A New Paradigm Accounts For The Moussaoui Trial Skullduggery
Prosecutors in the death penalty trial of the only person to be charged in the U.S. with participating in the 9-11 attacks are realizing that their case for execution of Zacarias Moussaoui has been irrecoverably damaged by the malfeasance of TSA lawyer, former flight attendant, Carla J. Martin.
Federal prosecutors yesterday implored a judge to reverse her decision banning key witnesses from testifying at the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying the misconduct of a government lawyer they labeled a "lone miscreant" should not imperil the case.
Calling it unprecedented and "grossly punitive," prosecutors said her ruling devastates their argument that Moussaoui should be executed for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on Tuesday barred seven witnesses and all aviation security evidence from the trial, saying the actions of Transportation Security Administration lawyer Carla J. Martin had tainted the process beyond repair...
After her ruling Tuesday, prosecutors told Brinkema in a teleconference that she had threatened the sentencing phase of the only person convicted in the United States on charges stemming from the Sept. 11 attacks. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Spencer told her that resuming the proceedings, which began last week in U.S. District Court in Alexandria and are on hold until Monday, would "waste the jury's time."
"We don't know whether it is worth us proceeding at all, candidly, under the ruling you made today," he told Brinkema, according a transcript obtained yesterday. "Without some relief, frankly, I think that there's no point for us to go forward."...
The government could, legal experts said, take an unusual route by asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to issue what is known as a writ of mandamus, which would order Brinkema to restore all or part of the disputed evidence.
But experts said that even the 4th Circuit, which tends to strongly support the government on national security issues and which overturned an earlier Brinkema ruling in the Moussaoui case, would be hesitant to intervene here. "It's a very high hurdle. They have to show a clear error in the law by Brinkema," McBride said. "I don't think they have an appeal."
Somehow I am doubting that "the clear error in the law" was committed by the trial judge Brinkema.
Meanwhile, more information is coming out about former World Airways flight attendant, and now disgraced TSA lawyer, Carla J. Martin.
The government lawyer who has thrown the death penalty trial of Sept. 11, 2001, conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui into turmoil by improperly contacting witnesses was supposed to be playing a limited role and was never to be involved with legal strategy or litigating the case.
Carla J. Martin, a former flight attendant whose legal career has been devoted to defending aviation security secrets, was a legal go-between -- a conduit, officials said...
Legal specialists said Martin's conduct undermined Moussaoui's fundamental constitutional rights. She violated an order from Brinkema barring most witnesses from attending or following the trial and from reading transcripts. The judge, experts said, was trying to ensure that witnesses did not alter their sworn testimony to conform with what others had said.
"The evil here, the corruption of the system, is that through the intermediation of Ms. Martin, witnesses were able to change their testimony to corroborate other witnesses," said Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School. "You want the raw experiences of other witnesses, untainted and uninfluenced by the views of others."...
A plausible interpretation of Ms. Martin's motive for her skullduggery is supplied by TalkLeft:
Martin may not have been concerned with getting a conviction against Moussaoui -- but the civil litigation over 9/11 involving the FAA and United and American Airlines. It appears to me her "partners", for lack of a better word, were not the prosecutors, but the civil lawyers representing United and American Airlines in the civil litigation, and she was trying to prevent the Moussaoui witnesses from saying something that could result in a judgment against the Government and the airlines in the civil litigation...
It appears that Ms. Martin did not get the Moussaoui opening arguments transcripts of March 6 from the prosecutors or the court reporter, but from civil aviation lawyer Jeffrey Ellis, who got them from Christopher J. Christensen of the law firm Condon & Forsyth.
The prosecutors' cover letter to Court regarding the e-mails states Martin was representing some of the Moussaoui witnesses who are or were FAA employees. It also states that in the e-mails, she was giving her opinions about on-going litigation "prepared as part of her preparation for the litigation."
I take that to mean she is representing those who were employees of the FAA on 9/11. It was the responsibility of the FAA to provide airline security on 9/11. Among the issues in the civil litigation is whether the FAA, American Airlines or United Airlines were responsible for the security breaches that allowed the hijackers to crash the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon...
So, it appears to me Ms. Martin was trying to coach and influence the witness' testimony not to convict Moussaoui, but to prevent the FAA from found to be at fault in the civil litigation over 9/11. American and United are hoping for the same result -- hence her collaboration with their lawyers.
I had been assuming that Ms. Martin had received her marching orders from higher-ups in the administration.
The new paradigm posits that she was carrying out the wishes of the real people who are in control of the United States--corporations.
Federal prosecutors yesterday implored a judge to reverse her decision banning key witnesses from testifying at the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying the misconduct of a government lawyer they labeled a "lone miscreant" should not imperil the case.
Calling it unprecedented and "grossly punitive," prosecutors said her ruling devastates their argument that Moussaoui should be executed for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on Tuesday barred seven witnesses and all aviation security evidence from the trial, saying the actions of Transportation Security Administration lawyer Carla J. Martin had tainted the process beyond repair...
After her ruling Tuesday, prosecutors told Brinkema in a teleconference that she had threatened the sentencing phase of the only person convicted in the United States on charges stemming from the Sept. 11 attacks. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Spencer told her that resuming the proceedings, which began last week in U.S. District Court in Alexandria and are on hold until Monday, would "waste the jury's time."
"We don't know whether it is worth us proceeding at all, candidly, under the ruling you made today," he told Brinkema, according a transcript obtained yesterday. "Without some relief, frankly, I think that there's no point for us to go forward."...
The government could, legal experts said, take an unusual route by asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to issue what is known as a writ of mandamus, which would order Brinkema to restore all or part of the disputed evidence.
But experts said that even the 4th Circuit, which tends to strongly support the government on national security issues and which overturned an earlier Brinkema ruling in the Moussaoui case, would be hesitant to intervene here. "It's a very high hurdle. They have to show a clear error in the law by Brinkema," McBride said. "I don't think they have an appeal."
Somehow I am doubting that "the clear error in the law" was committed by the trial judge Brinkema.
Meanwhile, more information is coming out about former World Airways flight attendant, and now disgraced TSA lawyer, Carla J. Martin.
The government lawyer who has thrown the death penalty trial of Sept. 11, 2001, conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui into turmoil by improperly contacting witnesses was supposed to be playing a limited role and was never to be involved with legal strategy or litigating the case.
Carla J. Martin, a former flight attendant whose legal career has been devoted to defending aviation security secrets, was a legal go-between -- a conduit, officials said...
Legal specialists said Martin's conduct undermined Moussaoui's fundamental constitutional rights. She violated an order from Brinkema barring most witnesses from attending or following the trial and from reading transcripts. The judge, experts said, was trying to ensure that witnesses did not alter their sworn testimony to conform with what others had said.
"The evil here, the corruption of the system, is that through the intermediation of Ms. Martin, witnesses were able to change their testimony to corroborate other witnesses," said Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School. "You want the raw experiences of other witnesses, untainted and uninfluenced by the views of others."...
A plausible interpretation of Ms. Martin's motive for her skullduggery is supplied by TalkLeft:
Martin may not have been concerned with getting a conviction against Moussaoui -- but the civil litigation over 9/11 involving the FAA and United and American Airlines. It appears to me her "partners", for lack of a better word, were not the prosecutors, but the civil lawyers representing United and American Airlines in the civil litigation, and she was trying to prevent the Moussaoui witnesses from saying something that could result in a judgment against the Government and the airlines in the civil litigation...
It appears that Ms. Martin did not get the Moussaoui opening arguments transcripts of March 6 from the prosecutors or the court reporter, but from civil aviation lawyer Jeffrey Ellis, who got them from Christopher J. Christensen of the law firm Condon & Forsyth.
The prosecutors' cover letter to Court regarding the e-mails states Martin was representing some of the Moussaoui witnesses who are or were FAA employees. It also states that in the e-mails, she was giving her opinions about on-going litigation "prepared as part of her preparation for the litigation."
I take that to mean she is representing those who were employees of the FAA on 9/11. It was the responsibility of the FAA to provide airline security on 9/11. Among the issues in the civil litigation is whether the FAA, American Airlines or United Airlines were responsible for the security breaches that allowed the hijackers to crash the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon...
So, it appears to me Ms. Martin was trying to coach and influence the witness' testimony not to convict Moussaoui, but to prevent the FAA from found to be at fault in the civil litigation over 9/11. American and United are hoping for the same result -- hence her collaboration with their lawyers.
I had been assuming that Ms. Martin had received her marching orders from higher-ups in the administration.
The new paradigm posits that she was carrying out the wishes of the real people who are in control of the United States--corporations.
posted by Effwit at 9:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home