26 July 2002
Source: Digital transcript purchased from Exemplaris.com for $34.00.

Other case documents: http://cryptome.org/usa-v-zm-cd.htm

 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
                   FOR THE UNITED STATES:
                   ROBERT A. SPENCER, ESQ.
19                 KENNETH M. KARAS, ESQ.
                   DAVID J. NOVAK, ESQ.
                   2100 Jamieson Avenue
21                 Alexandria, Virginia 223l4-5794
22                         *  *  *
                        DON McCOY, RMR
23                 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
                        (703) 683-3668
 1                 APPEARANCES:   (Continued)
 2                      FOR THE DEFENDANT:
 3                      ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI (pro se)
 5                      STANDBY COUNSEL:
 6                      ALAN M. YAMAMOTO, ESQ.
                        108 N. Alfred Street
 7                      1st Floor
                        Alexandria, Virginia 22314
 9                      ANNE CHAPMAN, ESQ.
                        KENNETH P. TROCCOLI, ESQ.
10                      Office of the Federal Public Defender
                        1650 King Street
11                      Suite 500
                        Alexandria, Virginia 22314
14                          C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S
16   (None)
 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.
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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.
 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,
 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
 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
 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.
 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,
 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 --
 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
 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
 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
 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.
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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?
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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,
 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.)
                               )  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.
                                      EDWARD DONOVAN McCOY, RMR
23                                     Official Court Reporter
25                           * * *