26 July 2002
Source: Digital transcript purchased from Exemplaris.com for $34.00.
Other case documents: http://cryptome.org/usa-v-zm-cd.htm
0001 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 3 Alexandria Division 4 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X : 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : 6 -vs- : CRIMINAL ACTION : NO. 01-455-A 7 ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, : : 8 Defendant. : : 9 X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 10 Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11 Alexandria, Virginia 12 Transcript of motion proceedings in the 13 above-captioned matter. 14 BEFORE: 15 The Honorable LEONIE M. BRINKEMA, Judge United States District Court 16 APPEARANCES: 17 FOR THE UNITED STATES: 18 ROBERT A. SPENCER, ESQ. 19 KENNETH M. KARAS, ESQ. DAVID J. NOVAK, ESQ. 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2100 Jamieson Avenue 21 Alexandria, Virginia 223l4-5794 22 * * * DON McCOY, RMR 23 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER (703) 683-3668 24 25 0002 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 3 ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI (pro se) 4 5 STANDBY COUNSEL: 6 ALAN M. YAMAMOTO, ESQ. 108 N. Alfred Street 7 1st Floor Alexandria, Virginia 22314 8 9 ANNE CHAPMAN, ESQ. KENNETH P. TROCCOLI, ESQ. 10 Office of the Federal Public Defender 1650 King Street 11 Suite 500 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 12 13 14 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 15 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 16 (None) 17 EXHBITS: FOR IDENTIFICATION: IN EVIDENCE: 18 (None) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0003 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 THE CLERK: Criminal Action No. 01-455-A, United 3 States of America vs. Zacarias Moussaoui. 4 Would counsel please note your appearance for the 5 record. 6 MR. SPENCER: Good morning, Your Honor -- good 7 afternoon, Your Honor. Excuse me. Rob Spencer, Ken Karas, 8 and David Novak for the United States. 9 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Moussaoui, you are 10 here at counsel table. Would you go up to the lectern 11 please, Mr. Moussaoui. 12 Mr. Moussaoui, you are here today for arraignment 13 on the superseding indictment. Have you received a copy of 14 the superseding indictment? 15 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Yes. I received it on Saturday, 16 yes. 17 THE COURT: Do you wish to have a formal 18 arraignment or waive formal arraignment? 19 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I want the formal arraignment. 20 THE COURT: All right, that's fine. Because you 21 received the original indictment some time ago when you had 22 counsel and went over it at that time and waived formal 23 arraignment on the original indictment, I will simply 24 advise you as to the changes in the superseding indictment 25 from the original indictment. 0004 1 You should know that the same six counts are in 2 the superseding indictment. 3 Count one charges you with conspiracy to commit 4 acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries and is a 5 capital offense. 6 Count two is conspiracy to commit aircraft 7 piracy, also a capital offense. 8 Count three is conspiracy to destroy aircraft, 9 also a capital offense. 10 Count four is conspiracy to use weapons of mass 11 destruction. That is also a capital offense. 12 Count five is conspiracy to murder United States 13 employees. 14 And count six is conspiracy to destroy property. 15 The changes from the original indictment that are 16 now in the superseding indictment are as follows: 17 All the changes have occurred in count one only. 18 Counts two through six, as the Court understands it, have 19 remained the same to the extent that they don't incorporate 20 language from count one. 21 On the cover page, rather than December 2001 22 being as the term of the Grand Jury, the superseding 23 indictment comes out of the June 2, 2002, term of the Grand 24 Jury. 25 In terms of count one, the first change is in 0005 1 paragraph 10. Paragraph 10 has been changed solely to 2 change the name from Banihammad Fayez, which appears in the 3 original indictment, to Fayez Banihammad. In no other 4 respects is paragraph 10 of count one changed, other than, 5 I'm sorry, later on in the Overt Acts section of paragraph 6 10, that paragraph has also been deleted. 7 I should say that paragraph 10 of the background 8 is what I just described for you. Then in the Overt Acts, 9 which are part of count one, paragraph 10 of the Overt 10 Acts, which described an address by Usama Bin Laden in 11 1998, has been entirely deleted, which changes the 12 paragraph numbering in the superseding indictment. 13 The old paragraph 17 in the Overt Acts has also 14 been entirely deleted. That paragraph provided discussion 15 of Mr. Atta making inquiries about crop dusting. That is 16 no longer in the superseding indictment. 17 Paragraph 21 has been changed solely by number. 18 It is now 19 in the superseding indictment, and, rather 19 than referring to $4,790 as being wired on June 29, 2000, 20 the sum has been changed to $5,000. So there was a 21 rounding up of the amount of money. 22 In the original indictment, paragraph 24 of the 23 Overt Acts, which describes an August 7, 2000, wire 24 transfer, the sum has also been changed by rounding up from 25 $9,485 in the first indictment to $9,500 in the superseding 0006 1 indictment. 2 Paragraph 25 of the Overt Acts in the original 3 indictment allege that on or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 4 was wired into a Florida SunTrust account in the names of 5 Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi. That has been changed 6 to now read as paragraph 23 in the superseding indictment. 7 The date is now August 29, rather than August 30, 2000, and 8 the amount of money, rather than being $19,985, is now 9 $20,000. 10 Paragraph 26 in the original indictment referred 11 to an overt act occurring on or about September 18, 2000, 12 involving a wire transfer of $69,985. That has been 13 changed in the superseding indictment to now being numbered 14 as paragraph 24, and the date has changed from September 18 15 to September 17 of 2000, and the amount of money involved, 16 $70,000. 17 Paragraph 30 of the original indictment has been 18 changed simply to delete the words "in Yemen" and, 19 therefore, now reads as paragraph 28 in the superseding 20 indictment to be on or about August 14, 2000, Ramzi Bin 21 al-Shibh, and then it goes on. It simply leaves out the 22 "in Yemen." 23 Paragraph 53 of the Overt Acts in the original 24 indictment, which alleged that in or about June 2001, in 25 Norman, Oklahoma, Zacarias Moussaoui made inquiries about 0007 1 starting a crop-dusting company, has been completely 2 deleted in the superseding indictment. 3 Paragraph 57 in the original indictment alleged 4 an overt act occurring on June 25, 2001, in Dubai, United 5 Arab Emirates. That 57 has been changed now to paragraph 6 54. The date is now different. It is on or about June 23, 7 2001, and it reads that Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi used a 8 cash deposit to open a checking account at a Standard 9 Chartered Branch in Sharjah, UAE, and an ATM account in 10 connection with the checking account. 11 Paragraph 58 of the original indictment list of 12 overt acts alleges an event on June 25, 2001, at the same 13 Standard Chartered Bank in Dubai, UAE, and it talks about a 14 savings account and a checking account. 15 That paragraph 58 is now paragraph 55, and in the 16 superseding indictment, it alleges on or about June 25, 17 2001, at the same Standard Chartered Bank branch in 18 Sharjah, UAE, Fayez Ahmed (No. 175) used a cash deposit to 19 open a checking account and also opened a savings account, 20 Fayez Ahmed also opened an ATM and VISA card account in 21 connection with the checking account. 22 There's a new paragraph 56 in the superseding 23 indictment. It alleges that on or about June 25, 2001, 24 Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi opened a savings account at the 25 Standard Chartered Bank and a VISA account on the same 0008 1 account. 2 The heading above old paragraph 59 in count one, 3 which read Atta and al-Shehri Purchase a Knife has now been 4 changed to the heading above paragraph 57, and it reads 5 Atta Purchases a Knife. 6 Old paragraph 63, which alleged between July 18 7 and August 1, 2001, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi caused Fayez 8 Ahmed's VISA and ATM cards to be shipped from the UAE to 9 Fayez Ahmed in Florida has been changed and in paragraph 10 61, which is the corresponding number now in the 11 superseding indictment, it alleges between on or about July 12 18 and August 1, 2001, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi caused 13 Fayez Ahmed's VISA card -- it leaves out the ATM card -- to 14 be shipped from the UAE to Fayez Ahmed in Florida. 15 Paragraph 65 in the original indictment, which 16 alleged events between on or about July 29 and August 2nd, 17 2001, in Norman, Oklahoma, Zacarias Moussaoui made several 18 telephone calls from public telephones to a number in 19 Duesseldorf, Germany, is now paragraph 63, and alleges that 20 between on or about July 29 and August 4, a difference of 21 two days there, in Norman, Oklahoma, Zacarias Moussaoui 22 made several telephone calls from public telephones to a 23 number in Duesseldorf, Germany. 24 Paragraph 67 has been changed in the new 25 superseding indictment. It is now paragraph 65, and it 0009 1 adds the words "wired approximaly $14,000 to Zacarias 2 Moussaoui." It leaves out the words "in money orders," 3 which had been included in old paragraph 67. 4 Old paragraph 70, which alleges that on or about 5 August 9 and 10, 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui was driven from 6 Oklahoma to Minnesota, is now paragraph 68 in the 7 superseding indictment and alleges that on or about August 8 10 and August 11, so there's a difference of one day there, 9 Zacarias Moussaoui was driven from Oklahoma to Minnesota. 10 Paragraph 71 in the original indictment read on 11 or about August 10, 2001, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 12 Zacarias Moussaoui paid approximately $6300 in cash to the 13 Pan Am International Flight Academy. That paragraph is now 14 paragraph 69 in the superseding indictment, and the date 15 has changed by three days. That is, it reads now on or 16 about August 13, 2001, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Zacarias 17 Moussaoui paid approximately, and the number has changed 18 from $6300 in the original indictment to $6800 in cash to 19 the Pan Am International Flight Academy. 20 Paragraph 73 of the original indictment listed a 21 series of items possessed by Mr. Moussaoui on or about 22 August 16, 2001. From that list of property one item has 23 been deleted in the new superseding indictment. What has 24 been deleted is quote, "a computer disk containing 25 information related to the aerial application of 0010 1 pesticide." That is no longer in the superseding 2 indictment. 3 There is in the heading above paragraph 74 in the 4 new, superseding indictment, the heading now reads A 5 Co-Conspirator Calls Fayez Ahmed From Germany, and that has 6 a new paragraph 74, which reads on or about August 18, 7 2001, a co-conspirator made a telephone call from Germany 8 to Fayez Ahmed in Florida. 9 Old paragraph 76, which alleged that on or about 10 August 22nd, 2001, Fayez Ahmed used his VISA card in 11 Florida to obtain $4900 in cash, which had been deposited 12 into his Standard Chartered Bank account in the UAE the day 13 before. The words "the day before" do not appear in 14 paragraph 75 of the superseding indictment. Instead, they 15 have added the word "previously," and, therefore, that 16 paragraph reads, On or about August 22nd, 2001, Fayez Ahmed 17 used his VISA card in Florida to obtain approximately 18 $4,900 in cash, which had been previously -- that's the new 19 word -- deposited into his Standard Chartered Bank account 20 in UAE. 21 Old paragraph 77, which alleged that on or about 22 August 22, 2001, in Miami, Florida, Ziad Jarrah purchased 23 an antenna for a Global Positioning System. The words "an 24 antenna for" have been deleted in paragraph 76 of the 25 superseding indictment. In all other respects, paragraph 0011 1 76 is the same as paragraph 77. 2 Paragraph 86 of the original indictment has been 3 entirely deleted. That paragraph alleged on or about 4 August 30, 2001, Mohammed Atta purchased a utility tool 5 that contained a knife. That is no longer in the 6 superseding indictment. 7 Old paragraph 91 read, On or about September 6, 8 2001, approximately $8,055 was wired from Fayez Ahmed's 9 Florida SunTrust account to the Standard Chartered Bank 10 account over which al-Hawsawi had power of attorney. 11 Paragraph 91 is now in paragraph 89 of the 12 superseding indictment, and it reads on or about September 13 5, 2001, so the date is one day off, Ahmed Fayez -- I'm 14 sorry -- Fayez Ahmed wired approximately $8,000, so they 15 rounded down the number, from his Florida SunTrust account 16 to the Standard Chartered Bank account over which 17 al-Hawsawi had power of attorney. 18 Paragraph 98 of the original indictment referred 19 to Mr. al-Hawsawi moving approximately $6,534 from the 20 $8,055 in Fayez Ahmed's account. That $8,055 has been 21 reduced to $8,000 in paragraph 96 of the superseding 22 indictment. 23 Paragraphs 100, 101, 102, and 103 of the original 24 indictment had alleged events occurring on or about 25 September 11, 2001. 0012 1 Paragraph 100 is now paragraph 98. 2 Paragraph 101 is now paragraph 99. 3 Paragraph 102 is now paragraph 100. 4 Paragraph 103 is now paragraph 101. 5 All four of those paragraphs in the superseding 6 indictment have changed the language to simply be on 7 September 11, 2001. The superseding indictment gets rid of 8 the language "on or about." 9 The same thing has happened for the old 10 paragraphs 105, 106, and 107. Those are respectively now 11 paragraphs 103, 104, and 105 in the superseding indictment. 12 All three of those paragraphs in the original 13 indictment had read, On or about September 11, 2001. They 14 now read, On September 11, 2001. 15 Paragraph 104 of the original indictment read on 16 or about September 11, 2001, and it then lists some of the 17 alleged hijackers and talks about the hijacking of the 18 various airplanes. 104 is now paragraph 102. 19 Again, it changes the language from on or about 20 September 11, 2001, to simply on September 11, 2001, and it 21 adds slightly different versions of two of the alleged 22 hijackers' names: Waleed M. Al-Shehri, which was 23 W-A-L-E-E-D, middle initial M, and then the last name 24 al-Shehri, A-L-S-H-E-H-R-I. In the superseding indictment 25 it's the same first name, Waleed, and the same last name, 0013 1 but the middle initial of M is now deleted. And the second 2 name, Waleed al-Shehri, in the original indictment, which 3 would have been the same as the first name minus the middle 4 initial of M, is now in the superseding indictment Wail, 5 W-A-I-L, then small al-Shehri, S-H-E-H-R-I. 6 In essence, the only, as we studied it, the only 7 two new overt acts that are entirely new in the superseding 8 indictment are paragraphs 56 and 74. 9 I have read to you all the changes between the 10 superseding indictment and the original indictment. 11 Now, how do you wish -- yes, sir? 12 MR. KARAS: I'm sorry, Your Honor. There are 13 three other minor additions in the superseding indictment. 14 THE COURT: All right. 15 MR. KARAS: Paragraph 4 in the Background 16 section, and it contains a list of countries where al Qaeda 17 has supported other jihad groups. The superseding 18 indictment adds the countries of Malaysia, Singapore, and 19 Indonesia, found at the bottom of page 3. 20 THE COURT: All right, that's fine. 21 MR. KARAS: And in the Overt Acts section, the 22 very first overt act which appears on page 7 lists the 23 camps supported by, the original indictment read provided 24 training camps and guesthouses in Afghanistan. The 25 superseding indictment reads provided and supported 0014 1 training camps and adds to the list of training camps al 2 Farooq, which is the first camp that is listed there. 3 In count four, which appears on page 27, the 4 phrase about seven lines down, "destruction, namely, 5 airplanes intended for use as missiles, bombs, and similar 6 devices," added to the superseding indictment is the 7 following phrase "and other weapons of mass destruction." 8 THE COURT: All right, thank you. 9 All right, Mr. Moussaoui, come back up to the 10 lectern. 11 Mr. Moussaoui, you have had a copy of the 12 superseding indictment for a couple of days, and we have 13 just read to you the changes between the original 14 indictment and the superseding indictment. 15 To the superseding indictment, how do you wish to 16 plead? 17 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Before I address the -- 18 THE COURT: Would you simply answer the answer in 19 court -- 20 MR. MOUSSAOUI: But you have said that I waived 21 some rights at the beginning of the last indictment. You 22 have said something that I did, that I didn't know. 23 THE COURT: It was done when you still had 24 counsel, and that is a fait accompli. 25 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I want to put on record that I 0015 1 want to go through this proceeding because I reject 2 completely, and I was not informed at the time of this, and 3 I want to be formally first asked if I want to waive my 4 rights to counsel and also standby counsel. I want to 5 address the issue. Then after I will address my plea, 6 because I want to the proceeding to start from zero. 7 THE COURT: Mr. Moussaoui, you don't control the 8 courtroom. I do. And if you are not entering a plea, I 9 will, as I did last time, assume that you are entering a 10 plea of not guilty. 11 MR. MOUSSAOUI: That's not correct, because the 12 issue as to your legal system, when somebody say I have no 13 plea, it's equivalent to nolo contendere, uh, no contest, 14 so it is not the same as not guilty. So when I say no 15 plea, you cannot infer that it's not guilty. When I say no 16 plea, it means no plea. 17 THE COURT: If you plead nolo contendere, you 18 will probably be found guilty. I don't think you want to 19 do that at this stage. In any case, I am going to assume 20 this is a plea of not guilty. 21 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Do not assume. I'm -- I'm here 22 fully aware of what you are saying. I just say that I have 23 no plea. 24 THE COURT: And I'm entering on your behalf a 25 plea of not guilty. 0016 1 Do you wish to have a trial by jury or a trial by 2 the Court? 3 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I repeat again that I do not 4 accept this plea of not guilty. I say no plea. 5 THE COURT: All right. Since the defendant has a 6 right to trial by jury unless it is waived, I will presume 7 that he wants a trial by jury; is that correct, Mr. 8 Moussaoui? 9 MR. MOUSSAOUI: At the present time, yes. 10 THE COURT: All right. We are going to use the 11 original trial date, which means we will begin this trial 12 on September 30th with jury selection, and as soon as the 13 jury has been selected, we will begin opening statements 14 and taking evidence in this case. 15 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I repeat no contest. 16 THE COURT: No contest may result in an almost 17 automatic plea -- I mean, finding of guilt. 18 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I have nothing to plea. I repeat 19 it many time, and it mean no contest. If you have 20 something to prove against me, then prove it. I have 21 nothing to say to the United States. That's all. You are 22 not here to represent me. 23 THE COURT: No, but the Court's job with a pro se 24 defendant is to make sure that you are basically aware of 25 your essential rights, and I'm going to advise you, and, 0017 1 Mr. Yamamoto, I know you are in a difficult position as 2 standby counsel who is not -- 3 MR. MOUSSAOUI: You are interfering -- 4 THE COURT: Just a minute, Mr. Moussaoui. 5 I will ask you to at least write to Mr. Moussaoui 6 and explain to him the ramifications of a plea of nolo 7 contendere. 8 MR. YAMAMOTO: Yes, Your Honor. 9 MR. MOUSSAOUI: You are interfering with my 10 rights of pro se. First of all, they are not supposed to 11 be in court, because they are interfering, because people 12 don't accept me as fully representing me, okay, because 13 that's what you are doing, just watch. You are undermining 14 my position, my ability to defend myself since the 15 beginning. That's just an example, because you are 16 diminishing my representation by talking to somebody I 17 don't even talk to. 18 This is unbelievable, because since the beginning 19 you are interfering with my right to represent myself. I 20 have no business with these people. I never speak to them. 21 They have tried, in concert with the prosecution, to 22 convict me by denying my basic right to defend myself by 23 not engaging in action on my release. I want to ask this 24 Court to be heard. I want this Court -- 25 THE COURT: (Interposing) Mr. Moussaoui -- 0018 1 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I have the right to be heard by 2 this Court. 3 THE COURT: First of all, I must tell you that a 4 plea of nolo contendere is completely inconsistent with the 5 multiple times you have indicated that these attorneys are 6 trying to convict you. 7 It strikes this Court that you are the only one 8 in this courtroom, other than the prosecutors, who are 9 really trying to convict you of anything. But we are going 10 to move on. There are some other -- 11 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I would -- 12 THE COURT: -- housekeeping matters I'm going to 13 take care of today. 14 MR. MOUSSAOUI: You have barred -- 15 THE COURT: Mr. Moussaoui, you have been 16 extremely good in the past about stopping when I start to 17 speak. If you can't do that, you will waive your ability 18 to represent yourself. You will note we arranged for you 19 to be sitting at counsel table by yourself as you have 20 requested. 21 We have accommodated you in many respects, and as 22 long as you again comply with the directions of the Court, 23 you will be afforded those opportunities, but you can waive 24 them by misusing them. 25 Now, because we have a new indictment, that 0019 1 supersedes the original indictment, and I will at this time 2 dismiss the original indictment, and the only operative 3 indictment that governs this case is the superseding 4 indictment. 5 We have several pending motions that I want to 6 address today so that we can keep this case moving. 7 Mr. Moussaoui, you may have a seat. 8 One motion that is still open, and actually there 9 are two versions of it, it is reflected as docket numbers 10 124 and 131. These are two defendant's pro se motions to 11 unseal documents referred to in open court. 12 At the April 22nd hearing, Mr. Moussaoui read a 13 handwritten letter. This was still when we were in this 14 issue about Mr. Moussaoui and his relationship with the 15 public defender and his other court-appointed attorney. 16 The documents were turned over to the Court Reporter to 17 assist her in working out the transcript, and I believe a 18 copy of the documents was also sent to the United States. 19 We do not deem those documents to be a formal 20 exhibit or admission in this court, and, therefore, the pro 21 se motions to unseal these documents is denied. They are 22 simply in the vault of the court as a reference item, but 23 they are not a formal pleading, and they are not part of 24 the official record in this case. 25 Secondly, we have the defendant's pro se motion 0020 1 for change of venue, to which the United States, and to 2 limit representation of Government employees in the jury 3 pool. The United States filed its opposition, so I have 4 had a chance now to read all the pleadings in that matter. 5 The motion to change venue is denied. 6 The defendant has essentially argued that he does 7 not feel that venue in this district is appropriate, 8 because, among other things, the jury pool consists of too 9 many United States Government employees who might be 10 prejudiced against him. 11 He also argues that Colorado would be a more 12 appropriate venue because jurors might feel safer, because 13 it is among other things closer to a supermax prison. The 14 defendant also refers to some kind of a survey of Northern 15 Virginia, but the survey is not attached to his pleading; 16 and there is no way of verifying the accuracy of that 17 questionnaire. 18 I did note though from the answers that Mr. 19 Moussaoui described in his pleading that even that 20 questionnaire indicated that 72 percent of the people who 21 were interviewed said they believed they could be fair and 22 impartial. 23 Now he also pointed to another answer, and again 24 I have no way of knowing the veracity of this 25 questionnaire, but it's taking it at this moment at face 0021 1 value, that some 60 percent of the people answering it 2 indicated they thought the defendant was guilty or probably 3 guilty. 4 While those two percentages might appear to be 5 inconsistent, they do not yet give me sufficient concern to 6 believe that an impartial jury cannot be drawn from 7 Northern Virginia. 8 I note that the events of September 11 probably 9 impacted non-Government employees more than it did U.S. 10 Government employees. 11 Certainly, New York State fire fighters, police 12 officers, Port Authority officials, private companies such 13 as Kantor Fitzgerald suffered significant losses, probably 14 I would suspect more so than did the Federal Government in 15 terms of life. 16 The case law is clear that no one particular 17 group should be singled out from jury duty just because 18 they are a member of a particular group. The analysis is 19 always whether an individual juror can put aside his or her 20 own personal beliefs or any pretrial publicity to which 21 they may have been exposed and decide the case in a fair, 22 neutral, and objective manner. That will be the focus of 23 the Court's inquiry throughout the voir dire process, and I 24 am satisfied that we will be able to get, without terrible 25 difficulty, an adequate pool of jurors to hear this case. 0022 1 The cases such as Oklahoma City bombing, where 2 there has been a change of venue, tend to be cases where 3 the greatest impact is a very localized one. 4 I think it was Judge Ellis in the Walker Lindh 5 case who made this observation, and I repeat the 6 observation, that the events on September 11th affected the 7 whole nation; and, therefore, there is no reason to believe 8 that people in Colorado or Utah or Maine would be any less 9 aware of what has gone on than would the people in Northern 10 Virginia. 11 I also note that the Northern Virginia area is an 12 area of highly-skilled, well-educated people, who will 13 certainly have the mental ability to sort through the 14 complex evidence that I expect we will see in this case. 15 For all those reasons, therefore, the motion to 16 change venue is denied, as is the motion to limit 17 representation of Government employees in the jury pool. 18 On the June 13th hearing or at that time, 19 defendant still had court-appointed counsel, and at that 20 time his attorneys filed a motion to compel production of 21 discovery and a motion to suppress statements. 22 Mr. Moussaoui was given the opportunity to look 23 at those motions and decide if he wanted to adopt them 24 himself, change them, or reject them. It is clear that he 25 wants to reject the motion to suppress, and so I am going 0023 1 to deem that motion to have been withdrawn. 2 But I need to advise you, Mr. Moussaoui, that 3 motions to suppress must be made in a timely manner, and if 4 they are not made sufficiently in advance of trial, a 5 defendant may lose his right to move to suppress evidence. 6 Do you understand that? You just have to say yes 7 or no. Do you understand that? 8 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Yes. 9 THE COURT: Yes. All right. 10 Now, I would like you back at the lectern, Mr. 11 Moussaoui. In terms of the motion to compel production of 12 discovery, do you want that motion withdrawn, and do you 13 plan to substitute your own motion to compel discovery? 14 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I have filed a motion to compel 15 the Government to talk about the discovery they have and 16 the surveillance they made on me. 17 THE COURT: All right, so you feel that you have 18 filed your motion for discovery at this point? 19 THE DEFENDANT: No, I will review it, and in due 20 time I will advise you. 21 THE COURT: All right. I will, however, assume 22 that you want the defendant's motion to compel discovery 23 that was filed on your behalf by your former counsel to be 24 withdrawn; is that correct? 25 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Yes, because they have nothing to 0024 1 do with me. 2 THE COURT: All right, it will be -- 3 MR. MOUSSAOUI: And I want to be heard on this 4 subject. 5 THE COURT: Wait a minute. It will be 6 withdrawn. 7 There is pending before us, it's docket No. 209, 8 the defendant's pro se emergency motion for immediate 9 release from detention and the dropping of all charges. 10 That type of a motion is not the kind of motion that the 11 Court is going to hear at this point. 12 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Why? 13 THE COURT: The emergency motion for immediate 14 release, I have already addressed in terms of the Bail 15 Reform Act and the nature of the charges filed against you, 16 and the dropping of all charges is not a proper motion. If 17 you want to file a motion to dismiss, you can do so in a 18 more proper format; but the time to test the quality of the 19 Government's evidence is not pretrial. It's at the trial, 20 and the motion is premature in that respect. 21 MR. MOUSSAOUI: It's based on the fact that this 22 is an outrageous prosecution, when the Government have the 23 information that I have nothing to do with September 11, 24 because I was subject of a surveillance by the Government. 25 And the language of the opposition of the 0025 1 Government response to defendant made its motion for 2 immediate release is quite clear. The Government is unable 3 to deny this. They just go about saying indeed the 4 Government is unaware. 5 I want a certification by the Federal Bureau of 6 Investigation that at no point since 2000 that I was under 7 surveillance and especially when I entered the United 8 States, okay, because you can't have the Federal Bureau of 9 Investigation refusing to certify that they were following 10 me, monitoring my telephone communications, monitoring my 11 e-mail, knowing everything I was doing, and when allege, 12 and I asked for an independent examination of my belongings 13 for tracking device and for bugging hearing phone in my 14 belongings, and they refused. 15 So I want the Director of the F.B.I. to certify 16 under threat of perjury that the Federal Bureau of 17 Investigation was not engaged in such surveillance, and 18 that the national center of communication never have any 19 communication between me in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan. 20 I want the Federal Bureau of Investigation to say 21 why they didn't investigate Kinko when I was holder of a 22 receipt dated the 12th of August. 23 Then I want the F.B.I. to certify that they never 24 give order to Oklahoma patrol to not to arrest me, because 25 I was arrested by the patrol, and after committing four 0026 1 offense, and I was released without even a ticket, and the 2 car was not even registered in my name; and they have no 3 proof. 4 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Moussaoui -- 5 MR. MOUSSAOUI: So I want certification of all 6 this, and then we can proceed, because it's an outrageous 7 prosecution when you allow them and you are manipulating 8 the court system by denying me access to somebody who could 9 help me, referring to Brother Freeman. He came to the jail 10 to see me. He advised me that my points are very good 11 points, and he know the case, and I want, he was able to 12 see. Now all of a sudden you forbid him to come to see 13 me. What is the point? There is no justice -- 14 THE COURT: Mr. Moussaoui, now you are ranging 15 over too many topics. Have a seat, please. 16 Mr. Spencer, I do think, although it's hard to 17 read, some of the requests that Mr. Moussaoui has stated 18 today in court he has put in writing to the Government in a 19 form of a discovery motion. 20 He appears to be asking, among other things, for 21 an all-agency check as to electric surveillance, for 22 example. 23 MR. SPENCER: That's fine, Your Honor. We put 24 our response in our motion response that we are unaware of 25 any such surveillance. I don't think he's entitled to the 0027 1 certification that he is requesting today in court. 2 I think there is one other item of evidence that 3 is the subject of your order today, and I believe you have 4 given us a chance to respond to that, and we will. 5 THE COURT: All right. We will see how this all 6 comes out down the road, but the proper way to file a 7 discovery motion is to make it clear and in writing, not 8 orally in open court. 9 All right, the next thing we have is we have the 10 Government's motion regarding victims' rights pursuant to 11 18 USC 3510(b), which is docket No. 217. 12 In that motion the United States requests that 13 the Court permit victims who may testify during the penalty 14 phase, if there were to be one, to be present in the 15 courtroom or at the closed-circuit locations during the 16 guilt phase. 17 As you know, Congress made a special exception to 18 the normal rule on witnesses in the case of the Oklahoma 19 City bombing case. 20 Mr. Moussaoui, you have not had a chance to 21 respond to that motion. Do you have any objection to it? 22 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Yes. 23 THE COURT: Let me hear your objection. Go up to 24 the lectern. 25 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Can you repeat the case? 0028 1 THE COURT: Yes. The Government is requesting 2 that victims who may testify during the penalty phase, if 3 there were to be one, be permitted if they want to to sit 4 in the courtroom or at the closed-circuit location during 5 the guilt phase of the trial. 6 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Yes, I object. 7 THE COURT: What's the basis for the objection? 8 MR. MOUSSAOUI: The basis that this trial should 9 not be televised in any way to anybody except the people 10 who are in court, because, especially to the victim family, 11 because this will create a pool of people who will see the 12 trial, be able to go to reporter and to act as a reporter 13 of the event to the entire nation and inflame them. 14 This can interfere with my right to a fair trial, 15 because the jury is always subject to receiving from the 16 outside world influence and information about whether or 17 not I'm guilty or not. So I do not want that the victim, 18 especially who have great credential in front of the 19 American people, to be able to claim that the trial is 20 going this way or that way, and so on and so forth. It 21 would be prejudicial for me. 22 THE COURT: All right, well, unfortunately -- 23 MR. MOUSSAOUI: And secondly -- 24 THE COURT: Wait. There are acts of Congress 25 that have mandated, or have not been passed yet, but I 0029 1 anticipate that we will be required to arrange for a 2 broadcast, closed-circuit broadcast, to victims' families 3 in certain parts of the United States. 4 The concern about juror contamination is not a 5 problem, because the jury is very carefully advised as to 6 what they can and cannot do and the communications they can 7 have. 8 The issue is whether or not there would be any 9 possible taint to the victims' testimony that could be 10 affected by their sitting through the penalty phase of the 11 trial. And, as I said, I think 18 USC 3510(b) certainly 12 indicates that in a unique kind of case it is not 13 inappropriate for the Court to waive that standard rule on 14 witnesses and permit the victims to be in the courtroom. 15 I am, therefore, over your objection, going to 16 grant the Government's motion. 17 Now, the other issue that the Government raised 18 yesterday was their motion to withhold the places of abode 19 of prospective witnesses, and the Government does not want 20 to have to disclose either the county or the township of 21 residence of witnesses. 22 I assume the Government is not opposed to 23 exposing the country of the witness, is that right? 24 MR. NOVAK: That is correct, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: So the national location is all 0030 1 right, the United States of America or Saudi Arabia or 2 wherever? 3 MR. NOVAK: That's correct. 4 THE COURT: All right. Do you have any position 5 on that, Mr. Moussaoui? 6 MR. MOUSSAOUI: Yes, because I will have no mean 7 to send a potential investigator to see if this person 8 really exists, because they are going to bring people from 9 other country, or maybe under threat by their own 10 Government to testify, to say whatever the U.S. Government 11 wants, and I will have no mean to know if they are really 12 who they are. 13 I do not understand why this should be taken away 14 from me, because we conducted the testimony this morning to 15 a certain person and have the full background of this 16 person, have the name of his father, his mother, and I 17 don't know why the Government now moves to try to suppress 18 this, because it was given to me this morning, and this 19 person was very important in the case. And now they want 20 to take it away. 21 You mean that they can bring anybody they want to 22 say anything they want. They have no way to check if he is 23 really who he is he. So I don't know if this is a parody 24 of justice or what is going, what you are doing here. 25 THE COURT: The Court must always weigh the 0031 1 rights of a defendant to be able to mount an adequate 2 defense against the rights of witnesses to be protected 3 from any potential danger or harm. 4 You have publicly in court sometimes made some 5 pretty strong statements about Americans. I don't know how 6 many of these witnesses are going to be American and how 7 many may be of foreign origin. You will have the names of 8 the witnesses, and if there are specific witnesses that you 9 are trying to talk with, the United States can be ordered 10 to try to make the witness available as long as it's not 11 going to be abusive. 12 I'm going to grant that motion as well. I have 13 the statutory authority to do it under 18 USC 3432. I do 14 find that this is an extraordinary case, that the charges 15 involved in the indictment are extremely serious and 16 suggest that there could be risk to witnesses in this 17 case. 18 I have already indicated we will be using an 19 anonymous jury because of the nature of the case, and I 20 think this ruling is consistent with that approach to this 21 case. 22 All right, the last thing is I did yesterday 23 grant your motion, Mr. Moussaoui, for some extension in the 24 time in which to file pretrial motions. I have granted Mr. 25 Moussaoui until Monday, July 8, to file any additional 0032 1 pretrial motions. 2 I will give the Government until July 15 to 3 respond. That means I'm canceling the hearing date for 4 July 12. If we do need to have oral argument on any of the 5 motions, we will do that on Thursday, July 18 at 1:00 6 o'clock. 7 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I mean that -- 8 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 9 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I mean, that you say on July 8. 10 You mean that it's meaningless, because for case as huge as 11 this I would have access to nobody. I don't have even a 12 printer to print the information that are on computer. I 13 don't have even the photography of the hijacker. I have 14 nothing, and I have been prevented to have contact with 15 anybody who can help me. 16 I can't make any phone call. I can't see any 17 adviser, and you are just putting me in my cell and running 18 your show, because I have no meaning way -- no meaningful 19 way to defend myself. This is a parody. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Moussaoui, the whole reason why 21 we have continued to make standby counsel available to you, 22 if you only want to use Mr. Yamamoto to ask him to have his 23 secretary type -- 24 MR. MOUSSAOUI: You are not in charge of my 25 defense. I organize my defense with Mr. Freeman, as 0033 1 suitable. Mr. Freeman was able to visit me and to talk to 2 me on different occasion. Why on earth you are decided to 3 prevent him to see me, because he was providing for me 4 legal advice and filing the relevant motion. 5 These people have nothing to do with me. I have 6 waived my right to counsel, and this is nonsense in front 7 of the Supreme Court because if you were to do any decision 8 then after I will ask that it was ineffective assistance, I 9 will be rejected, so I do not want them. I'm pro se. I'm 10 the only one who can defend myself. You are undermining 11 all the time my dignity by referring to these people, 12 okay. They have nothing to do, never in this case. 13 And I have the right to defend myself in a 14 meaningful way, not to be put in Alexandria jail and to be 15 shut down and given two weeks to prepare. It's a constant 16 circus where you involve going and taking testimony of 17 people, seeing what happened and what evidence, seeing the 18 background of the witness. 19 You are just preparing me for the gas chamber. 20 That's what you are doing, because you have no intention at 21 all to allow me to defend myself, and you have taken every 22 avenue, every trick on the book to prevent me to defend 23 myself. The greatest proof is Brother Freeman, who came to 24 see me, and you prevent him now. 25 THE COURT: As we said in our order of yesterday, 0034 1 Mr. Freeman is not qualified to practice law in this 2 court. 3 MR. MOUSSAOUI: He's an adviser. He is not going 4 to be representing me here. 5 THE COURT: In fact, he filed two pleadings, in 6 clear violation of the Court's rules. 7 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I signed them. 8 THE COURT: It doesn't make any difference. He 9 did, too, as your attorney, as your representative. 10 MR. MOUSSAOUI: I saw them. It was not signed by 11 him. His name was on the bottom. 12 THE COURT: Mr. Moussaoui, you are not an 13 attorney, and you don't understand the nuances of the legal 14 system; but in any case, my rulings are as they are. 15 Is there anything further from the United States 16 that we need to address this afternoon? 17 MR. SPENCER: No, thank you, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: All right, then we will recess 19 court. Mr. Moussaoui is remanded. 20 (Whereupon, at 2:45 o'clock p.m., the hearing in 21 the above-captioned matter was concluded, and court stood 22 in recess.) 23 24 25 0035 1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) ss. 3 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA ) 4 I, EDWARD DONOVAN McCOY, Registered Professional 5 & Merit Reporter, and Official Court Reporter for the 6 United States District Court for the Eastern District of 7 Virginia, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 8 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that I 9 was authorized to report, and did so report by computerized 10 Stenograph machine the foregoing proceedings; 11 THEREAFTER, my Stenograph notes were reduced to 12 printed form by computer-aided transcription under my 13 supervision; and I further certify that the pages herein 14 numbered contain a true and correct transcription of my 15 Stenograph notes taken herein. 16 DONE and signed, this day of 17 , 2002, in the City of Alexandria, 18 Commonwealth of Virginia. 19 20 21 22 EDWARD DONOVAN McCOY, RMR 23 Official Court Reporter 24 25 * * *