Ratty Information In Terror Case?

MAY 26--The federal investigators prosecuting four men for allegedly plotting to attack New York City synagogues and a military base were either very sloppy with the facts or they purposely included misleading information about their confidential informant in a court filing unsealed last week. In a sworn criminal complaint, FBI Agent Robert Fuller included a footnote describing the government snitch central to the case against a quartet of Newburgh, N.Y. men. While not named in the complaint, the informant has been widely identified as Shahed Hussain, a 52-year-old Albany man who began cooperating with the FBI following his arrest years ago on a felony fraud rap. According to Fuller's complaint, the government's confidential witness in the Newburgh case 'in or about 2002' pleaded guilty to, 'inter alia' (among other things), a federal fraud count. The informant, Fuller added, 'was sentenced to five years' probation.' Despite those scant details, an examination of federal court records could possibly have turned up the identity of the FBI's prized informant. Except, of course, that Fuller's description of the snitch was not accurate. Court records show that Hussain actually pleaded guilty on April 16, 2003. He copped to the single felony count with which he was originally charged. There were no 'other things' on his criminal docket. And when Hussain appeared for sentencing before Judge David Hurd on October 30, 2006, he received a slap on the wrist in recognition of his informant work: Hussain was fined $100 and, according to a court filing, was not placed on probation. 'No term of supervised release to follow,' Hurd ordered. It is unclear how the botched information got into Fuller's complaint, or whether it is indicative of the quality of the government's terrorism case. (4 pages)