1 The attachments to this motion will be maintained under

seal because they include confidential communications between

Joint Inquiry staff and the Department of Justice, and draft

testimony of FBI Director Mueller. 

2 This pleading has been redacted to exclude reference to a

specific portion of Director Mueller’s draft testimony.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Criminal No. 01-455-A

)

ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI )

a/k/a “Shaqil,” )

a/k/a “Abu Khalid )

al Sahrawi,” )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

For the reasons stated from the bench during a closed

hearing, the Expedited Motion of the United States for

Clarification Regarding the Applicability of the Protective Order

for Unclassified But Sensitive Material and Local Rule 57 to

Information That May Be Made Public in Congressional Proceedings

(“Expedited Motion for Clarification”) (Docket #436) is DENIED,

and standby counsel’s Motion to Unseal the Expedited Motion for

Clarification (Docket #455) is GRANTED; and it is hereby 

ORDERED that the United States’ Expedited Motion for

Clarification (#436),1 standby counsel’s Response to the

Expedited Motion for Clarification (#454),2 the Reply on Behalf

of the Joint Inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on
2

Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence (#453), the Reply of the United States (#459),

standby counsel’s Motion to Unseal (#455), and the transcript of

the hearing be and are unsealed.

In their Response to the Expedited Motion for Clarification,

standby counsel requested that the Court vacate the February 5,

2002 Protective Order. Finding that the Protective Order is too

complicated in its present form, the request is GRANTED; and it

is hereby

ORDERED that the Court’s February 5, 2002 Protective Order

will be VACATED once counsel for the United States have submitted

a revised version governing the handling of “particularly

sensitive discovery materials” for the Court’s approval. Counsel

for the United States must consult with standby counsel in

drafting the revised protective order. Until the revised order

is entered, the February 5, 2002 Protective Order remains in full

force and effect. To the extent that standby counsel seek relief

from Local Rule 57, that request is DENIED; and it is hereby 

ORDERED that nothing in this Order is intended to affect the

applicability of Local Rule 57 to the participants in this case.

On August 22, 2002, the United States submitted a letter,

under seal, requesting that the defendant’s pro se pleadings be

maintained under seal because they continue to contain extensive

inappropriate rhetoric which the Government believes may be
3

intended “for the purpose of either (1) sending messages to

coconspirators or sympathizers, or (2) making public political

statements.” The defendant, pro se, in opposing this request as

an unjust infringement on his First Amendment rights, admitted

during the closed hearing, the United States’ proposal would

frustrate his efforts to convey messages to his “people.” (Tr.

at 35). 

 The defendant’s pleadings have been replete with

irrelevant, inflammatory and insulting rhetoric, which would not

be tolerated from an attorney practicing in this court. Because

he has been warned numerous times that such writing would have to

stop, the defendant may no longer hide behind his pro se status

to avoid being held to appropriate pleading practice. Further,

we find that the record supports the United States’ concern that

the defendant, who is charged with conspiracy to commit acts of

terrorism transcending national boundaries among other offenses,

is attempting to use the court as a vehicle through which to

communicate with the outside world in violation of the Special

Administrative Measures governing the conditions of his

confinement. Accordingly, the request communicated in the United

States’ August 22, 2002 letter, which we deem to be a motion to

maintain the defendant’s pro se pleadings under seal, is GRANTED;

and it is hereby 

ORDERED that the defendant’s pro se pleadings docketed as #s
3 We decline to adopt the defendant’s suggestion that we

redact inappropriate language from his pleadings because it

forces the prosecutors and the Court to waste resources editing

the defendant’s writings, which predominantly contain

inappropriate rhetoric. If he desires his pleadings to be

publicly filed, the defendant must limit his writings to

appropriate requests for relevant judicial relief.

4 The language redacted from paragraph 5 includes examples

of the rhetoric to which the United States objects. 

4

406, 412, 418, 419, 422, 423, 424, 425, 434, 435, 440, 441, 446,

449, 456, 458 and 463 be maintained under seal; and it is further

ORDERED that any future pleadings filed by the defendant,

pro se, containing threats, racial slurs, calls to action, or

other irrelevant and inappropriate language will be filed and

maintained under seal;3 and it is further 

ORDERED that a redacted copy of the August 22, 2002 letter

from the United States be docketed as a motion and publicly

filed.4 

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to the

defendant, pro se; counsel for the United States; standby defense

counsel; counsel for the Joint Inquiry; and the Court Security

Officer.

Entered this 29th day of August, 2002.

/s/

________________________________

Leonie M. Brinkema

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia