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, referenced above; The Geneva
Conventions of 1949 and its protocols which, among other things,
prohibits the wilful killing, inhuman treatment, and the wilful causing
of great suffering or serious injury to body or health to protected
persons, which mandate free passage of medical provisions, and which
prohibit collective punishment; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which inter alia
protect the right to life and to an adequate standard of living,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care; the United Nations
Charter, which inter alia was violated in the implementation of the sanctions program; the peremptory norms of international law, the norms jus cogens from which no derogation is allowed, including standards reflected in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (signed by over 130 nations to date), that prohibit intentional attacks against civilian not taking direct part in hostilities, as well as the use of indiscriminate methods of warfare, and the deprivation of objects indispensable to survival as a method of warfare.

                    </li><li>The

above-list, while not comprehensive, is indicative of the well
established standards and norms under international law that the
sanctions program, of which this civil action is a part, violated.
Additionally, the instant regulatory action is ultra vires as beyond
the scope of its statutory authority, as well as violative of
defendant’s Constitutional rights, including but not limited to First
Amendment rights and due process rights.

                            <br />
                            (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency declared under section 1701 of this title,<br />
                        (B) are in response to coercion against the proposed recipient or donor,<br />

or © would endanger Armed Forces of the United States which are
engaged in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involvement
in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances…” 50 U.S.C.
1702(a)(3)(b)(2)

                    </li><li>The President has <u>not</u>

by operation of Executive Order Nos. 12722 and 12724, relied upon by
the Government to advance this prosecution, made such determination, as
required by the statute.

                    </li><li>The

President expressly excludes from the scope of Executive Order 12722
any “donations of articles intended to relieve human suffering, such as
food, clothing, medicine and medical supplies intended strictly for
medical purposes.”

                    </li><li>Similarly,

the President expressly excludes from the scope of Executive Order
12724 all “donations of articles intended to relieve human suffering,
such as food, clothing, medicine and medical supplies intended strictly
for medical purposes.”

                    </li><li>Defendant

seeks injunctive relief in the form of a prohibitory injunction, to
prevent future civil enforcement actions for the donation of the
above-referenced humanitarian aid.

                </li></ol>
                <p>Count II (Malicious Prosecution, Selective Prosecution and Discriminatory Prosecution)</p>
                <ol start=\"37\">
                    <li>Defendant hereby incorporates by references paragraphs 1 through 26 of the Answer and Counterclaim as if set forth herein.

	
                    </li><li>The government has initiated or procured the instant proceedings against defendant.
                    </li><li>There is no probable cause or legal basis for these proceedings.
                    </li><li>The

government has initiated these proceedings with malicious intent, and
in retaliation for the defendant’s exercise of First Amendment
protected rights to oppose U.S. policy against Iraq.

                    </li><li>These proceedings will terminate in defendant's favor.
                    </li><li>Defendant

has suffered monetary and non-monetary injury as a consequence of these
unlawful and malicious prosecutions., and seeks recompense through all
applicable statutes and laws including the Federal Tort Claims Act.

WHEREFORE, defendant moves this honorable Court for the following relief:

                </li></ol>
                <ol type=\"A\">

	
                    <li>Dismissal of all fines and claims advanced by the government;
                    </li><li>Entry

of a declaratory injunction that the sanctions regime, and enforcement
actions related thereto, are unlawful and violative of applicable
international law, treaties, the U.S. Constitution and domestic law;

                            <br />
                        <dl>Respectfully submitted,<br />
                            <br />
                        /s/ Carl Messineo<br />
                            <br />
                        Carl Messineo (#450033)<br />
                        Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (#450031)<br />

	
                            <br />
                        PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE<br />
                        1901 Pennsylvania Ave., NW #607<br />
                        Washington, D.C. 20006<br />
                        (202) 530-5630<br />
                            <br />
                        /s/ William P. Quigley<br />
	
                        Admitted Pro Hac Vice<br />
                        Loyola University School of Law<br />
                        7214 St. Charles Ave., Rm 118<br />
                        New Orleans, LA 70118<br />
                        504-861-5591<br />
                        </dl>
	
                </li></ol>
                <dl></dl>
                <hr color=\”black\” size=\”1\” noshade=\”noshade\”>
                <p><a name=\”genocide\”></a>1\”In

the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

                    </p>
                <p>(c)

Deliberately inflicting upon the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part . . .”