Who is kani xulam

Power up your marketing and get people to pay attention to your business, pursuit, or clients. Find prospects, develop your lists, and track your marketing campaigns without even having to leave the RocketReach suite.

Find the most crucial people you need to bring your product to with our advanced search features and then immediately take action, leaving your competition in the dust.

Empower your sales teams to reach the right decisions makers directly, using the most accurate and up-to-date emails, phone numbers and social media links. Search and discover companies that match the right target criteria. Then with your lookups you and your team can easily start engaging with customized outreach campaigns and more. Find the best candidates quicker than your competitors.

With our advanced search, you and your team can quickly nail down the strongest prospects and ensure that you're going to find the best fit. Reach out directly with real-time validated email and phone numbers, and take it to the next step by creating personal and reusable email templates that integrate with your existing email provider.

Organize your contacts with fully customizable lists and integrate with your existing CRM or ATS for seamless workflow. Our data is constantly growing, always providing you with the freshest and most up-to-date leads.

Toggle navigation RocketReach. Kani Xulam's Email Found 2 emails: gmail. Redirecting you to the search page. Lorem Ipsum Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet None. American Kurdish Information Network. Congress and their staff to seek the freedom of Kurdish parliamentarians imprisoned in Turkey, with a particular focus on the case of Leyla Zana.

In , he took part in a hunger strike on the steps of the Capitol urging members of Congress to use their good offices on behalf of their imprisoned Kurdish colleagues. Xulam, on the advice of his physician, ended his fast on the 32nd day.

His advocacy work on behalf of the Kurdish people, and his efforts to resist legal harassment in the U. His nonviolent charge carried a maximum of six months imprisonment under the sentencing guidelines; he had no criminal record or record of failure to appear; he was employed and had a wide circle of respected acquaintances and close friends in the community who testified as to his "spiritual" and "intellectual" integrity; and the government acknowledged that he posed no threat to the community.

Indeed, the district court admitted that if he were facing only the criminal charge, his "chances [of appearing] might be good. What militated against him, in the judge's view, was that the government witness testified that he might be facing deportation to Turkey, where as a Kurd he might be persecuted.

The court also believed that "he will go to any other ends There are several reasons why we do not believe those factors alone provided a legitimate ground for ordering pretrial detention. First, we are not convinced that the government satisfied its burden of showing a risk of flight. United States v. Friedman, F. Himler, F. Appellant's strong commitment to advocating his Kurdish cause in the United States, cited by the district court as enhancing his risk of flight, would seem to militate against, not in favor of, flight, since the only way he can pursue that cause is publicly, within the human rights community, and disappearing or fleeing would render him permanently impotent in that respect.

How would he be regarded in that community, for instance, if he violated the trust of his third-party custodians, or forfeited bonds or assets they pledged for his release? On a more practical level, the government has taken away all his passports and travel documents, so it is unlikely he could go far even if he wished to.

In addition, as explained above, the INS has itself addressed any concerns regarding appellant's risk of flight by lodging a detainer against appellant, which permits his retention for 48 hours after he is otherwise ordered released, and at that point, the agency may opt to take appellant into custody pending deportation proceedings.

Second, any or all of the conditions listed above were available in this case, but there is no indication in the record that the magistrate judge or the district court judge fully explored the commitments offered by appellant's witnesses or the appellant's proffer that he was willing to abide by whatever conditions the court imposed. Jackson, F. One of appellant's witnesses, Sister Patricia Krommer, testified that she would "absolutely" be willing to ensure appellant's return to court.

When then asked, "And what kinds of assistance could you offer in that regard? I would provide transportation. If he needed to appear in court, I would bring him in. I would be happy to monitor his whereabouts each day. I would have no hesitancy.

Yet, the magistrate judge concluded that " [t]heir testimony was devoid of any facts from which [the court] could find that [the witnesses] have any means of monitoring [appellant's] whereabouts.

Perhaps most significantly, nothing in the witnesses' testimony suggests that defendant would be amenable to supervision by any of them. Porter and Sister Krommer] could not stop him. He has no intentions of fleeing. Porter would suffer if appellant were to flee and appellant's proffer that he would comply with any conditions of release imposed upon him, the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that "no condition or combination of conditions" would "reasonably assure" appellant's appearance in court.

Finally, there is no outstanding deportation order against this appellant. Moreover, section d has a specific provision for a ten-day temporary hold on a defendant who is not a citizen, during which time the government attorney is to notify the appropriate INS officials so that they may act against the appellant if they choose. After that time, " [i]f the official fails or declines to take the person into custody When the government did not move here for temporary detention under section d , it does not seem legitimate for it to now introduce the specter of a possible deportation through the back door as a principal reason for detention.

We cannot but conclude that a serious error has been made here. A first-time offender accused of a nonviolent crime with strong community ties and respected members of that community willing to supervise his release in any manner the court finds necessary, including designated residences, curfews, reporting in, is incarcerated pending trial, despite the fact that his entire lifestyle and mission strongly suggest he will stay in place, and his charged misdeed if, indeed, he is found guilty was to falsify information on a passport in order to remain in this country.