IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( NUMBER 3:04-CR-240-G 

(

(

VERSUS ( 

(

(

HOLY LAND FOUNDATION, ET AL. ( June 28, 2007

__________________________________________________________

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL

BEFORE THE HONORABLE A. JOE FISH

__________________________________________________________

A P P E A R A N C E S:

For the Government: MR. JIM JACKS

MR. BARRY JONAS

MS. ELIZABETH SHAPIRO

MR. NATHAN GARRETT

Assistant United States Attorney

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

U.S. Courthouse 

1100 Commerce Street

Dallas, Texas 75242

214/659-8600

For the Defendant Shukri Baker:

MS. NANCY HOLLANDER 

MS. TERESA DUNCAN

FREEDMAN BOYD DANIELS 

HOLLANDER 

20 First Plaza, Suite 700 

Albuquerque, NM 87102

505/842-9960 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
For the Defendant El-Mezain:

MR. JOSHUA DRATEL

MR. AARON J. MYSLIWIEC

LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA L. DRATEL

14 Wall Street, 28th Floor

New York, NY 10005

212/732-0707 

For the Defendant Mufid Abdulqader:

MS. MARLO CADEDDU

LAW OFFICE OF MARLO P. CADEDDU

3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700

Dallas, Texas 75204

214/744-3015 

For the Defendant Elashi:

MS. LINDA MORENO

LAW OFFICE OF LINDA MORENO

PO BOX 10985 

Tampa, Florida 33679

813-247-4500 

MR. JOHN D. CLINE 

Jones Day 

555 California St 

26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 

415/875-5812 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
For the Defendant Odeh:

MR. GREG WESTFALL

WESTFALL PLATT CUTRER

Mallick Tower

One Summit Avenue, Suite 910

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

817/877-1700

Court Reporter: Cassidi L. Casey, CSR No. 1703

1100 Commerce Street, Rm 15D6L

Dallas, Texas 75242

214-254-3139

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
P R O C E E D I N G S:

THE COURT: This is a pretrial conference in the 

case of United States against Holy Land Foundation and 

Others, which is our Docket Number 3:0 4-240-G. I have a 

number of matters on my agenda that I wanted to cover with 

you, and if you have other matters, we will take those up 

at the appropriate time. 

First, I think about two or three months ago I 

put out an order called Order Regarding Conduct of Trial. 

And I know there are voluminous pleadings in this case so 

you might have some difficulty locating it, but that's my 

effort to reduce to writing the way I do things the 

courtroom in trial. I have tried cases with Mr. Jacks but 

I don't remember that I have worked with any of the rest 

of you before. So I would like you to be familiar with 

that order by the time we commence trial. 

I want to be sure now I have all the pretrial 

materials that the parties intend to give us such as 

witness lists, exhibit lists, voir dire questions and so 

forth. Do we have those from the government? 

MR. JACKS: Yes, sir. We will be amending, but 

you have the original. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Same for us. We will be 

amending, but you do have a witness and exhibit list. 

MR. DRATEL: Your Honor, the voir dire, we had 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
asked and been granted permission to await the 

questionnaire so that we could focus those questionnaires 

more appropriately. 

THE COURT: And I do want to discuss that in 

more detail in my agenda here, but thanks for that 

clarification, Mr. Dratel. 

Since we have exhibit lists from both sides, 

have each side seen the other side's exhibits? Have those 

documents been exchanged? 

MS. HOLLANDER: Most of them. I think we are 

missing some, and the government may be missing some, but 

we're continuing to communicate about what we're missing. 

Some of the government's were misidentified, and I think 

maybe ours were, too, but at this point we're working 

those issues out. 

MR. JACKS: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: Do you intend to have a set of 

exhibits for the Bench? 

MR. JACKS: Yes, sir.

MS. HOLLANDER: We're assuming you wanted them 

later because they are voluminous. 

THE COURT: And that raises another question 

now. I have a letter dated June 15, 2007 on the 

letterhead of the Dallas Morning News over the signature 

of a man named Jason Trahan who says that he's a reporter, 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
and he anticipates covering this trial and he says -- I'll 

quote a portion of it. "While I do not wish to interrupt 

the Court's business in any way, I would like to insure 

that I am able to gain access to the evidence on the same 

day it is introduced. This is so I am able to fully 

understand what's going on and be able to report 

accurately and with appropriate context. Otherwise, I 

will not be able to read documents which I will have to be 

writing about on a daily deadline because they are 

discussed in Court. In a prior case involving some of the 

defendants, I have been told that Judge Lindsay had been 

given copies of admitted exhibits at the end of each trial 

day. Using a portable document scanner the 

reporter scanned documents, and the court reporter oversaw 

the newspaper representatives' inspection to maintain the 

document's integrity. I do not expect to be able to 

rummage through evidence on my own." So I think we should 

try to make evidence accessible to the press on a daily 

basis, and if the parties have all of their documents in 

electronic media, maybe we could make a disk available to 

the media if that's practicable. I don't know whether it 

is or alternatively let them scan the paper documents. 

MR. JACKS: I guess the first thing that comes 

in my mind is, if the disk would have all the exhibits 

some of which --

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
THE COURT: I don't know if that's practical or 

not. I know some editing would be involved. 

MR. JACKS: That was our concern in the earlier 

trial. We didn't want it to fall upon us to be taking 

time out of our day to make copies for them. As far as, 

you know -- I don't know how much work it would take to 

burn or select -- Okay, these have been admitted today. 

Burn these to a CD and give them to him. I guess we would 

just have to think about that. 

THE COURT: Are we going to have paper documents 

that we could scan if he wants to do that? 

MR. JACKS: Yes. 

THE COURT: Well, maybe we should do what he's 

requested then, just let him access to the paper documents 

at the end of each day that have been admitted during that 

trial day. 

MR. JONAS: Your Honor, in the Infocom case 

before Judge Lindsay the Dallas Morning News acted as a 

liaison to the rest of the press. So that may be a good 

idea. 

MR. JACKS: Well, both of them. To say they 

were the pool may be a bit of an exaggeration. 

MS. HOLLANDER: I think neither side wants them 

to have something that was denied or may not have been 

admitted. And there is another wrinkle, and that is Mr. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
McGonigle, who's a Dallas Morning News reporter is on the 

witness list. 

MS. SHAPIRO: He won't be covering the trial. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Yes, but is he going to get the 

exhibits.

MR. DRATEL: Your Honor, there is something in 

the letter that says I can't do it all myself. I want to 

scan it. He may want to bring it back to the office who 

are familiar with the case. It's Mr. McGonigle, and 

that's a Rule 615 issue. 

MR. JACKS: I thought he was saying he would 

need help from a court clerk or personnel. 

THE COURT: I don't think he says anything in 

there about giving the documents to anybody else. But I 

read it too quickly.

MR. DRATEL: He says I don't expect to be able 

to rummage through evidence on my own. I guess Mr. Jacks 

is right. It seemed to me he was going to be getting help 

from the office, but if it's from a witness, we need to 

oppose that.

THE COURT: Well, I agree with that. I didn't 

realize that Mr. McGonigle is still with the Dallas 

Morning News. I recognize he was a reporter in the past, 

but I haven't seen any stories recently. 

MS. SHAPIRO: He's still there, but he won't be 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
covering the case because he's a witness. 

THE COURT: But in my event, before we agree to 

Mr. Trahan's request, I need to ascertain that he would be 

the only one going through the documents and not sharing 

them with anyone at the Dallas Morning News.

MS. HUDSON: Is it okay that he acts as the 

liaison with any other media? I just got a call during 

the week about someone interested in the same thing. 

THE COURT: Well, we might ascertain whether Mr. 

Trahan is willing to do that, and we'll tell anybody else 

who inquires they need to contact Mr. Trahan. 

Let me go back to the subject of exhibits for 

the moment. I know we have this electronic courtroom so 

this question is a bit obsolete, but do you anticipate 

having any large exhibits or photographs like charts or 

maps or do you intend to use the electronic? 

MR. JACKS: We intend to use the electronic.

MR. GARRETT: We will, your Honor. 

MR. JACKS: And as far as how big they are -- 

MR. JONAS: They are a poster size. The record 

will reflect. Right here.

THE COURT: Just be sure the defense has seen 

those before they are displayed to the jury so if there is 

any objection I can rule ahead of time. 

MS. HOLLANDER: We do have some charts and maps. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
Whether we're going to blow them up or not, I don't know. 

But we'll tell the government also.

MR. DRATEL: Just one thing. While we're on the 

subject of electronic system in the courtroom -- and we 

had a training session yesterday -- and with respect to 

your Honor's court rules, I want to know how your Honor 

wants to do it. The reason I ask is it's an extra step 

that takes time, and if it's the Rule that's fine. I just 

want to know. And that's the function. Before the jury 

gets to see a document that's placed on the document 

camera or the lap top, is the jury off? That's controlled 

from the Bench? And I don't know if the Court does that 

or whether the deputy does that, and the question is 

obviously the Court's rules say only address the Court, 

not the deputy. If we ask the Court and then the Court 

directs the deputy or can we direct the deputy at the same 

time? 

THE COURT: Well, Ms. Hudson is my courtroom 

deputy, and in most cases she's not in the courtroom after 

the jury selection. Unfortunately, that leaves me to 

operate the equipment, and I'm technologically challenged, 

as you will find when we get under way.

MR. DRATEL: That's fine. If you are going to 

be doing it, it makes it easier. 

MS. HOLLANDER: The other thing we heard, are 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
the witness and the jury are controlled by the same 

button? So we may have to approach the witness with the 

actual document before we turn on the button? 

THE COURT: Well, I'm sure there will be a 

learning curve for all of us as we get started. 

MR. JACKS: May I ask a question?

THE COURT: Yes, sir. 

MR. JACKS: Will you have your own lap top? 

MS. HOLLANDER: Yes, we have a lap top and a 

paralegal who will be sitting behind the seats right 

behind counsel with a lap top, and then looking at the 

screen, that's one of the screens that's there. That's 

the way --

MR. JACKS: I was just wondering. I have never 

had a trial where both sides were using their own lap top. 

I have had it where there was one lap top and if the 

defense had electronic exhibits, then they would have been 

either by CD or something loaded into the one government 

lap top, and I don't know if -- I don't know -- 

THE COURT: Did I understand correctly that both 

sides are going to have paralegals operating this 

equipment and that they have had the training from the 

Clerk's Office? 

MS. HOLLANDER: Our paralegal has had the 

training, yes. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
THE COURT: Do we have audio tapes or video 

tapes? 

MR. JACKS: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: And I guess you will be playing 

those from the lap tops, also. 

MR. JACKS: Yes, they have been digitized. 

THE COURT: I had the impression from our 

Kastigar hearing the other day that the government had 

certain transcripts that it intends to rely on. I just 

wanted to cover with everybody what my understanding is of 

the law in our circuit on admission of transcripts. There 

is a Fifth Circuit pattern instruction that's been used 

numerous times -- approved by the Circuit I think in 

virtually all instances -- that I should instruct the jury 

that where a transcript is involved that it's only 

secondary evidence, that the primary evidence is the tape 

recording or video tape and that they are the sole judges 

of who the speakers are and what the content of the 

conversation is. It not infrequently occurs that there is 

a dispute between the prosecution and the defense on 

whether a transcript is accurate. As I understand the law 

of the Circuit, that's not a grounds for denying admission 

to a transcript. Rather, the remedy is if there is a 

disagreement, for each side to produce their own version 

of what the transcript should be, and then the jury 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
decides which is the accurate version. The circuit 

suggested long ago in a case called United States against 

Onori, 535 F 2nd 948 at 958, Footnote 5, a 1976 decision, 

that this matter is best handled at pretrial -- which is 

why I raise it now -- and that an effort should be made 

for the parties to agree on the transcript if possible, 

and if not, that's why I said alternate versions should be 

produced for the jury's consideration. So that's my 

understanding of the law of the circuit if we have a 

disagreement between the parties on the accuracy of the 

transcript. 

MR. JACKS: Well, your Honor, that was one of 

the things that we were going to bring up. You know, 

throughout the case, the defense has contended there were 

inaccuracies in the government's transcriptions at various 

points in the investigation and whatever. And it was our 

hope that we could address to the extent possible, okay, 

what are the inaccuracies. Maybe if we agree to them or 

they agree to them. And let's try to get one transcript 

that both sides agree to. And so that's what we would 

like to add. The other point that I wanted to ask about, 

I understand the Fifth Circuit law, but when the tape is 

in a foreign language, the jury -- the tape is the primary 

evidence, but if it's in a foreign language, then they are 

really relying on the transcript or the testimony of the 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
translator that this is a fair and accurate transcription. 

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. JACKS: I can't recall a case addressing 

foreign languages. 

THE COURT: I have had cases like that. One of 

them is United States against Allibhai which is a reported 

decision in the Fifth Circuit. I don't think you were the 

prosecutor, but it was foreign nationals who were Muslim 

who were alleged to have been sending money overseas to 

the Àgha Khan, who was the head of their branch of Islam. 

And their native language was Gujrati. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Did the jury listen to the tape 

in GU? 

THE COURT: My memory is yes, but it was a long 

time ago. So I'm not certain of that, but I'm ninety 

percent certain. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Your Honor, to get back to the 

question, maybe it was Mr. Jacks's question about trying 

to agree on the transcripts. We received these two 

hundred transcripts on May 29th. We are trying to go 

through them and see if we have any disagreements that are 

material, and we hope to have that done, but it is not 

finished. 

THE COURT: Well, I understand it's a large job 

among many other large jobs. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
MS. HOLLANDER: There is just so much we can get 

finished in a day, but we're aware of this issue. 

MR. JONAS: Your Honor, it's not just 

transcripts for video and audio tapes; it's a lot of 

documents where we have translation, and so we include 

that in the pool. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Right. And there are thousands. 

That's true. We're trying to find any that are a serious 

issue and deal with those. But it's an enormous task, and 

I can say that it probably will not be finished by the 

time we go to trial, and there will be some issues that 

come up at trial.

MR. JONAS: If I may ask, are the defendants 

aiding in that? None of this is classified, and this is 

their native language. How are they aiding in the 

translations? 

MS. HOLLANDER: How we're doing is really work 

product. 

MR. JACKS: Well, your Honor, I would request as 

they find the parts where they disagree, if we would come 

to us and see if we can agree rather than lay behind the 

law and try to make it some kind of a litigation advantage 

or something. If we could resolve those. 

THE COURT: Well, I would certainly encourage 

that. I'm not telling either side how to try its case 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
because you are all experienced trial lawyers, and I know 

you have your own way of doing things, but I think that 

would make things go smoothly if we could iron out as many 

difficulties like that as possible beforehand. 

MR. WESTFALL: First of all, I can now certainly 

empathize with your issue of being able to hear all the 

way down at the other end of the table. I have tried one 

transcript case, and my memory is that an instruction is 

given at the time the transcript is introduced in 

evidence. Is that correct? 

THE COURT: That's the way I typically do it, 

give a verbal instruction to the jury at that time. And 

in my written instructions at the end, I will repeat that. 

And I ma -- Depending on how many repeats there are, I may 

give some version of that as we go along. If we have two 

hundred come in evidence, I probably won't be doing it 

every time, but from time to time I would, yes. 

MR. JACKS: The report I got from our paralegal 

is that the transcripts -- We asked them to copy on the 

front and back of the page to cut down on the volume of 

paper. But I think it's like four binders. So we will 

have those for the parties and the jurors and the court. 

THE COURT: Okay. Good. There was some 

discussion at previous conferences about efforts to 

stipulate to business records to avoid the government 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
having to call a lot of custodial witnesses, and I haven't 

heard anything further since then. Has any progress been 

made on that front? 

MR. JACKS: No, your Honor. That was one of the 

things we were going to bring up just to see what we could 

do about -- I sent this proposed stipulation. It's both 

foreign bank records, financial institutions. We have not 

really heard from opposing counsel and so don't know their 

position, and that's one of the things that we would like 

to try to address and get resolved to expedite, shorten, 

focus the trial. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Your Honor, we couldn't respond 

until we saw the exhibits, and now we're trying to go 

through and see whether there are some we can stipulate to 

or whether we have some stipulations that we want to 

request of the government. We have actually discussed 

that as recently as yesterday, but we haven't --

THE COURT: You mean amongst yourselves or with 

the government? 

MS. HOLLANDER: Amongst ourselves. We haven't 

discussed it with the government yet, but we have 

discussed it among ourselves and are trying to figure out 

what our position is. We're not quite there yet. We'll 

try to get there as soon as possible. 

THE COURT: I was reminded during the Kastigar 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
hearing the other data we have a superseding indictment in 

this case. Have the defendants been rearraigned on the 

superseding indictment? 

MR. DRATEL: I don't think so. 

MS. HOLLANDER: I guess not. 

MR. JACKS: I can't remember -- I know in the 

earlier case involving Mr. Elashi when there was a 

superseding indictment I sent out a waiver of 

rearraignment, and it was signed by the defendants. I 

don't remember if I did that in this case or not. 

MR. DRATEL: I don't recall. The reporter is 

nodding when I said before, I don't think I have 

actually -- I don't think I have actually been in open 

court with your Honor in terms of an arraignment. 

THE COURT: That's probably right. That's 

something we need to either get a waiver or take care of 

at some point before the trial commences. 

MR. WESTFALL: If you prepare a waiver, I'll be 

fine with that.

MR. DRATEL: That's fine. I had no 

recollection. 

MS. HOLLANDER: I don't think we have. 

THE COURT: I wanted to tell you about one thing 

that I have started recently that I have had good results 

with, and that is especially in a trial as long as this 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
one is expected to be, I have begun taking photographs of 

the witnesses who testify and writing their name either at 

the bottom or the back, and we send those to the juryroom 

at the conclusion of the case with the documentary 

evidence and my instructions so that the jurors can recall 

who testified and what they said. In talking with jurors 

informally after a case is over, generally I have gotten 

good reviews on that. They say it does assist them in 

their deliberations. So I want to use that procedure in 

this case. And my assistant Eleanore has a digital 

camera. So if you would like us to take the pictures, 

when your witness is ready testify, be sure to send them 

back so that she can take their picture, and they will be 

portrayed in the same clothing they are wearing when 

testifying. If you want to do it yourself, that's fine 

with me as long as the witness looks the same way in the 

photograph when they do when they appear on the stand. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Can we have those photographs so 

we can remember after several months? 

THE COURT: I know there is one witness the 

government is concerned about, the Israeli agent. We 

shred the paragraphs after the trial is over. We don't 

make them a part of the record.

MS. SHAPIRO: I think as long as it's not 

disseminated. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
THE COURT: One other thing about the jury. 

Because of the anticipated length of trial, it's my 

intention to let the jury take notes, and I will give them 

the cautionary instructions in the Fifth Circuit Pattern 

Instructions about the notes are only for their own 

benefit and not to rely unduly on the notes of other 

jurors who may be better notetakers than they are and so 

forth. 

Let's see. I think we need to talk more about 

the procedures for voir dire. I know we have discussed it 

in the past in general terms. My memory is a little hazy. 

I have not gone back and reviewed the transcripts of our 

earlier sessions. But I have it in my mind -- and maybe 

based largely on what Ms. Moreno told us about her 

experience and maybe Mr. Dratel as well. I'm hoping to 

have a jury in place within the first three or four days. 

I understood that you are willing to live within some 

reasonable time limits to be imposed by me, but I wanted 

to go back and review again what we talked about earlier. 

My impression is we would have a general session where I 

would make some remarks and then counsel would have -- 

maybe and I don't remember this exactly -- maybe an 

opportunity to make some remarks or ask some questions of 

the panel as a whole, although I don't think with two 

hundred forty people, more or less, in our panel that we 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
can do it all at one time unless we do it outside the 

courtroom because my courtroom won't hold that many 

people. So we might have to have two or three different 

sessions. But anyway, there would be a general session, 

and then based upon questionnaire answers you will have 

received, you wanted to bring them up in smaller groups 

and question them individually. So I wanted to refresh my 

memory about that and talk about it maybe in more detail 

than we have in the past. Mr. Westfall.

MR. WESTFALL: What seems like logistically the 

best option -- We talked about this yesterday -- would be 

to bring up the small groups of five to fifteen at fifteen 

minutes per juror, hopefully knocking out thirty a day. I 

think that was the number. And once we have exercised 

challenges for cause and built up enough jurors to where 

we can have an entire panel, at that point bring that 

panel in and do your general instructions on burden of 

proof and all of that. That would get rid of the big 

logistical difficulty in the front. 

THE COURT: Have you discussed that with the 

government? That sounds like a good plan to me if they 

don't have a problem with it. 

MR. JACKS: We are opposed to that. I don't see 

the need to have the second smaller groups. To me, it 

seems like the most efficient way to do it is like we have 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
always done it in that we have the general voir dire -- 

and I understand that you may have to have two sessions 

because of the number of jurors in the panel, but -- and 

then if certain jurors indicate any kind of positive 

response that needs follow-up, bring those up and those 

alone, as opposed to bringing everyone up in these small 

groups. I'm concerned, first of all, this goal of fifteen 

minutes is not going to be met. Questions and follow-ups 

are going to be -- There is going to be the need for more 

follow-up as to certain jurors. So whether we could 

maintain that schedule -- And even if the Court decided 

that we're going to maintain it, you are sitting there 

watching the clock rather than focusing on what the juror 

says and exploring that. I think it's more logical and 

more efficient to do the standard voir dire, have the 

Court give its portion of the voir dire, if the parties 

have any kind of individual voir dire they would like to 

do, and I think that should be explored through the court, 

the questions that the parties propose to ask during their 

individual voir dire. And then if there are positive 

responses that indicate follow-up is needed, just bring 

those people in, Not go through this procedure with a 

hundred and something people and then bring them back in 

at fifteen at a time and go through -- I just think that 

puts an extra step in there that is not really necessary. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
THE COURT: Let be go back and be sure I 

understand what you are saying, Mr. Jacks. We have now -- 

just for a round number -- 40 people in our panel. And I 

understand we have the second group as we speak in the 

process of answering these questionnaires. So we will 

start with that group of 240 to which you will have 

questionnaire answers. My courtroom probably at the 

maximum would hold about sixty potential jurors. So under 

your plan, we would need probably -- If we have a voir 

dire for all 240, we would need four days to do that or 

four and a half days, however long it takes. So your idea 

would be on Monday July 16, we would bring the first group 

of sixty in my courtroom, have a general voir dire session 

and if necessary follow-up with individual voir dire by 

counsel, and then we would bring a second group in I guess 

either the afternoon of the 16th or the next day on the 

17th and do same thing all over again and whether we do 

that for the third and fourth groups if we needed to reach 

them? 

MR. JACKS: Actually, your Honor, I was hopeful 

if we could use Fitzwater's courtroom if it was available. 

I think it holds a little over a hundred plus -- I was 

asking -- Maybe Gail O'Neal told me. But it's -- so that 

would -- If his courtroom was available, that would cut it 

down to two. We could do a hundred or two hundred at a 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
time, and if we couldn't get enough out of that, I guess 

we could look at the next thirty or something. That was 

my thought in terms of the overall voir dire. But, yeah, 

under what you said, if we used your courtroom it would be 

even further stretched out and extended. And I just -- As 

I said, I think bringing them up in groups of ten or 

fifteen is an unnecessary extra step. 

THE COURT: Mr. Westfall, let me go back and 

kind of review from the beginning what your proposal is. 

Under your proposal, I guess we would start out with this 

240, although we may not bring them down to courtroom the 

same day because we couldn't probably talk to all of them. 

You mentioned small groups. Go over with me step by step 

what the size of those groups would be or would we be 

talking to the potential jurors in groups or one at a 

time? How would that work exactly? 

MR. WESTFALL: We would bring them in the 

courtroom one at a time. We would bring them as a group, 

but bring them in the courtroom one at a time for a 

maximum of fifteen minutes. 

THE COURT: Per side or both sides? 

MR. WESTFALL: Seven and a half minutes per side 

which we're willing to have strict time limits on that. 

The questioning would commence, and there is some jurors 

that there may not be any time at all spent with them. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
Some jurors, maybe the whole fifteen minutes spent with 

them. The advantages of that, as we discussed earlier, 

this case has certain issues that we have a hundred ten 

people sitting out there there is a chance that all a 

hundred ten might have to be flushed if we had a 

sufficient outbreak and that's what we had discussed 

earlier. That would move along pretty well. It really 

would. And we do the math and figure up the number of 

jurors we need which is fifteen or sixteen. I can't 

remember. 

THE COURT: I am going to use the maximum number 

of alternates which is six I think the Rules say. 

MR. WESTFALL: And you throw challenges on top 

of that, that is how big a panel we would have to 

assemble, and it's a matter of when that panel gets 

assembled. And then it was contemplated before that the 

struck juror method would be used where the whole panel is 

assembled, and you would want maybe ten additionals in 

case somebody said I can't follow the burden of proof, but 

after we have gone through all the preliminary remarks and 

individual voir dire, I can't imagine that we would have 

much of a problem with that and the jury is basically cut 

using that struck method in the course of thirty minutes 

to an hour. Tops. As opposed to doing the same thing 

four days in a row with large panels, I really think it's 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
a more efficient way of getting it done. 

MS. MORENO: Your Honor, if I may, the other 

step that wasn't discussed by Mr. Jacks is there should be 

an opportunity before July 16 -- because my understanding 

is we're going to get these questionnaires -- tomorrow, 

sometime over the weekend, that we might be able to 

stipulate to some cause challenges and narrow down the 

list even further which would cut down the time further, 

and it's been my experience -- counsels' experience this 

often happens where the answers on the questionnaires are 

so flagrant that both sides think it's an easy stipulation 

for cause. So I think that is also going to ameliorate 

the time concerns that your Honor has. 

THE COURT: I was just trying to figure out in 

my own mind to do the arithmetic. If we could do fifteen 

minutes per member of the panel, that's a maximum of four 

people per hour, and hopefully, some we didn't need to 

spend any time on like Mr. Westfall said. I don't really 

know that. So the conservative approach would be to say 

we spend fifteen minutes on each one. And I'm normally in 

court maybe five and a half to six hours a day. So that 

would mean that we could do probably on the outside about 

twenty-five people a day using that approach. 

MR. WESTFALL: We would want to bring more in 

case somebody has a cause challenge. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
THE COURT: Sure. So that would take four days 

to do a hundred people at that rate. 

MR. JACKS: Fifteen minutes per juror? 

MS. HOLLANDER: We don't need anymore after 

that. 

MR. JACKS: Well, let's say there is a hundred 

we have to question. I think my math is right. That's 

twenty-five hours, and that's if you are watching the 

clock. That fifteen minutes stops. No going out. He's 

in the bathroom. Let's get them back. Let's say you are 

bringing up fifteen, and five of those don't have anything 

to say. We could have figured that out when we had them 

in the group when we asked those questions, and those that 

had an issue, we bring them back and explore it. If we do 

it in the traditional way, we locate those within the 

larger group that have some issue, and we focus on those. 

And I just think -- I think it would be making it more 

difficult than it needed to be. It would be committing to 

a process that's going to -- I don't think there is any 

way that we would be able to adhere. We're talking about 

lawyers, your Honor. One more question, you know, it 

turns into ten more questions. You know, your Honor, this 

is very important. This way we will be able to 

concentrate on the jurors that really do have an issue as 

opposed to running them all through the gate and saying 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
you are okay. Go ahead. I want to ask them -- You give 

them time, they will think of a question they want to ask.

MR. DRATEL: We do this all the time in the 

state court. You get a certain amount of time, and you 

use it, and the court stops you. I thought this had been 

decided last time. We spent a lot of time figuring out 

the mechanics. The Court had said individual voir dire 

and attorney voir dire. Fifteen minutes per person is a 

maximum. So we're not talking about fifteen minutes maybe 

more; we're talking about a maximum. We're not going to 

have fifteen minutes per person, so we're going to get 

ahead in that way. And once we get to -- I think the 

magic number, fifty-two or something, once we get there, 

we stop. Because of the way the system has operated, we 

have already eliminated those who were a waste of time. 

We eliminate more people we would have wasted time on, as 

Ms. Moreno suggested. We're getting down to core jurors 

who are the mix. We're -- I don't think we're going to 

get past a hundred. In this context, I think it would be 

very unusual if we got past a hundred. 

MR. JONAS: Your Honor, a question for 

clarification. And I'll address it to Mr. Westfall, if I 

can. Are you contemplating that after a juror is 

questioned for fifteen minutes we discuss whether or not 

that person is struck for cause? 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
MR. WESTFALL: Either side would level a 

challenge at that point that the Court would rule on. 

MR. JONAS: So we need to rule in time for 

argument. It's my experience if you think there is a 

cause and we don't, that goes back and forth, and as Mr. 

Jacks says, we're lawyers. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Your Honor, I realize that it's 

the Court's prerogative to visit this, but I just read the 

transcript from the status conference where we discussed 

this. Your Honor had said that's the way we were going to 

do it, and I thought that is the way we're going to do it. 

We were going to have the individual voir dire. That's 

the way I read it.

MR. JACKS: I read it, too, and you clearly said 

I haven't made up my mind about that yet. I'm not 

comfortable with Mr. Dratel's prediction that this is 

going to be no problem and we're going to gain time. 

THE COURT: Let me say I have not reviewed the 

transcript, so I don't remember what I said. I do 

remember in preparation for this conference today that -- 

I remember some general discussion that we had, but now 

that we're getting close to actually having to embark on 

this process, I really didn't remember the details of what 

we had discussed. 

To reiterate what I said at an earlier 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
conference, I recognize that this is an unusual case and 

it requires some special handling. Mr. Jacks and I have 

worked together over the years in a number of cases, and 

so he talks about the usual way because we have a certain 

way of doing things in our district, and I think every 

community has its own legal culture, and Mr. Dratel, I'm 

sure, is used to doing certain things in New York that 

would be alien to me and vice versa. I think the easy 

decision for me would be to go along with what Mr. Jacks 

says and say I'm used to doing it this way, that's the way 

we're going to do it. I may have said or at least 

intimated that we would do it as proposed on the defense 

side today, and I am inclined to do things that way just 

because I want to be sure that we have as good a jury as 

we can come up with as a result of this process, and I 

want the defense to think that as well as the government. 

I think it's arguable the defense way is a more time 

intensive way, although it's hard for me going into the 

process which way would save more time. So let me say 

that I'm willing, Mr. Westfall and Mr. Dratel, to do it 

your way with this caveat. Don't make me sorry at the end 

of the day or at the end of the week that I have agreed 

with you. I am relying on your representations on these 

time limits, and I do want to have a jury in place by the 

latter part of the week of July 16. One reason, as I 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
mentioned to you earlier this week, that I had a 

conversation with Leigh Lyon earlier this week about 

logistical details concerning this case, and one of those 

is I intend to have the jurors once they are selected come 

to a location remote from the courthouse and be bussed 

here every day during the trial. Our court had to sign a 

contract with the GSA for the van to transport those 

jurors, and I gave Leigh the date of July 19th to begin 

that contract. So that was just an estimate on my part. 

But I would like to have the jury in place as a target on 

July 19th. 

MR. JACKS: Your Honor, I have never understood 

that the defendant's plan called for individual voir dire. 

It was my understanding that their proposal was that the 

jurors be in groups of ten to fifteen to be questioned as 

a small group, not this fourteen wait out in the hall and 

they come in one at a time. That was never the proposal, 

as I understood it. 

THE COURT: That's why I asked for clarification 

because I wasn't sure myself. 

MS. MORENO: Your Honor, I have the filing by 

the defense of the protocol where we intensively discuss 

individual voir dire, cite the supporting law and give 

examples. So that was always front and center. I 

discussed it with your Honor at previous status 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
conferences. So I'm a bit surprised that Mr. Jacks 

doesn't recall that. 

MR. JACKS: I recall them discussing it. I 

don't recall them discussing it in a plan. 

MS. MORENO: Document 555 filed March 1st, 2007. 

MR. DRATEL: And my whole discussion about 

contamination in all of these pretrial conferences is 

based on having the jury hermetically sealed from the 

panel because of an answer we could not anticipate. 

MR. JACKS: Your Honor, I appreciate the Court's 

position and comments, but in terms of how much different 

this case is, I respectfully disagree in the sense that 

it's still a criminal case, and we're treating it 

differently in the sense that we're using a questionnaire. 

We have sent out these summons in advance. Except out the 

hardship questions in advance, that's different. The 

Court has made concessions that are different from other 

cases, and I think what the Court has done so far is more 

than adequate. This talk about pervasive pretrial 

publicity is incredibly overblown. There haven't been any 

stories in the paper. Maybe it says something about me, 

but what I'm working on, to my circle of friends they say 

doesn't ring a bell. So I don't believe the concern about 

that is as great as it's being portrayed, and I have to 

say that I really think to set this case up for individual 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
voir dire is way beyond what is necessary, and I think it 

is just prolonging the length of this trial, and I just 

think it's -- And I do disagree with the defense saying 

this has always been the plan that they proposed. I 

understand we can look at transcripts and look at 

pleadings and see, but I don't think this case is one that 

justifies individual voir dire. 

THE COURT: Well, I understand your position, 

Mr. Jacks, but I have made my decision, and as I said 

earlier, I will use the procedures proposed by the defense 

in this case for individual voir dire, but they have the 

potential to disappoint me greatly at the beginning of the 

case if we're not able to stay on schedule. So I mention 

that as a caveat. 

MR. JACKS: All right. 

MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I wanted to raise one 

issue. We have a witness who's expected to be our first 

witness who's unavailable on the 24th of July. So I 

wanted to put that out there. I'm not sure exactly when 

the jury will be selected and how long openings will go. 

That's all up in the air, but that one particular day is a 

problem for this witness. 

THE COURT: All I can say is you'll have to do 

the best you can. One of the difficulties in any criminal 

case -- but particularly one of this size and scope -- is 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
the logistics of getting this number of busy people in one 

place at one time, and as I said earlier, I'm not going to 

try to tell you how to try the case. But either your 

order of witnesses may have to give or the witness' plans 

may have to give because we'll do the best we can in 

keeping the case on schedule, but I can't schedule things 

in the trial around the convenience or not of a witness. 

It's just too much.

MR. JONAS: Just to expand that slightly. We 

certainly appreciate your Honor's comments. It's a 

religious holiday that day that conflicts with the 

witness' unavailability. 

THE COURT: Well, maybe convenience is the wrong 

word, but I don't feel like I can schedule all the people 

in this trial around the schedule of a particular person. 

We have some motions in limine I wanted to 

discuss. The defendants filed on June 13 a joint request 

for a James hearing, and it's entitled Motion in Limine to 

Exclude Alleged Co-conspirator Statements Not Meeting the 

Requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2)(e), 

and the government responded in writing on March the 16th. 

I am going to deny the motion for a James hearing. I 

agree with the government's position and with the 

authorities cited therein, principally United States 

against Fragoso that under the law of our circuit a 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
pretrial hearing is not required. It's been my experience 

that the more expeditious way to handle these things is 

simply take the matter up at trial, and of course, the law 

of our circuit and the Supreme Court decision in 

Bourjailey approved this practice. I think it would be an 

undue consumption of resources to have to hear this 

evidence twice. 

I'm sorry. I just realized in preparing for 

this conference today that there are a couple of other 

motions in limine that I'm not familiar with. So I'll 

have to ask counsel to briefly summarize what they say. 

First is the Government's Motion in Limine filed March 14 

asking me to prohibit defense counsel from making 

arguments designed to elicit jury nullification. What is 

that about, Mr. Jacks, or if you want to yield to one of 

your cocounsel? 

MR. JACKS: Judge, it's basically you cannot 

tell necessarily at the start of the trial but if that 

starts to become the point of the defense's position, then 

we are making the objection in advance to make the Court 

aware of our position, and I know the defense says they 

are aware of the law and have no intention to do that. 

THE COURT: Well I agree with you that it would 

be improper to ask the jury to disregard the law, and if 

that comes up at the time, I will make a ruling, and I'm 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
not prepared on the defense's response either. But if 

they say they don't intend to do that, it would seem to me 

I can deny the motion at this point without prejudice to 

its being renewed if that issue arises during the trial. 

MS. HOLLANDER: That's fine. 

THE COURT: And then there is a Defense Joint 

Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence from Trial and 

Memorandum in Support. I'm not sure -- Again, I didn't 

read that in preparation for today. I guess it escaped my 

notice. Ms. Hollander, can you or one of your cocounsel 

tell me what it's about? 

MS. HOLLANDER: I don't have a copy in front of 

me, your Honor, but it's about a large number of items. 

MS. DUNCAN: As Ms. Hollander mentioned, your 

Honor, we will be challenging several exhibits under 

several general categories. The first is relevance 

grounds or 403 grounds. We have challenged some 

coconspirator statements, 404(b) evidence. Do you want me 

to walk through each piece that we're challenging? 

THE COURT: In a general way, hit the high 

spots, if you will, or maybe just describe the general 

tenure or character of the testimony you are concerned 

about. 

MS. DUNCAN: The main categories we're concerned 

about involve evidence of acts of terrorism or violence 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
that are unrelated to the Holy Land. The government 

indicated an intent to bring in evidence of suicide 

bombing. There is no evidence with respect to Holy Land 

as to that. All acts of violence that the government 

intends to bring in are unrelated to the Holy Land. There 

is evidence that --

THE COURT: Let me stop you a minute. When you 

say unrelated to the Holy Land Foundation, I'm not sure 

what that means. I understood the government's general 

theory in this case that HAMAS is an organization that is 

engaged in violence on a fairly routine basis in the 

Middle East and that the Holy Land Foundation has been 

funneling money to HAMAS, and so if that theory is 

correct, I don't know how you could say that the Holy Land 

Foundation is unrelated to HAMAS. 

MS. DUNCAN: Well, my understanding of the 

government's position is that the Holy Land Foundation 

funneled money to zakat organizations that had members of 

HAMAS on their board of directors. There is no allegation 

that the Holy Land Foundation provided resources for 

terrorist acts. We're objecting, for example, with 

respect to the Operation Defensive Shield, a search in 

Palestine, where a lot of evidence was seized. It was the 

government's position it was in response to terrorist 

acts, and our position is that is completely irrelevant as 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
to why the government of Israel seized certain documents, 

and it's very prejudicial to our clients.

MR. DRATEL: Your Honor, also if I may add. The 

defense is not giving money -- it's giving money to 

foreign terrorist organizations in that this is an 

organization that's been designated. Not one that has to 

do with all the extra very prejudicial and 403 implicated 

evidence that we're talking about here which Holy Land is 

not accused of financing or being related to in any 

operational way. 

THE COURT: I thought one of government's 

theories was that money was given to widows and orphans of 

suicide bombers and this in effect rewarded or encouraged 

suicide bombing as a technique. 

MR. DRATEL: But that doesn't require a litany 

of suicide bombings and all the grizzly parts related to 

that. What could be done in a 403 way is to really limit 

it so it relates to the issue at trial and not inject 

prejudicial parts that are inflaming and don't have 

anything to do with the elements of the offense or the 

parts of the government's theory because unless the 

government is going to say that a specific terrorist act 

was a result of a specific payment to a person, then all 

of that stuff is really just window dressing. Most of it 

is after the fact. They are saying it's a reward. So 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
what happened at the bombing is really irrelevant to the 

specific allegation that goes to the offense. So I think 

the rest of it would be precluded under 403. 

MR. JONAS: Your Honor, may I respond? 

THE COURT: Yes, I was going to ask for someone 

on the government's side to respond because I have not 

reviewed your response either.

MR. JONAS: Your Honor, 18 United States Code, 

Section 2339(b), which is one of a series of charges in 

this case -- and I won't read the whole statute. 

Subsection A, Subsection 1, which is entitled "Unlawful 

Conduct: To violate this paragraph a person must have 

knowledge that an organization is a designated terrorist 

organization, that the organization is engaged in 

terrorist activity or that the organization has engaged or 

engages in terrorism."

There are certain acts that we intend to have 

our expert witness discuss that were committed by HAMAS or 

claimed to be committed by HAMAS where the defendants were 

on notice of because we have intercepted communications 

that they are discussing the act or because they received 

faxes that are newsletters where other acts are discussed. 

One category is suicide bombings or terrorist acts of 

HAMAS that we intend to discuss through our expert. 

Another is the socialization of the HAMAS, through the 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
zakat committee and how their acts of the zakats support 

the military wing. For example, where members of zakat 

committees provided support to terrorist activity. Those 

are two areas where we think we're entitled to present 

evidence to the jury of terrorist acts. That evidence is 

not going to be bringing in victims or witnesses to the 

terrorist acts but through our expert who will testify 

about HAMAS's claim of these acts, and he would briefly 

describe the act. On such and such a date HAMAS claims to 

have committed this bombing and move on from there. 

MR. DRATEl: Your Honor, it's just like a 

justification defense in reverse, what we're talking about 

here. What Mr. Jonas talks about is the second part of 

the second knowledge element of 2339(b) which is a 

defendant has to be aware that it's a designated 

organization, that the organization engages in violent 

activity. So when I say it's like a justification 

defense, let's say you represent a defendant in a 

justification case in which the defendant is aware that 

the -- Let's say the homicide victim who the defendant has 

killed and he's claiming justification. If the homicide 

victim had committed three murders, but the defendant 

didn't know, it doesn't come in evidence. It's only what 

the defendant knew that's relevant to the justification. 

And if all it is is the defendant got -- the victim got 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
into a fight last week and that he's prone to fighting, 

that's all that comes in. So what's in these 

conversations is really the limit of what the defendant's 

knowledge is. By saying because the defendant knows there 

is a suicide bombing that the defendant knows all the 

details and background, that's not true. That's sort of 

bootstrapping their knowledge element to say because the 

defendant may know part of it -- and I'm not saying this 

is a contested issue at trial as to whether the defendants 

knew it was a designated organization or not. I'm not 

sure that's going to be contested at trial. So in 

relation to an issue that's not even going to be 

contested, you have an extraordinary amount of prejudicial 

evidence that comes in. And also doesn't go to a 

defendant's knowledge because what a defendant knows from 

a phone conversation that says there was a suicide bombing 

on X day, he doesn't know about all of that and unless he 

does, it's not relevant to that issue. So it comes in to 

try to prejudice, and as a 403 matter, I think it's clear 

it's not necessary for the case and could really be -- not 

only a red herring but something that drives the jury in 

the way the evidence does not and creates a 403 problem. 

MR. JONAS: I respectfully disagree. Because 

the context of the conversation requires some testimony to 

the jury so that the jury can understand the conversation. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
It's not always clear where it's one defendant talking to 

another saying HAMAS just committed a suicide bombing. 

You have to understand when they are celebrating on the 

phone an attack, they don't say there has just been an 

attack If the jury knows on that day there was an attack, 

it puts that conversation in context. Moreover, we think 

the jury is entitled to understand the full flavor of 

HAMAS and why they are a designated organization and the 

relationships among the different wings of HAMAS. There 

is a case -- And I apologize, your Honor. I wasn't 

expecting to make this argument. I don't know the 

citation. I believe it's in the Eastern District of New 

York. 

MR. JACKS: McKeef. 

MR. JONAS: McKeef I know is Boston, but I know 

there is another case where they were able to bring in for 

similar reasons -- where they brought in victims of 

terrorist acts for the same reason we're doing, but we're 

not going that far. 

MR. DRATEL: That's not an issue, why it's a 

designated terrorist organization. We're not allowed to 

challenge and they shouldn't be able to put it in. That's 

completely off the charts as far as this prosecution, and 

they specifically said they were not getting into this, 

and it's even worse than what they represented. I don't 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
have the papers in front of me -- The government wrote -- 

Footnote 4 in our in limine motion, the government wrote 

previously -- it's a motion -- it's Document Number 468 

filed November 9th, 2006. It's actually to protect the 

identity of important witnesses. The defendants imply in 

Footnote 10 that they will address the Israeli-Palestine 

conflict at some point in the future. The government will 

be filing a motion in limine on this issue as the conflict 

is irrelevant to the defendant's support of a designated 

terrorist organization and would only serve to support an 

improper jury nullification defense. If the defendants 

are permitted to present evidence on the conflict to the 

jury, the door will be opened to the jury on the reasons 

why HAMAS was designated a terrorist organization which 

took the life of American citizens." This is a 180 from 

that representation.

MR. JACKS: Your Honor, it's not. If I were in 

their shoes, I would be doing the same thing to water down 

this case, but this is a terrorism case. 

THE COURT: Well, I have heard enough argument. 

I'm ready to rule on this. I was just scanning through 

the government's response, as Mr. Jonas was arguing, and I 

see the government has quoted a case called United States 

against Pace, which is a 1993 Fifth Circuit decision, and 

I recognize the quotation, although not from Pace, because 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
I think this language actually comes from an earlier Fifth 

Circuit decision, and I can't remember the name of the 

defendant in that case, but it starts with an M-c-K. 

Anyway, the language is quoted at the bottom of Page 2 and 

top of Page 3 of the government's response and the thrust 

of this language is that Rule 403 in the Federal Rules of 

Evidence should be sparingly applied, and I'll quote the 

language for everybody's benefit since you don't have that 

in front of you, no doubt. This is Pace, 10 F 3d 1106, 

"Relevant evidence is prejudicial, but it is only unfair 

prejudice outweighing probative value which permits 

exclusion of relevant matter under 403. Unless trials are 

to be conducted on unreal scenarios, on unreal facts 

sanitized for the occasion, the application of Rule 403 

must be cautious and sparing. Its major function is 

limited to excluding matter of scant or cumulative 

probative force, dragged in by the heals for the sake of 

its prejudicial effect. As to such, Rule 403 is meant to 

relax the iron rule of relevance, to permit the trial 

judge to preserve the fairness of the proceeding by 

exclusion despite its relevance. It's not to 'even out' 

the evidence or make a crime or contest where there is 

little or none."

So based on that, I am going to deny the motion 

in limine that has been brought by the defense without 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
prejudice, of course, to objection at trial to specific 

evidence as it is offered. But it's difficult for me to 

say as an in-limine matter without having heard any 

context that that particular evidence to be offered by the 

government would not be admissible under Rule 403. 

I think that may be all of the in-limine 

motions. 

MS. DUNCAN: Your Honor, there are actually 

several other categories of evidence we challenged. 

THE COURT: I'm sorry. You had just gotten to 

the first one. Okay. 

MS. DUNCAN: The second broad category we 

challenge is evidence having to do with other designated 

terrorist groups, in particular Al Qaeda, and in our 

review of the government's exhibit list, we included 

pictures of Osama bin Laden. They have documents 

comparing Infocom with documents alleged to be related 

with Al Qaeda. The only reason for bringing in such 

evidence is to clearly prejudice the jury against the 

defendants and to remind them of 9-11 and inflame them as 

to that horrific event. It's grossly outweighed by the 

unfair prejudice of the evidence. 

THE COURT: Why don't you go through all four 

categories. 

MS. DUNCAN: There is more than four. They are 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
grouped together, but we discussed smaller categories. 

THE COURT: Hit the high spots of all of them 

then. 

MS. DUNCAN: We challenged evidence of 

conventions, seminars and rallies sponsored by 

organizations other than Holy Land Foundation. We 

challenged that on relevance grounds and also --

THE COURT: Let me ask a question. It's my 

impression -- And in part this is from the Kastigar 

hearing that we began a couple of days ago -- that these 

fundraising events that at least some of the defendants in 

this case were part of were typically held at mosques. Is 

that the type of organization that you are referring to 

when you challenge evidence of fundraisers at other 

organizations? 

MS. DUNCAN: No, your Honor, we're not 

challenging the evidence of Holy Land fundraising 

activities. We're challenging the admission of evidence 

that's unrelated to Holy Land. Other people speaking at 

events that have nothing to do with Holy Land as a 

category. 

MR. WESTFALL: Your Honor, just for context, 

there was fundraising done in mosques, but there was also 

fundraising done at conventions like would be at a 

convention center for instance. If there was a guitar 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
show down here the Dallas Convention Center and I am a 

guitar manufacturer and I want to go sell my guitars at 

that guitar show, basically the theory is that I am then 

liable for everything else that goes on at that guitar 

show. That's the type of organization that we're talking 

about in this motion in limine.

MR. JACKS: You think that's an accurate 

metaphor or analogy. 

MR. WESTFALL: It's one that personally is 

accurate to me. 

MR. JONAS: Your Honor, if I may respond. 

THE COURT: I'd like to hear all the categories 

first, and then maybe you can give a response to them. 

MS. DUNCAN: The next category is evidence that 

the Government of Israel designated zakat committees with 

whom Holy Land worked in 2000. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Which was after Holy Land 

closed. 

MS. DUNCAN: And a related category are 

designations either by the US Government, by the 

Governments of Germany or Israel of any individuals who 

were not charged with giving money, any designations of 

Holy Land Foundation and any other organizations not named 

in the indictment. And that would include, for example, 

some of the family members of the defendants. We 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
challenged evidence relating to other organizations that 

the government alleges are linked to HAMAS, including 

Interpol. I think you heard about Al Aqsa yesterday 

during the Kastigar hearing. In particular, we object 

generally to the introduction of any evidence having to do 

with those organizations, and to the extent the Court 

overrules that objection, we would ask for an offer of 

proof from the government of any relationship between the 

Holy Land Foundation and those organizations before such 

evidence was allowed into trial. Evidence of web sites 

that include hyperlinks to the Holy Land Foundation's web 

site without some evidence that the Holy Land Foundation 

expressly agreed to have that link included on the web 

site. Any evidence of events occurring after September 

4th, 2001 which is the date the Holy Land Foundation was 

closed and all of its assets were seized. We had 

challenged evidence or mentioned the two trials and 

convictions of Defendant Elashi. The government has 

indicated in its response that it does not intend to 

introduce any evidence of the convictions itself, although 

they have reserved the right to introduce evidence that 

was introduced during those trials. 

We have renewed our objection to any evidence 

that the defendants are related to leaders of HAMAS on the 

grounds that such evidence is completely irrelevant to 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
this prosecution. I'm sorry. I have to go through this. 

It's been a while since I have read this, your Honor. 

And then generally, we have raised objections 

regarding authentication of documents that were seized by 

the government of Israel from various zakat committees 

that are key chains or posters. We don't know and I don't 

know if the government knows where they were found. 

MR. JACKS: We know they were found at a 

particular zakat committee, but I don't know whose office 

and in what context that evidence was found. 

MS. DUNCAN: We have challenged the admission of 

a document entitled Foundation's Policies and Guidelines 

which was seized by the government during a raid of the 

Infocom Company on the grounds -- first of all that it's 

irrelevant, and secondly, that we don't know where it came 

from. It doesn't have any reference to the Holy Land 

Foundation, and related to that we're challenging the 

comparison of that document with the Al Qaeda document by 

the government's witness. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Let me add one thing to that. 

The Al Qaeda is an alleged Al Qaeda document that was 

seized in Manchester, England in some case and is alleged 

to be an Al Qaeda document. 

MS. DUNCAN: We also raised a general 

confrontation challenge because at the time we wrote this 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
we didn't have access to the government's witness list or 

exhibit list to bring the issue to the Court's attention. 

With respect to the alleged coconspirator statements, we 

challenge the admission of any statements made by an 

alleged coconspirator before the time of the designation 

of HAMAS in 1995 on the grounds that there could be no 

conspiracy to violate the law before that date. 

We challenge the evidence relating to criminal 

proceedings against various Palestinians by the Government 

of Israel, and we do intend to challenge based on our 

review of the government's evidence. We now know what 

type of documents they intend to introduce to prove those 

criminal histories, and we plan to file that within the 

week. We also are challenging the government's reliance 

on newspapers articles. Our initial review of the 

government's exhibit list shows they intend to introduce 

articles that were found in the Holy Land files. I think 

it was mostly articles found in the Holy Land files, and 

they are rank hearsay and have no probative value in this 

case. I think those are the main categories, your Honor.

MR. DRATEL: I want to say one thing about the 

web site. And that is there are -- I don't know what the 

number is by now. Could be millions -- web sites that 

link to the United States Department of Justice. Does 

that mean the United States Department of Justice is in 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
sync with every web site? Most of them are groups in 

opposition to the United States Department of Justice. 

But they put links. You can get the documents and filings 

and all sorts of reports that are done. It would be to 

say as if the government was there for -- that it could 

come in to show the government's state of mind that 

believes what the ACLU -- It would be as if saying the 

government -- that you could prove the government's intent 

because on its web site for an organization like the ACLU 

is a link to the government, and therefore, they have to 

have the same intent and knowledge and state of mind as 

the ACLU or any other organization that has the web site. 

That's really what we're talking about here. No one can 

prevent people from putting Holy Land. Nobody can prevent 

a link to the Department of Justice. 

THE COURT: I think that's a good jury argument 

if this evidence comes in, but I don't think it's an 

argument that this evidence is so prejudicial that the 

jury shouldn't hear it. 

MR. DRATEL: It's a relevance argument. What's 

the connection as to why it should come in at all. The 

internet is such a democratic institution, such an 

unmonitored institution that to attribute on the basis of 

things like links almost takes relevance out of the case 

in that regard. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
THE COURT: Mr. Jonas. 

MR. JONAS: Thank you, your Honor, and I think 

we may wind up bouncing back and forth, depending on the 

issue of relevance to us. I am going to let Ms. Shapiro 

handle the first issue.

MS. SHAPIRO: I think the objection was that 

there was some Al Qaeda related posters is my 

recollection, that there were posters of Osama bin Laden 

in the evidence. There were some posters that were seized 

from the zakat committees that Holy Land supported that 

included Osama bin Laden among other terrorist leaders. I 

think there is one of Nasrallah also that was in there 

and -- 

MR. GARRETT: The leader of HAMAS. 

MS. SHAPIRO: Yeah, I'm sorry. Leader of HAMAS. 

And these posters show the kinds of things that were in 

the committees that were supported by the Holy Land 

Foundation. They show that rather than benign charities 

that the defense will try to make them out to be that they 

have a political nature and that they have these kinds of 

posters and images in their possession. Most of the 

posters are specifically HAMAS-related, and there were a 

couple that had Osama bin Laden and also some Chechnian 

leaders and Hezbollah leaders. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Your Honor, this raises a huge 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

52

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
issue. These documents that come from the Government of 

Israel were seized by the Government of Israel during what 

they call Operation Defensive Shield. It was a military 

operation. They seized vast quantities. The Government 

of Israel's operatives seized vast quantities of 

documents, and then they filtered through them, and then 

they provided certain ones to the government. But you 

know, if you go in my office, you will find books about 

HAMAS. If you go in the government's office, you will 

find books about HAMAS. We don't know whether there was a 

file on HAMAS and a file on Fatah, and these are the 

groups we shouldn't have anything to do with or should 

have anything to do with. We don't have any idea or 

concept of the provenance of those, who put them there, 

how they got there, what file they were in and who saw 

them. And for these kinds of things to come in -- and 

there are over a hundred exhibits that the government has 

filtered from this group that include posters, key chains, 

newspapers articles, various things that these zakat 

committees had. And it's important to understand the 

context. 

THE COURT: Well, I agree that context is 

everything, and I'm not in a position to say that 

categorically before I have heard the evidence that none 

of this evidence will be relevant. I can't do that in 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
limine. 

MS. HOLLANDER: I fear this trial is going to be 

one continuous Bench conference. 

THE COURT: I assure you, Ms. Hollander, that it 

will not be. That's going to take too much time with all 

the lawyers we have to bring up to the Bench. 

MS. HOLLANDER: I understand. And our efforts 

to lay this out in great detail in this motion and to 

explain why all of these items should be dealt with ahead 

of time was to try to avoid that.

MR. DRATEL: Your Honor, this particular part -- 

First of all, getting beyond the authenticity of the 

document which is zero, you will not have anyone that says 

they took it from a certain place. 

MS. SHAPIRO: That's not true. 

MR. DRATEL: But the problem I want to speak to 

is the extraordinary 1st Amendment implications of this 

type of evidence. To try to get a conviction under a 

statute that expressly says -- has a provision added by 

Congress -- that says the statute shall not be interpreted 

or construed in a manner to abridge 1st Amendment 

freedoms. So they are saying now what you have read is 

fair game -- what somebody else read. 

THE COURT: I thought these things were seized 

in Palestine. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply outside the 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
United States, does it?

MR. DRATEL: The statute is not designed to 

punish people for supporting or sympathizing with a group, 

and I say support in terms of moral support, ideological 

support. There is no crime in that. So first of all, the 

403 nature of it is off the charts. Particularly because 

there is no relevance, and Al Qaeda is not what Holy Land 

is accused of supporting. So it's almost amending the 

indictment at this point when you say you give to a zakat 

committee and they support Al Qaeda and therefore you 

should convict them. It's quite plain. 

THE COURT: I thought they were saying a zakat 

committee is not just a charity but has a political aspect 

and that political aspect includes supporting goals of Al 

Qaeda? 

MR. DRATEL: That's not the crime. They 

shouldn't has been allowed to put that in. 

THE COURT: Well, except it shows it's not just 

a charity if it has a political aspect. 

MR. DRATEL: Because I have something in my 

library that's written by an Islamic fundamentalist? Does 

that -- What does that mean? 

THE COURT: I think that goes back to Pace. If 

you limit a zakat committee to just a charity and nothing 

else.

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
MR. DRATEL: We put our law in there, too, which 

is from the Supreme Court, the Herndon v Lowry case which 

is you cannot punish people and you cannot use -- It's 

really a thought crime at that stage which is to say 

because you have something in your library and you are 

interested in a particular thing we're going to attribute 

that intent to you and therefore convict you of a crime 

that is not even the same crime because there is no crime 

of simply having a poster or being a sympathizer. We 

could all get on the street right now and speak for hours 

about how wonderful any particular organization in the 

world is that is a designated terrorist organization. I'm 

not saying it won't be prosecuted, but the point is the 

statute doesn't permit it. 

MR. GARRETT: But it's your state of mind. What 

one says is certainly protected by the 1st Amendment, but 

it's certainly doesn't say it's not evidence. To go back 

to these committees, I think that's not a good argument. 

It's exactly what the issue is, the nature of the 

committees and in every sense. The statute says one shall 

not be prosecuted solely on the basis of the --

MR. DRATEL: That's not what it says. 

MR. GARRETT: I go back and harness on to what 

your Honor said. If they want to make argument as to 

weight, that should be placed on that they should be 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
entitled to do so.

MR. JONAS: This is not a prosecution as to what 

they said. As your Honor pointed out, this is a part of 

the government's evidence to show the zakat committees are 

controlled by HAMAS. It's one part and certainly evidence 

of the zakat committees' relationship with HAMAS by the 

fact that all of these key chains, posters and other 

evidence show they are HAMAS. 

MR. DRATEL: But not Al Qaeda. That's clear. 

It's got nothing to do with Al Qaeda. I understand what 

the Court is saying, but I also think that our purpose in 

putting this in the context of this motion -- It's going 

to have to be an item-by-item determination. 

THE COURT: Well, I think that's right, and what 

I'm telling you now is that I don't think I can 

categorically say that type of evidence would not be 

admissible at trial without any context to make that 

determination.

MR. DRATEL: I understand what the Court is 

saying. I want the Court to understand that we're now 

going to have at trial and item-by-item determination 

where we will be raising these in context. 

MS. HOLLANDER: That was the point I was 

raising, but to be clear about the 1st Amendment, it says 

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment." And the other 

big problem with the evidence which the government has 

never acknowledged is that we don't know -- we can't 

even -- Even if you said the zakat committees weren't 

charities -- and I have never heard that before. They are 

charities. I don't think there is any question about 

that. So the issue is whether or not these charities 

support in the sense of moral support a particular 

organization, but you don't even know that because these 

items were all taken completely out of context since we 

don't have the full range of items and we don't know where 

they were found. Or maybe they were found in a file that 

said don't support any of this. We don't have any way of 

knowing that, nor does the government. 

MS. SHAPIRO: If I could respond briefly. I 

want to remind Ms. Hollander and everyone the words of 

"humanitarian project," there is no 1st Amendment right to 

support a terrorist organization and the items found in 

the zakats go to show these zakats were part of the HAMAS 

social network, and it's evidence that they were part of 

the HAMAS social network, and so the fact that Holy Land 

wants to use these charities does not implicate a First 

Amendment issue if, in fact, as we allege, they are 

connected to HAMAS's social structure.

MR. DRATEL: Humanitarian law doesn't say that. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
It says you have no right to provide resources as 

enumerated. Bowen says that in the 7th Circuit. In the 

designation of Holy Land, the district court said that 

humanitarian law -- said it more than once in the Ninth 

Circuit and the district courts have said that advocacy, 

support, sympathy, everything short of providing material 

support and resources, and that's you can't give money to 

the terrorist activity organization. But support is a 

much broader term. 

MR. GARRETT: That doesn't render irrelevant all 

the things you were just discussing. Certainly we have to 

add to that. We're going to show the nature of the 

organizations and the nature of the Holy Land, its beliefs 

and state of mind. Certainly by itself is not good 

enough. Not good enough. I absolutely agree. But the 

government intends to show that there was financial 

support provided that goes in concert with that state of 

mind and those beliefs. You cannot look at the money in a 

vacuum but in the total context of the total organizations 

and the defendants. 

THE COURT: I think I have heard enough argument 

now. I think I know what the motion is about, having 

heard it explained by the defense. I am going to deny the 

motion at this point without prejudice to the defense 

making objections as these items of evidence are offered 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

59

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
by the government during its case. 

Does that complete the motions in limine? 

MR. JONAS: That just addresses the first 

category they raised. 

THE COURT: I thought she had gone through all 

the others. 

MR. JONAS: But the argument we had -- 

MR. GARRETT: Mr. Jonas needs to leave the room. 

MR. JONAS: I thought you were addressing the 

one issue. I didn't realize you were addressing the whole 

motion in its entirety. I apologize. 

THE COURT: I was just asking the question, Mr. 

Jonas, if there are other motions in limine that I need to 

deal with or are there others. 

MR. JACKS: Our motion was a consolidated motion 

in limine, and there were other points in there.

MS. SHAPIRO: One of them is we objected in 

limine to one of the defense's proposed -- Well, I guess 

on two levels we objected to the defense experts as 

cumulative of each other and also to Leah Tesemel. 

According to the defense, she intends to talk about 

torture generally by the Government of Israel, and we 

objected to that in limine and to the relevance of that. 

THE COURT: I think I will be denying that 

motion in limine as well, again because I don't have any 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
real context in order to make a determination. If that's 

a defense witness, I don't think that I will need to 

decide that before trial. I will have heard the 

government's case by the time this witness is ready to 

testify. If the government is so inclined, they can renew 

that motion I suppose when we're ready to hear this 

witness, and I should be in a much better position to make 

a decision then than I am now. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Your Honor, we do have other 

outstanding motions. We have a motion in limine, and if 

these have been ruled on and we missed them -- I suppose 

it's possible. 

THE COURT: No. I appreciate you telling me the 

ones outstanding. 

MS. HOLLANDER: We made a list. To stick with 

the motion in limine, Docket Number 584 regarding issues 

arising under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and 

the First Amendment, it was filed March 14, 2007. Did you 

want all of them or one at a time? 

THE COURT: Why don't you go through all of 

them, and we can come back and talk about particular ones. 

MS. HOLLANDER: There was also on the motions in 

limine -- There is a motion to include the government's 

experts or in the alternative for a Daubert hearing, and 

that's filed 3-14-2007, Docket Number 582. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
And then to go back much earlier, there is 

Docket Number 399 filed October 6th, and that was the 

Defendant's Joint Sealed Motion and Memorandum to Suppress 

Evidence Obtained in FISA Surveillance. But it was filed 

under seal. It's a classified motion. So I can't 

describe it right now. 

MR. STEWART: Can I make a suggestion? Would 

you mind going through this list of motions that I show 

pending and let me know if there are not my on that list? 

MS. HOLLANDER: All right. I think it's just 

from my list the 399 and 582 -- 399, 582 and 584. What 

about -- We responded to the government's notice, 807 and 

the CIPA motions. Does that help? 

THE COURT: Do we need to take those up now or 

are you working on them? 

MR. STEWART: I'm working on everything at 

various stages. 

THE COURT: I'm informed and I'll pass along to 

counsel for the record Mr. Stewart says that now that we 

have gone through his list that he's working on all of 

them, and they are at various stages of development, but 

we should have rulings for you before trial, and I 

apologize we're not further along, but as my justification 

I'll go back to what I said in the beginning, that the 

filings in this case are voluminous as everyone knows. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
MS. HOLLANDER: And unfortunately, we have one 

that we're filing today, but it's a brief motion I 

discussed the other day. It's issues that your Honor has 

decided. I think there is new issues, but we will be 

filing that later today. It's finished. We just didn't 

get a chance to get it on the electronic filing. It's 

short.

MS. SHAPIRO: To follow-up on Ms. Hollander's 

motion, unfortunately there are a couple of things coming 

from us. One I think we raised the last time we were 

together was a motion to reconsider the Court's ruling on 

the witness from the Israeli Defense Forces who came to 

authenticate. 

THE COURT: I had understood that you were going 

to file some additional material asking me to reconsider, 

and as far as I know, we have not yet received it. So I 

thought maybe you had changed your mind.

MS. SHAPIRO: No, the motion has actually been 

prepared since the time we were here, but we asked the 

defense minister to provide us with a document, and there 

was an election in Israel, and the defense minister 

changed, and now there is a new defense minister, and he 

has it on his desk, and I was literally this morning on 

the phone hoping we could get it scanned and sent over, 

and I'm hoping it would be okay to file the scanned copy 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
and substitute with the original signature to speed things 

up. We're anxious to get it to your Honor. It's a little 

out of our control. But hopefully my in the next few days 

that would come in. The other motion will also be very 

short, and that would be a motion in limine with respect 

to Steve McGonigle, who's the Dallas Morning News reporter 

at the hearing we had before Judge Stickney. On the 

motion to quash that trial subpoena which was denied, 

there was an issue with respect to a confidential source 

that Mr. McGonigle wants to protect. It's not the 

government's intention to elicit that confidential source. 

The government's perspective is it's not relevant to any 

of his testimony. But in the opposing papers, the defense 

indicated that they may want to compel that source. So we 

wanted to at least make your Honor aware up front that 

confidential source may be an issue that would come up, 

and we wanted to at least put a motion in limine on 

record.

MR. JONAS: There is also another motion, your 

Honor. Motion under CIPA pertaining to potential 3500 

material of certain witnesses, that material being 

irrelevant and also classified. So we will be providing 

an unclassified motion with classified attachments for the 

Court's review. We think under 3500(c) the material is 

not relevant and should not be turned over to the defense, 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
but we're asking the Court to review it. 

THE COURT: It's currently pending or on the 

way? 

MR. JONAS: It's on the way. It should be filed 

very shortly. 

MS. HOLLANDER: That actually raises another 

issue. Maybe it's a little out of order. Maybe not. And 

that was a request of the government of which we can 

anticipate receiving Jencks material, Giglio material, and 

we would hope to know who their initial witnesses are so 

since this is such a long trial we would know where to 

start. Those were three requests that we had. 

MR. JACKS: I think the local rule -- or maybe 

it's your rule also. But the standard is like the night 

before the witness testifies, but we're aware if the 

witness has a fair volume of material we will try to turn 

that over sufficiently -- maybe a week in advance or 

something like that to give you adequate time to look at 

it. 

MS. HOLLANDER: For Jencks? 

MR. JACKS: Yes. 

MS. HOLLANDER: And Giglio? 

MR. JACKS: Same. 

MS. HOLLANDER: If it's all right, I'll ask Mr. 

Jacks directly. Are you willing to tell us who your first 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
witnesses are so we know where to start? When you know. 

MR. JACKS: Well, stipulations factor into that. 

Because if we don't get stipulations, there is going to be 

some records custodians. We anticipate Mr. Levitt being 

the first witness. 

MS. HOLLANDER: The first substantive witness? 

MR. JACKS: Right. 

MS. HOLLANDER: There is one other issue, your 

Honor. There is outstanding discovery requests that we 

have. And I think we made a list of them, and maybe after 

this we can talk to Mr. Jacks. Some letters recently that 

haven't been responded to. And we're all trying to get 

those sorted out, and there is one other issue, and I 

don't know that we disagree or not, but I think we do, and 

that has to do with the Rule 615. We have a number of 

expert witnesses in this case. We would like to obviously 

be able -- We aren't asking that they all be in the 

courtroom for three months or even necessarily during all 

of the government's experts, but we would want them in the 

courtroom perhaps for some of the government's experts, 

but if they are not in the courtroom, we want to be able 

to share testimony with our experts. So we would like and 

we propose to the government that we assume that one side 

or the other is going to invoke the Rule and that we 

exclude all experts, theirs and ours and all translators 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
because translators may -- I'm not talking about 

interpreters. Our clients all speak English, but 

translators may have to be told about specific issues as 

they come up. So our proposal was to exclude all 

translators, ours and theirs, and all experts from the 

Rule. And we have kind of gone back and forth, but we 

haven't had a definitive answer on whether we agree on 

this. 

MR. JACKS: I think my last communication with 

Marlo, who was the one that raised it with me, is you know 

I probably would want to address it on a 

witness-by-witness basis. But I think we really haven't 

had a chance to talk about it. But she clarified to me 

she wasn't necessarily talking about them being in the 

courtroom. She just wanted to be free to tell them what a 

witness said. My initial reaction is that I don't know 

that I will have a problem with that. 

MS. HOLLANDER: We just need to know whether we 

need to raise it with the Court. 

MR. JACKS: Your Honor translators are potential 

witnesses.

MS. HOLLANDER: Only if there is an issue that 

we can't agree on a translation. So we have to be able to 

tell them what the translations are. 

MR. JACKS: I understand. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
MS. HOLLANDER: We may want to have an expert 

come for a particular witness, but generally we're not 

going to have our experts come and sit through. It's not 

just expert to expert. I mean their experts are talking 

about exhibits, and our experts are going to be talking 

about exhibits. They just need to not be prohibited by 

the Rule from sharing testimony with them. 

THE COURT: I have not gone back and looked at 

Rule 615 in the recent past. So my memory is a little 

vague. But my understanding of the Rule is it's really 

designed to cover fact witnesses, not experts. 

MS. HOLLANDER: It is, your Honor. 

THE COURT: And I would put translators in that 

same category I think. Of course, at the margins you get 

into a question of whether a particular witness is only an 

expert witness or a combination expert and fact witness. 

But to the extent they are entirely expert witnesses, I 

personally don't think the Rule applies to them, and I 

don't know if the circuit agrees with my interpretation or 

not. So I don't think there should be a problem in having 

anyone who's only an expert being in the courtroom at any 

time or all the time, unless counsel have a different 

view. That's my view of the matter. 

MS. HOLLANDER: We did prepare a memo on this 

which I don't have with me, but it's my understanding that 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
it's really within your discretion basically. 

THE COURT: Well --

MS. HOLLANDER: It doesn't usually come up 

because frankly both sides usually agree. 

THE COURT: Well, I encourage you to continue to 

have discussions with the government about it and see if 

you can reach an agreement, and if you can't, I will make 

a ruling if you bring it to my attention, but let's have 

those discussions first and see if we can reach an 

agreement. It seems to me for the most part it should be 

a nonissue. 

MS. HOLLANDER: That's what I thought. 

MR. JACKS: Your Honor, in that vein, the 

government was going to ask permission to have two agents 

sit at counsel table, given the volume of evidence and -- 

And both of those agents will be witnesses, Ms. Burns and 

Mr. Miranda. There may be a third agent that we would ask 

to be excused from the Rule. But if he would testify and 

what he would testify about is still up in the air. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Your Honor, Rule 615 cases deal 

with that issue also, and it is within your discretion to 

permit that. What we would request because I suspect --

THE COURT: It's really a question of whether 

they are entitled to the one additional. As a matter of 

right they can have one, and my discretion extends to any 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

69

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
beyond that. 

MS. HOLLANDER: You do have discretion, your 

Honor, to order them to either have those witnesses 

testify first so that they don't hear the testimony of our 

witnesses or not be the room when each other is 

testifying, if there is more than one, and we would 

request that at a very minimum -- In other words, if Ms. 

Burns and Agent Miranda -- that they not be permitted to 

know each other's testimony. At the very least if they 

are not going to be the first and second witness. 

THE COURT: Well, I haven't had that specific 

request come up before. So I guess before I made a 

decision I would like to see the case you are relying on. 

MS. HOLLANDER: I have them and will provide 

them both. 

THE COURT: I think one thing that's in the 

order that came up the other day in a way in the Kastigar 

hearing, I called on Ms. Cadeddu to cross examine first 

because her client was higher up in the list of defendants 

in the indictment than Mr. Westfall's, and my order 

regarding conduct of trial says cross examination and 

presentation of any defense cases will go in the order 

that the defendants are listed in the indictment unless by 

agreement we come to some other order. I'm generally 

receptive to letting defendants switch the order around as 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
long as that's not abused in some way, and I would hope 

that with most of the government witnesses that some 

lawyer on the defense side could sort of take the lead in 

cross examining that witness and everybody else's 

questions be nonexistent or minimum after the lead lawyer 

does the cross examination. I would certainly be happy to 

do it that way, and that way we would be varying the order 

on the defense side somewhat, but I don't know what your 

respective attitudes are. 

MR. DRATEL: That is our intention, your Honor. 

I mean it's our intention for a variety of reasons, our 

own trial strategy. 

THE COURT: All I can say again is don't make me 

sorry that I am agreeing to that. Early on in my time 

here back in the mid-eighties we had a large prosecution 

which still holds the record in length of cases I presided 

over. United States against Helms. Big mail fraud 

prosecution. And the defense lawyers did make me regret 

that about three or four weeks into the trial, and in 

fact, I changed the procedure midway through the trial 

because they were abusing it. But you work with me, and 

I'll be working with you. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Judge, one thing that the 

defense wanted to bring up was the possibility that at 

some point after the jury is selected -- and I don't know 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
if it would be after opening statements or where would be 

a good time to do this -- would be to have a session with 

the Court where the jury is not here and not waiting in 

the juryroom, and then the parties can attempt to go 

through the evidence that -- its admissibility can be 

ruled on. For example, if a witness is not necessary and 

if that took half a day or just like we had these 

discussions here with the Court -- I guess the question is 

if there are stipulations that we have worked out, but I 

was just thinking if we could -- while not wasting the 

jury's time have a session where we determine okay what 

government evidence is going to be admitted and what can 

be admitted and then get that out of the way so that we're 

not stopping in the middle of trial. I don't know -- As I 

said, some of it may not have a nature that you could do 

that. You are going to need a witness or need to hear 

testimony. But if there is evidence that's really a 

question of law and the Court ruling on it, if the Court 

would at least keep in mind the possibility of doing 

something like that to make better use of our time where 

we're not arguing over exhibits and not wasting the jury's 

time. 

THE COURT: Well, I don't know that I can make 

that decision now based on what I know about the case. I 

think as we get into the trial and we see how things are 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
going, I would be open to something like that if it looks 

like it would be a productive use of time. 

MR. JACKS: And I realize it's up to us to 

crystallize those things so they are tee'd up for the 

Court to say yea or nay so that we can do that. 

THE COURT: I'm a little reluctant -- And again 

without beating a dead horse, it may be difficult in a lot 

of instances for me to make a judgment on some of these 

witnesses without having a substantial context. 

MR. WESTFALL: Your Honor, I think we will stay 

in a constant dialogue about what things we can agree to 

and what we can't. So if we get a pile of things that 

need the Court's attention, that may be a good 

alternative. 

MR. DRATEL: But otherwise, the context is 

essential. 

MS. HOLLANDER: Can we also ask the government 

if you can bring all the boxes at the FBI office and have 

them here because we're going to need some of them. We 

need the originals of some. At least nondemonstratives 

for the jury. 

MR. JACKS: Well, if you could tell me which 

ones. I don't want to bring three hundred something boxes 

down here, and you are going to need one piece of paper 

out of one box. I'm certainly willing to -- if you could 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

73

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
give me a list of which original documents you think --

MS. HOLLANDER: I can tell you which boxes. 

Maybe we can do it that way. 

MR. JACKS: Well, yeah. 

MS. HOLLANDER: We can try to do it by boxes. 

But we need a substantial number of originals here. 

THE COURT: I promised you at the beginning -- I 

think I have gone through my agenda -- that I would give 

each side an opportunity to raise any issues you have. I 

see by the clock on the wall it's 11:40. I will want to 

recess if we're not done by noon for lunch and take about 

an hour and a half for lunch, and then when we come back 

if we're not done with the pretrial conference, we need to 

finish it and go on to the CIPA matters we discussed the 

other day. I have a pretrial conference in another 

case -- another criminal case at four o'clock. So we will 

need to get everything done, if possible, by then. But 

with that information, let me call on counsel for the 

government for any additional issues. 

MR. JACKS: My closing remarks. I'm tapped out, 

your Honor. If I knew anything, I have forgotten it. 

MS. HOLLANDER: I'm finished. We went through 

my list.

MR. WESTFALL: Just one thing, your Honor. As 

to the panels, in order to really hit the ground running 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

74

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
on Monday morning -- 

THE COURT: You talking about panels of jurors? 

MR. WESTFALL: Yes. I think it would be real 

helpful if we could have a list of who the jurors are 

going to be that come in the first day. We spoke with 

Leigh, and she said that you would have to give your 

permission. 

THE COURT: I don't see any problem. I think it 

would expedite and make the process more efficient for all 

counsel involved if you need ahead of time, and you will 

have presumably the answers to these questionnaires well 

in advance. So you probably will focus on some more than 

others. I think that's a good idea myself.

MR. WESTFALL: That's all I had. 

THE COURT: We had a discussion at an earlier 

conference that once the jury is selected we should 

somehow mix in the jury box the regular jurors and 

alternate jurors which I think is an excellent idea, even 

though I have never done that before. And I wanted to 

discuss with counsel again to be sure that everybody is in 

agreement about that and to find out how to do it. I 

guess my initial sense of the best way would be once we 

know who the jurors are and the alternate jurors are to 

put the names in a hat and draw them out in a random order 

so that they are not arranged in any particular way in the 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
jury box. And I would probably make some announcement to 

them when they are sworn in that among you are regular 

jurors and alternate jurors, and you don't know who you 

are, and the parties and their counsel know, and you don't 

know, and the reason I'm telling you this is that nobody 

knows who will be serving as jurors at the time you begin 

your deliberations. So it's important that everybody pay 

attention throughout the trial or some language to that 

effect. 

MS. MORENO: Yes, your Honor, we would request 

that sort of instruction from the Court. 

THE COURT: Is the process okay on how we 

arrange them in the jury box? 

MS. MORENO: I have done that before, and it 

works well, and everybody pays attention.

MS. HUDSON: Judge, how many jurors you want to 

be brought in on the 16th? 

THE COURT: That's another question I guess we 

should talk about. At a rate of four an hour 

approximately, I have just estimated that maybe we could 

do twenty-four that day, and Mr. Westfall commented -- and 

I think correctly -- that we should aim a little higher in 

case we don't need to spend time with certain members. So 

what do you think? Thirty or forty? 

MR. JACKS: I thought we were going to do the 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
whole panel after -- 

THE COURT: No, we agreed to do that after we 

did the individual panels and we have enough so that we 

don't have to bring in 40.

MR. JACKS: Well, if they are not oriented and 

educated about the case, to be sitting there and 

questioning them individually I think is kind of putting 

the cart before the horse a little bit. They haven't, you 

know as I said, been oriented and notified about what the 

case is about, the burden of proof and those kinds of 

things and to start -- just to jump in cold with 

individual voir dire I think could be problematic and 

really deprives them of, you know, maybe some basic 

fundamental information that would help them to form their 

decision or their answers. 

I wasn't aware that we were going to immediately 

start in with individual voir dire regarding whatever 

issues the parties started to bring up. I think it's 

important and better to have the standard voir dire, first 

of all, of as many as we can get in, as I said, and orient 

and inform them about the process and who's who and what 

the charges are. 

THE COURT: Okay. I understand your position, 

but I have already said that I am going to do it in the 

way that's been proposed by the defense.

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00

18:00
MR. DRATEL: Your Honor, I have just one thing. 

I don't have to do it right now, but I want to alert the 

Court or get some permission. There is some 

health-related issues with respect to Mr. El Mezain. Some 

of them are logistical about the courthouse and the 

courtroom, and if I may speak to Ms. Hudson if the Court 

will permit me to do that, and we'll try to work it out. 

THE COURT: Anything else on the defense side? 

MR. WESTFALL: No, your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. We'll be in recess until 

1:30, and we'll come back to resume with the CIPA matters 

at that time. 

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18:00
C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, Cassidi L. Casey, certify that during the 

proceedings of the foregoing-styled and -numbered cause, I 

was the official reporter and took in stenotypy such 

proceedings and have transcribed the same as shown by the 

above and foregoing pages 1 through 79 and that said 

transcript is true and correct.

I further certify that the transcript fees and format 

comply with those prescribed by the court and the Judicial 

Conference of the United States.

Cassidi Casey/s

CASSIDI L. CASEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT REPORTER

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CSR NUMBER 1703

CASSIDI L. CASEY, CSR, 214-354-3139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
< 0 >

04-CR-240-G 1:5

05/842-9960505/842-9960

1:47

< 1 >

1 39:11, 79:7

10 43:6, 44:9

10005 2:7

10985 2:25

1100 1:33, 3:14

1106 44:9

11:40. 74:10

12/732-0707212/732-0707

2:8

13-247-4500813-247-4500

2:27

14 2:6

14-254-3139214-254-3139

3:16

14/659-8600214/659-8600

1:35

14/744-3015214/744-3015

2:18

15/875-5812415/875-5812

2:34

15D6L 3:14

16th 23:16, 34:21, 76:17

17/877-1700817/877-1700

3:9

1703 3:13, 79:21

17th 23:17

18 39:8

180 43:15

1976 13:3

1993 43:24

1995 50:6

1:30 78:11

1st 54:17, 54:21, 54:25, 

56:16, 57:24, 58:1, 58:17

< 2 >

2 44:4

20 1:45

2000. 47:16

2339(b 39:9, 40:14

240 23:6, 23:10, 24:11

24th 33:18

26th 2:32

28th 2:6

2nd 13:3

< 3 >

3 1:5, 44:5

3232 2:16

33679 2:26

3500 64:20

3500(c 64:24

399 62:2, 62:11

3:0 4:4

3d 44:9

< 4 >

4 43:2

4-240-G 4:4

40 23:3

40. 77:4

403 36:17, 38:7, 38:17, 

41:19, 41:22, 44:6, 44:14, 

44:18, 55:6

403. 39:3, 44:12, 45:5

404(b 36:18

468 43:3

< 5 >

5 13:3

535 13:3

555 2:31, 32:5

582 62:11

582. 61:25

584 61:16

584. 62:11

< 6 >

615 8:10, 68:9, 69:20

615. 66:15

< 7 >

700 1:45, 2:16

75204 2:17

75242 1:34, 3:15

76102 3:8

79 79:7

7th 59:2

< 8 >

801 34:20

807 62:12

87102 1:46

< 9 >

9-11 45:20

910 3:7

94104-1500 2:33

948 13:3

958 13:3

< A >

AARON 2:4

Abdulqader 2:11

able 6:4, 6:5, 6:6, 6:8, 6:16, 

8:16, 16:6, 26:6, 27:20, 

27:23, 33:13, 42:16, 42:22, 

66:17, 66:21, 67:23

above 79:7

abridge 54:21, 57:25

absolutely 59:15

abused 71:1

abusing 71:21

access 6:4, 7:14, 50:1

accessible 6:18

According 60:21

accuracy 13:10

accurate 12:21, 13:1, 14:1, 

47:7, 47:10

accurately 6:7

accused 38:9, 55:8

acknowledged 58:3

ACLU 51:7, 51:9, 51:12

Act 38:22, 39:21, 40:9, 61:17

acted 7:18

activities 46:18

activity 39:15, 40:3, 40:17, 

59:8

acts 9:6, 36:25, 37:4, 37:21, 

37:25, 39:17, 39:22, 39:23, 

40:1, 40:5, 40:7, 40:8, 42:18
actual 11:3

Actually 17:16, 18:13, 23:20, 

29:22, 43:4, 44:1, 45:8, 

63:18, 65:6

add 13:21, 38:3, 49:20, 

59:12

added 54:19

additional 63:15, 69:24, 

74:19

additionals 25:18

address 10:14, 13:17, 17:10, 

28:22, 43:6, 67:11

addresses 60:3

addressing 14:3, 60:9, 60:10

adequate 32:19, 65:18

adhere 27:20

admissibility 72:5

admissible 45:5, 57:17

admission 12:11, 12:22, 

46:18, 49:11, 50:4

admitted 6:12, 7:7, 7:15, 

7:25, 72:12, 72:13

advance 32:15, 32:16, 

35:20, 65:17, 75:12

advantage 15:22

advantages 25:2

advocacy 59:5

after 10:19, 19:7, 19:19, 

19:22, 25:20, 27:4, 28:23, 

38:25, 47:17, 48:14, 66:10, 

71:5, 71:25, 72:1, 77:1, 77:2

afternoon 23:16

Again 20:19, 23:17, 36:8, 

60:25, 71:13, 73:6, 75:20

against 4:3, 13:2, 14:6, 

34:25, 43:24, 45:19, 50:9, 

71:17

agenda 4:5, 5:5, 74:8

Agent 19:21, 69:17, 70:8

agents 69:14, 69:16

ago 4:8, 13:2, 14:15, 46:10

agree 8:21, 9:2, 13:6, 13:18, 

13:19, 13:20, 14:19, 15:21, 

34:23, 35:23, 53:22, 59:15, 

67:7, 67:23, 69:4, 73:11

agreed 30:22, 48:13, 77:2

agreeing 71:14

agreement 69:7, 69:10, 

70:24, 75:21

agrees 68:19

ahead 9:24, 28:1, 28:12, 

54:9, 75:10

aiding 15:14, 15:15

aim 76:22

air 33:21, 69:19

Al 1:11, 45:14, 45:18, 48:3, 

49:18, 49:21, 49:23, 52:7, 

55:7, 55:10, 55:14, 57:9, 

57:10

Albuquerque 1:46

alert 78:2

alien 30:8

allegation 37:19, 39:2

allege 58:23

Alleged 14:9, 34:19, 45:17, 

49:21, 49:22, 50:3, 50:5

alleges 48:2

Allibhai 14:6

allowed 42:21, 48:10, 55:17

almost 51:24, 55:8

alone 22:6

along 16:15, 25:7, 30:9, 

62:18, 62:23

already 28:15, 77:24

also 10:2, 12:5, 26:12, 38:3, 

41:14, 46:7, 46:23, 49:24, 

50:14, 52:12, 52:23, 57:11, 

60:20, 61:22, 64:4, 64:19, 

64:22, 65:14, 69:21, 73:17

alternate 13:7, 75:18, 75:23, 

76:3

alternates 25:12

alternative 61:24, 73:14

alternatively 6:22

although 20:24, 24:11, 

30:18, 43:25, 48:20

always 22:1, 31:24, 33:4, 

42:1

am 6:4, 6:5, 25:11, 30:13, 

30:23, 34:22, 44:24, 47:1, 

47:3, 52:4, 59:23, 61:8, 

71:14, 77:24

ameliorate 26:12

amending 4:21, 4:24, 55:8

Amendment 54:17, 54:21, 

54:25, 56:16, 57:24, 58:17, 

58:23, 61:18

Amendment. 58:1

AMERICA 1:5

American 43:15

among 14:25, 17:22, 42:9, 

52:11, 76:2

Amongst 17:18, 17:20

amount 28:4, 41:13

analogy 47:8

announcement 76:1

Another 5:22, 7:25, 39:25, 

42:2, 42:16, 64:19, 65:6, 

74:15, 74:16, 76:18

answer 32:9, 67:7

answering 23:5

answers 21:5, 23:7, 26:10, 

75:11, 77:15

anticipate 9:14, 32:9, 65:9, 

66:4

anticipated 20:2

anticipates 6:1

anxious 64:2

anybody 8:14, 9:10

anymore 27:4

anyone 9:5, 54:13, 68:21

Anything 8:13, 17:2, 27:11, 

38:20, 53:12, 53:13, 74:21, 

78:8

Anyway 21:4, 44:4

apologize 42:10, 60:11, 

62:23

appear 19:17

application 44:14

applied 44:7

applies 68:18

apply 54:25

appreciate 32:10, 34:10, 

61:13

approach 11:2, 26:19, 26:23

appropriate 4:7, 6:7

appropriately 5:3

approved 12:13, 35:5

approximately 76:20

Aqsa 48:3

areas 40:4

aren't 66:17

arguable 30:17

arguing 43:22, 72:21

argument 29:4, 42:11, 

43:20, 51:16, 51:18, 51:20, 

56:18, 56:24, 59:21, 60:7

arguments 35:14

arises 36:4

arising 61:17
arithmetic 26:15

around 34:7, 34:15, 70:25

arraignment 18:14

arrange 76:13

arranged 75:25

articles 50:15, 50:17, 50:18, 

53:19

ascertain 9:3, 9:9

ask 10:7, 10:15, 11:6, 13:21, 

15:13, 20:23, 22:19, 28:1, 

28:2, 35:11, 35:24, 39:5, 

46:8, 48:7, 65:24, 69:14, 

69:17, 73:17

asked 5:1, 16:19, 27:13, 

31:19, 63:19

asking 23:23, 35:13, 60:12, 

63:15, 65:1, 66:17

aspect 55:13, 55:14, 55:19

assemble 25:15

assembled 25:16, 25:18

assets 48:16

assist 19:8

Assistant 1:29, 19:10

assume 66:23

assuming 5:20

assure 54:4

attachments 64:23

attack 42:4, 42:5

attempt 72:4

attention 50:2, 69:8, 73:13, 

76:8, 76:15

attitudes 71:9

Attorney 1:29, 28:8

attribute 51:23, 56:6

audio 12:1, 15:4

authenticate 63:13

authentication 49:4

authenticity 54:12

authorities 34:24

available 6:20, 23:21, 23:24

Avenue 2:16, 3:7

avoid 16:25, 54:10

await 5:1

aware 15:2, 35:21, 35:22, 

40:15, 40:19, 64:15, 65:15, 

77:16

< B >

back 8:8, 9:12, 14:17, 16:20, 

19:3, 19:13, 20:12, 20:19, 

22:23, 23:1, 24:8, 27:10, 

27:14, 29:5, 52:3, 55:23, 

56:17, 56:23, 61:21, 62:1, 

62:24, 67:6, 68:8, 71:15, 

74:12, 78:11

background 41:6

Baker 1:38

bank 17:7

BARRY 1:26

based 20:14, 21:5, 32:8, 

44:24, 50:10, 72:24

basic 77:13

basically 25:22, 35:17, 47:3, 

69:1

basis 6:19, 37:11, 51:23, 

56:21, 67:12

bathroom 27:10

beating 73:7

become 35:19

beforehand 16:4

began 46:10

begin 31:8, 76:6

beginning 24:9, 33:12, 

62:24, 74:7

begun 19:1

behind 11:10, 11:11, 15:21

beliefs 59:13, 59:18

believe 32:23, 42:12

believes 51:7

bell 32:23

Bench 5:18, 10:12, 54:3, 

54:6

benefit 20:6, 44:8

benign 52:18

best 13:4, 21:11, 33:24, 

34:5, 75:22

better 20:7, 61:7, 72:20, 

77:19

beyond 33:1, 54:12, 70:1

Big 9:19, 21:18, 25:14, 58:2, 

71:17

bin 45:16, 52:8, 52:11, 52:23

binders 16:21

bit 7:22, 9:14, 32:1, 77:8

blow 10:1

board 37:19

bombers 38:13

bombing 37:3, 38:14, 39:1, 

40:10, 41:5, 41:16, 42:2

bombings 38:16, 39:23

books 53:8, 53:10

bootstrapping 41:7

Boston 42:15

bottom 19:3, 44:4

bouncing 52:3

Bourjailey 35:5

Bowen 59:2

BOX 2:25, 73:25, 75:17, 

76:1, 76:13

boxes 73:18, 73:23, 74:2, 

74:5

BOYD 1:43

branch 14:10

brief 63:2

briefly 35:11, 40:8, 58:15

bring 8:8, 13:13, 17:5, 21:6, 

21:12, 21:16, 22:5, 22:21, 

22:23, 23:12, 23:15, 24:11, 

24:17, 24:18, 24:19, 26:24, 

27:14, 37:2, 37:5, 42:16, 

50:2, 54:6, 69:8, 71:24, 

73:18, 73:23, 77:4, 77:18

bringing 22:6, 24:6, 27:11, 

40:6, 45:18

broad 45:12

broader 59:9

brought 42:17, 44:25, 76:17

built 21:15

burden 21:17, 25:19, 77:10

Burn 7:7, 7:8

Burns 69:16, 70:8

business 6:3, 16:25

bussed 31:5

busy 34:1

button 11:2, 11:3

< C >

CA 2:33

Cadeddu 2:14, 2:15, 70:18

California 2:31

call 9:7, 17:1, 53:3, 74:18

called 4:9, 13:2, 31:13, 

43:23, 70:18

camera 10:11, 19:11

care 18:16

cart 77:8

cases 4:13, 10:19, 14:5, 

30:3, 32:18, 69:20, 70:22, 
71:16

CASEY 3:13, 79:3, 79:17

Casey/s 79:16

CASSIDI 3:13, 79:3, 79:16, 

79:17

categorically 53:24, 57:16

categories 36:16, 36:24, 

45:9, 45:24, 46:1, 47:12, 

50:20

category 39:23, 45:12, 

46:21, 47:14, 47:19, 60:4, 

68:14

cause 21:15, 26:7, 26:12, 

26:25, 28:25, 29:5, 79:4

cautionary 20:4

cautious 44:15

caveat 30:21, 33:14

CD 7:8, 11:18

celebrating 42:3

Center 31:24, 46:25, 47:1

certain 12:9, 14:15, 14:16, 

22:4, 22:10, 25:3, 28:4, 30:4, 

30:7, 38:1, 39:17, 53:7, 

54:14, 64:21, 76:23

Certainly 15:24, 16:5, 34:10, 

56:16, 56:17, 57:5, 59:11, 

59:14, 71:6, 73:25

certify 79:3, 79:10

chains 49:6, 53:18, 57:7

challenge 26:25, 29:2, 

42:22, 45:13, 46:14, 49:25, 

50:4, 50:8, 50:10

challenged 10:21, 36:17, 

45:9, 46:4, 46:7, 48:1, 48:17, 

49:11

challenges 21:15, 25:13, 

26:7

challenging 36:15, 36:19, 

46:17, 46:18, 49:17, 50:14

chance 25:4, 63:6, 67:13

changed 63:17, 63:22, 71:20

character 36:22

charged 47:22

charges 39:9, 77:22

charities 52:18, 58:5, 58:6, 

58:7, 58:22

charity 55:13, 55:19, 55:24

charts 9:15, 9:25, 42:23, 

55:6

Chechnian 52:23

CIPA 62:13, 64:20, 74:14, 

78:11

circle 32:22

Circuit 12:11, 12:12, 12:13, 

12:22, 13:1, 13:9, 13:22, 

14:7, 20:4, 34:25, 35:4, 

43:24, 44:2, 59:2, 59:5, 68:19

citation 42:12

cite 31:23

cited 34:24

citizens. 43:15

claim 40:8

claimed 39:19

claiming 40:21

claims 40:9

clarification 5:6, 28:22, 

31:19

clarified 67:13

classified 15:14, 62:5, 

64:22, 64:23

clear 41:19, 42:1, 57:9, 

57:24

clearly 29:14, 45:19

Clerk 8:12, 11:23

client 70:19

clients 38:2, 67:2

CLINE 2:29

clock 22:13, 27:9, 74:10

close 29:22

closed 47:18, 48:16

closing 74:20

clothing 19:14

Co-conspirator 34:19

coconspirator 36:18, 50:3, 

50:5

cocounsel 35:16, 36:10

Code 39:8

cold 77:11

combination 68:16

comes 6:23, 35:25, 41:2, 

41:14, 41:18, 44:1, 51:17

comfortable 29:16

coming 63:9

commence 4:16, 24:24

commences 18:17

commented 76:21

comments 32:11, 34:10

Commerce 1:33, 3:14

committed 39:18, 39:19, 

40:10, 40:22, 42:2

committee 40:1, 49:9, 55:10, 

55:13, 55:24

committees 40:3, 47:15, 

49:5, 52:10, 52:17, 53:20, 

56:18, 56:20, 57:4, 57:6, 58:4

committing 27:18

communicate 5:12

communication 67:9

communications 39:20

community 30:6

Company 49:14

comparing 45:17

comparison 49:18

compel 64:14

complete 60:2

completely 37:25, 42:23, 

48:25, 58:10

comply 79:11

concentrate 27:24

concept 53:14

concern 7:3, 32:23

concerned 19:21, 22:7, 

36:22, 36:24

concerning 31:3

concerns 26:13

concert 59:17

concessions 32:17

conclusion 19:4

Conduct 4:9, 39:12, 70:21

conducted 44:13

Conference 1:16, 4:2, 29:9, 

29:20, 30:1, 35:9, 54:3, 

74:13, 74:15, 75:16, 79:12

conferences 16:24, 32:1, 

32:7

confidential 64:9, 64:11, 

64:16

conflict 43:7, 43:8, 43:12

conflicts 34:11

confrontation 49:25

Congress 54:20

connected 58:24

connection 51:21

conservative 26:19

consideration 13:8

consolidated 60:15

conspiracy 50:7

constant 73:11

construed 54:21, 57:25

consumption 35:6
contact 9:11

contamination 32:7

contemplated 25:16

contemplating 28:23

contended 13:14

content 12:18

contest 44:22

contested 41:9, 41:11, 41:13

context 6:7, 28:19, 41:24, 

42:6, 45:4, 46:22, 49:10, 

53:21, 53:22, 57:12, 57:17, 

57:22, 58:10, 59:19, 61:1, 

73:9, 73:15

continue 69:5

continuing 5:12

continuous 54:3

contract 31:7, 31:9

control 64:3

controlled 10:11, 11:1, 57:5

convenience 34:7, 34:13

Convention 46:25, 47:1

conventions 46:5, 46:24

conversation 12:19, 31:2, 

41:16, 41:24, 41:25, 42:6

conversations 41:3

convict 55:11, 56:7

conviction 54:18

convictions 48:18, 48:20

copies 6:12, 7:5

copy 16:19, 36:12, 63:25

core 28:17

correct 16:10, 37:14, 79:8

correctly 11:20, 76:22

counsel 11:11, 17:8, 20:21, 

23:15, 35:11, 35:13, 62:19, 

68:22, 69:15, 74:18, 75:10, 

75:20, 76:4

counsels 26:9

couple 35:9, 46:10, 52:23, 

63:9

course 25:23, 35:3, 45:1, 

68:14

Courthouse 1:32, 31:5, 78:5

courtroom 4:13, 9:13, 10:4, 

10:18, 10:19, 21:2, 23:7, 

23:13, 23:21, 23:24, 24:4, 

24:11, 24:18, 24:19, 66:18, 

66:20, 66:21, 67:15, 68:21, 

78:6

courts 59:5

cover 4:5, 12:10, 68:11

covering 6:1, 8:3, 9:1

creates 41:22

crime 44:22, 55:5, 55:16, 

56:4, 56:7, 56:8

criminal 32:13, 33:24, 50:8, 

50:13, 74:16

cross 70:18, 70:21, 71:4, 

71:6

crystallize 73:4

CSR 3:13, 79:21

culture 30:6

cumulative 44:16, 60:20

currently 65:2

curve 11:5

custodial 17:1

custodians 66:4

cut 16:20, 23:24, 25:22, 26:8

CUTRER 3:5

< D >

d)(2)(e 34:20

D. 2:29

daily 6:9, 6:18

DALLAS 1:3, 1:34, 2:17, 

3:15, 5:24, 7:18, 8:1, 8:22, 

9:5, 47:1, 64:6, 79:20

DANIELS 1:43

data 18:1

date 31:8, 40:9, 48:15, 50:7

dated 5:23

Daubert 61:24

Day 2:30, 6:5, 6:13, 7:5, 

7:15, 7:16, 12:8, 15:2, 21:13, 

23:16, 24:12, 26:21, 26:23, 

30:22, 31:6, 33:21, 34:11, 

41:17, 42:5, 63:3, 70:17, 

72:7, 74:15, 75:5, 76:21

days 20:16, 23:10, 23:11, 

25:25, 27:1, 46:10, 64:3

dead 73:7

deadline 6:9

deal 15:9, 60:14, 69:20

dealt 54:9

decide 61:3

decided 22:11, 28:6, 63:4

decides 13:1

decision 13:3, 14:7, 30:9, 

33:9, 35:4, 43:24, 44:2, 61:8, 

70:13, 72:24, 77:15

Defendant 1:38, 2:1, 2:11, 

2:20, 3:1, 31:13, 40:15, 

40:18, 40:19, 40:20, 40:22, 

40:24, 40:25, 41:3, 41:4, 

41:5, 41:8, 41:15, 42:1, 43:9, 

44:3, 48:18, 62:3

defendants 6:11, 15:13, 

18:2, 18:9, 34:17, 39:19, 

41:9, 43:5, 43:11, 45:20, 

46:11, 47:25, 48:24, 59:20, 

70:19, 70:23, 70:25

Defense 9:22, 11:17, 12:20, 

13:14, 30:12, 30:16, 30:17, 

31:22, 33:3, 33:10, 35:13, 

35:19, 35:21, 36:1, 36:6, 

38:4, 40:12, 40:18, 43:11, 

44:25, 52:19, 59:23, 59:24, 

60:18, 60:19, 60:21, 61:2, 

63:12, 63:20, 63:21, 63:22, 

64:13, 64:25, 70:22, 71:3, 

71:8, 71:18, 71:24, 77:25, 

78:8

Defensive 37:22, 53:3

definitive 67:7

deliberations 19:9, 76:7

democratic 51:22

denied 7:24, 64:8

deny 34:22, 36:3, 44:24, 

59:23

denying 12:22, 60:24

Department 1:30, 50:24, 

50:25, 51:2, 51:15

Depending 16:14, 52:3

deprives 77:13

deputy 10:13, 10:15, 10:16, 

10:19

describe 36:21, 40:9, 62:6

designated 38:6, 39:13, 

40:15, 41:10, 42:8, 42:21, 

43:9, 43:14, 45:13, 47:15, 

56:12

designation 50:5, 59:3

designations 47:20, 47:22

designed 35:14, 55:2, 68:11

desk 63:23

despite 44:21

detail 5:5, 21:8, 54:8

details 29:23, 31:3, 41:6

determination 57:13, 57:18, 
57:21, 61:1

determine 72:11

development 62:21

dialogue 73:11

different 21:3, 32:11, 32:16, 

32:17, 42:9, 68:22

differently 32:14

difficult 27:18, 45:2, 73:7

difficulties 16:4, 33:24

difficulty 4:11, 21:19

digital 19:10

digitized 12:6

dire 4:19, 4:25, 20:10, 22:1, 

22:15, 22:16, 22:17, 22:20, 

23:10, 23:13, 23:14, 24:3, 

25:21, 28:7, 28:8, 29:12, 

31:13, 31:23, 33:1, 33:7, 

33:11, 77:12, 77:17, 77:19

direct 10:16

directly 65:25

directors 37:19

directs 10:16

disagree 15:20, 32:12, 33:3, 

41:23, 66:14

disagreement 12:24, 13:10

disagreements 14:21

disappoint 33:12

discovery 66:9

discretion 69:1, 69:21, 

69:25, 70:2

discuss 5:4, 28:24, 31:22, 

34:17, 39:18, 39:24, 75:20

discussed 6:10, 17:16, 

17:21, 17:22, 20:10, 21:20, 

25:2, 25:6, 26:3, 29:9, 29:24, 

31:25, 39:22, 46:1, 63:3, 

74:14

discussing 32:3, 32:4, 

39:21, 59:11

discussion 16:24, 29:21, 

32:6, 75:15

discussions 69:6, 69:9, 72:8

disk 6:20, 6:24

displayed 9:23

dispute 12:20

disregard 35:24

disseminated 19:25

DISTRICT 1:1, 1:2, 1:31, 

30:5, 42:12, 59:3, 59:5, 

79:18, 79:19

DIVISION 1:3, 79:20

Docket 4:4, 61:16, 61:25, 

62:2

Document 6:13, 6:16, 10:10, 

11:3, 32:5, 43:3, 49:12, 

49:18, 49:21, 49:23, 54:13, 

63:20

documentary 19:4

documents 5:9, 6:8, 6:14, 

6:19, 6:22, 7:10, 7:14, 8:14, 

9:4, 15:5, 38:1, 45:16, 45:17, 

49:4, 50:12, 51:3, 53:1, 53:6, 

74:1

doing 10:24, 15:17, 16:2, 

16:16, 25:24, 30:5, 30:7, 

30:10, 42:18, 43:18, 72:19

done 14:22, 22:1, 26:1, 

32:18, 38:17, 46:23, 46:24, 

51:4, 74:11, 74:13, 74:17, 

75:19, 76:14

door 43:13

doubt 44:9

down 16:7, 16:20, 23:25, 

24:11, 26:7, 26:8, 28:17, 

43:18, 47:1, 73:24

dragged 44:17

DRATEL 2:3, 2:5, 4:25, 5:6, 

8:6, 8:16, 10:3, 10:23, 18:4, 

18:11, 18:20, 20:15, 28:3, 

29:16, 30:6, 30:20, 32:6, 

38:3, 38:15, 40:11, 42:20, 

50:21, 51:20, 54:11, 54:16, 

55:2, 55:16, 55:20, 56:1, 

56:22, 57:9, 57:19, 58:25, 

71:10, 73:15, 78:1

draw 75:24

dressing 38:24

drives 41:21

DUNCAN 1:42, 36:14, 36:24, 

37:16, 45:8, 45:12, 45:25, 

46:4, 46:16, 47:14, 47:19, 

49:11, 49:24

during 7:15, 9:7, 17:25, 

22:19, 31:6, 36:4, 48:4, 

48:22, 49:13, 53:2, 60:1, 

66:18, 79:3

< E >

earlier 7:3, 18:7, 20:13, 

20:19, 25:2, 25:7, 29:25, 

31:1, 31:2, 33:10, 34:2, 44:1, 

62:1, 75:15

Early 71:14

easier 10:24

East 37:12

Eastern 42:12

easy 26:11, 30:8

editing 7:2

educated 77:6

effect 38:13, 44:18, 76:9

efficient 21:25, 22:15, 26:1, 

75:9

effort 4:12, 13:5

efforts 16:24, 54:7

Either 11:18, 15:25, 18:16, 

19:2, 23:16, 29:1, 34:3, 36:1, 

39:7, 47:20, 70:3

El 78:4

El-mezain 2:1

Elashi 2:20, 18:7, 48:18

Eleanore 19:10

election 63:21

electronic 6:20, 9:13, 9:16, 

9:17, 10:4, 11:17, 63:6

element 40:14, 41:7

elements 38:20

elicit 35:14, 64:11

eliminate 28:16

eliminated 28:15

ELIZABETH 1:27

embark 29:22

empathize 16:6

encourage 15:24, 69:5

encouraged 38:13

end 6:12, 7:15, 16:7, 16:13, 

30:21, 30:22

engaged 37:11, 39:14, 39:15

engages 39:16, 40:16

England 49:22

English 67:2

enormous 15:9

enough 21:15, 24:1, 43:20, 

59:15, 59:21, 77:3

entire 21:16

entirely 68:17

entirety 60:11

entitled 34:18, 39:11, 40:4, 

42:7, 49:12, 57:1, 69:24

enumerated 59:2
equipment 10:21, 11:22

escaped 36:9

especially 18:25

essential 73:16

estimate 31:9

estimated 76:20

ET 1:11

event 9:2, 45:21

events 46:11, 46:20, 48:14

everybody 12:10, 44:8, 71:4, 

75:20, 76:7, 76:15

everyone 22:6, 58:16, 62:25

everything 47:4, 53:23, 59:6, 

62:16, 74:17

exactly 20:22, 24:16, 33:19, 

56:19

exaggeration 7:22

examination 70:21, 71:6

examine 70:18

examining 71:4

example 37:21, 40:2, 47:24, 

72:6

examples 31:24

excellent 75:18

Except 32:15, 55:18

exchanged 5:9

Exclude 34:19, 36:7, 66:25, 

67:4

excluding 44:16

exclusion 44:12, 44:21

excused 69:18

exercised 21:14

exhibit 4:19, 4:24, 5:7, 

45:15, 50:2, 50:16

exhibits 5:8, 5:18, 6:12, 

6:24, 8:5, 9:12, 9:15, 11:17, 

17:13, 36:15, 53:17, 68:5, 

68:6, 72:21

expand 34:9

expect 6:16, 8:16

expected 19:1, 33:17

expecting 42:11

expedite 17:10, 75:9

expeditious 35:2

experience 20:15, 26:9, 

29:4, 35:1

experienced 16:1

expert 39:18, 39:24, 40:7, 

66:16, 68:1, 68:4, 68:16, 

68:17, 68:21

experts 60:19, 61:24, 66:19, 

66:20, 66:22, 66:25, 67:5, 

68:3, 68:4, 68:5, 68:11

explain 54:9

explained 59:23

explore 27:14

explored 22:18

exploring 22:14

expressly 48:13, 54:19

extended 24:5

extends 69:25

extent 13:17, 48:6, 68:17

extra 10:7, 22:25, 24:7, 38:7

extraordinary 41:13, 54:17

< F >

fact 38:25, 57:7, 58:21, 

58:23, 68:11, 68:16, 71:20

factor 66:2

facts 44:13

fair 14:1, 54:23, 65:16

fairly 37:11

fairness 44:20

fall 7:4

familiar 4:15, 8:9, 35:10

family 47:25

far 7:5, 9:19, 32:18, 42:19, 

42:23, 63:16

Fatah 53:11

faxes 39:22

FBI 73:18

fear 54:2

Federal 34:20, 44:6

feel 34:14

fees 79:10

few 64:3

Fifteen 21:12, 22:7, 22:24, 

24:7, 24:20, 25:1, 25:9, 

26:15, 26:20, 27:3, 27:9, 

27:11, 28:8, 28:9, 28:11, 

28:24, 31:15

Fifth 12:12, 13:22, 14:7, 

20:4, 43:24, 44:1

fifty-two 28:13

fight 41:1

fighting 41:1

figure 17:22, 25:8, 26:14

figured 27:12

figuring 28:6

file 50:13, 53:11, 53:15, 

58:12, 63:15, 63:25

filed 32:5, 34:17, 35:12, 

43:4, 61:18, 61:25, 62:2, 

62:4, 65:4

files 50:17, 50:18

filing 31:21, 43:8, 63:2, 63:5, 

63:6

filings 51:3, 62:25

filtered 53:6, 53:18

financial 17:7, 59:16

financing 38:9

find 10:22, 15:8, 15:20, 53:8, 

53:10, 75:21

fine 10:8, 10:23, 18:19, 

18:20, 19:15, 36:5

finish 74:14

finished 14:23, 15:2, 15:10, 

63:5, 74:22

First 1:45, 4:8, 6:23, 16:5, 

20:16, 22:7, 23:12, 33:17, 

35:12, 36:16, 45:11, 47:13, 

49:14, 52:5, 54:12, 55:5, 

58:22, 60:3, 61:18, 65:25, 

66:5, 66:6, 69:9, 70:4, 70:10, 

70:18, 75:5, 77:19

FISA 62:4

FISH 1:18

Fitzwater 23:21

five 21:12, 26:21, 27:11

flagrant 26:11

flavor 42:7

Floor 2:6, 2:32

Florida 2:26

flushed 25:5

focus 5:2, 17:11, 27:16, 

75:12

focusing 22:13

follow 25:19

follow-up 22:5, 22:10, 22:21, 

23:14, 63:8

follow-ups 22:8

Footnote 13:3, 43:2, 43:6

force 44:17

Forces 63:12

foregoing 79:7

foregoing-styled 79:4

foreign 13:23, 13:24, 14:4, 

14:8, 17:7, 38:5

forgotten 74:21
form 77:14

format 79:10

Fort 3:8

forth 4:20, 20:8, 29:5, 52:3, 

67:6

forty 20:25, 76:24

found 49:7, 49:8, 49:10, 

50:17, 50:18, 58:12, 58:18

Foundation 1:11, 4:3, 37:8, 

37:12, 37:15, 37:17, 37:20, 

46:6, 47:23, 48:9, 48:11, 

48:12, 48:15, 49:12, 49:17, 

52:18

four 16:21, 20:16, 23:10, 

23:11, 25:25, 26:16, 27:1, 

45:23, 71:19, 74:16, 76:19

four. 45:25

fourteen 31:16

fourth 23:18

Fragoso 34:25

Francisco 2:33

frankly 69:4

fraud 71:17

free 67:15

FREEDMAN 1:43

Freedom 61:17

freedoms 54:22

friends 32:22

front 16:20, 17:3, 21:19, 

31:24, 36:12, 43:1, 44:9, 

64:15

full 42:7, 58:11

fully 6:5

function 10:9, 44:15

fundamental 77:14

fundamentalist 55:21

fundraisers 46:14

fundraising 46:11, 46:17, 

46:23, 46:24

funneled 37:18

funneling 37:13

future 43:7

< G >

Gail 23:23

gain 6:4, 29:17

game 54:23

GARRETT 1:28, 9:18, 52:14, 

56:15, 56:23, 59:10, 60:8

gate 27:25

gave 31:8

general 20:11, 20:20, 21:4, 

21:17, 22:1, 23:13, 29:21, 

36:16, 36:20, 36:21, 37:9, 

49:24

generally 19:7, 48:5, 49:3, 

60:22, 68:2, 70:24

Germany 47:21

gets 10:10, 25:15

getting 8:18, 26:1, 28:17, 

29:22, 34:1, 42:24, 54:12

gha 14:10

Giglio 65:9, 65:22

give 4:18, 7:8, 16:12, 16:15, 

20:3, 22:16, 28:1, 31:23, 

34:4, 34:5, 47:13, 55:9, 59:7, 

65:18, 74:1, 74:8, 75:6

given 6:12, 16:9, 38:12, 

69:15

giving 8:14, 38:4, 47:22

goal 22:7

goals 55:14

gotten 19:7, 45:10

Governments 47:21

granted 5:1

great 32:24, 54:8

greatly 33:12

GREG 3:4

grizzly 38:16

grossly 45:21

ground 74:25

grounds 12:22, 36:17, 46:7, 

48:25, 49:14, 50:6

group 23:4, 23:6, 23:12, 

23:15, 24:18, 27:13, 27:16, 

31:16, 53:18, 55:3

grouped 46:1

groups 21:6, 21:12, 21:24, 

22:7, 23:18, 24:6, 24:13, 

24:14, 24:15, 31:15, 45:14, 

51:1, 53:12

GSA 31:7

GU 14:13

guaranteed 58:1

guess 6:23, 7:8, 8:17, 12:4, 

18:5, 23:15, 24:1, 24:10, 

36:9, 60:18, 70:12, 72:8, 

75:22, 76:18

Guidelines 49:12

guitar 46:25, 47:2, 47:3, 47:4

guitars 47:2

Gujrati 14:11

< H >

half 23:11, 24:22, 26:21, 

72:7, 74:12

hall 31:16

HAMAS 37:10, 37:13, 37:15, 

37:19, 39:18, 39:19, 39:24, 

39:25, 40:8, 40:9, 42:2, 42:8, 

42:9, 43:14, 48:2, 48:24, 

50:6, 52:14, 52:15, 53:9, 

53:10, 53:11, 57:5, 57:6, 

57:8, 58:19, 58:21, 58:24

Hamas-related 52:22

handle 35:2, 52:5

handled 13:4

handling 30:2

happened 39:1

happens 26:10

happy 71:6

hard 30:18

hardship 32:16

harness 56:23

hat 75:24

hazy 20:11

head 14:10

heals 44:17

health-related 78:4

hear 16:6, 35:6, 47:12, 

51:19, 61:6, 70:4, 72:16

heard 10:25, 17:2, 17:8, 

43:20, 45:3, 48:3, 53:24, 

58:5, 59:21, 59:23, 61:3

hearing 12:8, 18:1, 34:18, 

34:22, 35:1, 46:10, 48:4, 

61:24, 64:7, 70:18

hearsay 50:19

held 46:12

Helms 71:17

help 8:12, 8:18, 62:13, 77:14

helpful 75:4

hermetically 32:8

Herndon 56:2

herring 41:21

Hezbollah 52:24

high 36:20, 46:2

higher 70:19, 76:22
histories 50:13

Hit 36:20, 46:2, 74:25

hold 21:2, 23:8

holds 23:22, 71:16

holiday 34:11

HOLLANDER 1:41, 1:44, 

5:10, 36:10, 36:14, 54:4, 

58:16, 61:15, 62:10, 63:8, 

67:22, 69:3, 74:2

Holy 1:11, 4:3, 37:1, 37:3, 

37:5, 37:8, 37:12, 37:14, 

37:17, 37:20, 38:8, 46:6, 

46:17, 46:19, 46:20, 47:16, 

47:17, 47:23, 48:9, 48:11, 

48:12, 48:15, 49:16, 50:17, 

50:18, 51:14, 52:10, 52:17, 

55:7, 58:21, 59:3, 59:13

homicide 40:20, 40:21

HONORABLE 1:18

hope 13:17, 14:22, 65:10, 

71:1

hopeful 23:20

hopefully 21:13, 26:17, 64:3

hoping 20:15, 63:24, 63:25

horrific 45:21

horse 73:7, 77:8

hour 25:24, 26:17, 74:12, 

76:19

hours 26:21, 27:8, 56:10

Hudson 9:6, 10:18, 76:16, 

78:6

huge 52:25

Humanitarian 58:17, 58:25, 

59:4

hundred 14:20, 16:16, 

20:25, 22:23, 23:22, 23:25, 

25:3, 25:5, 27:2, 27:6, 53:17, 

73:23

hundred. 28:19, 28:20

hyperlinks 48:11

< I >

idea 7:20, 23:11, 53:13, 

75:13, 75:18

identity 43:5

ideological 55:4

images 52:21

imagine 25:21

immediately 77:16

implicate 58:22

implicated 38:7

implications 54:17

imply 43:5

important 27:23, 43:5, 

53:20, 76:7, 77:19

imposed 20:18

impression 12:7, 20:20, 46:9

improper 35:24, 43:11

in-limine 45:3, 45:6

in. 41:2, 41:14, 42:22, 55:17, 

64:4

inaccuracies 13:15, 13:18

inclined 30:13, 61:5

include 15:5, 47:24, 48:11, 

53:18, 61:23

included 45:15, 48:13, 52:11

includes 55:14

including 48:2

incredibly 32:20

indicate 22:4, 22:21

indicated 37:2, 48:19, 64:14

indictment 18:1, 18:3, 18:8, 

47:24, 55:9, 70:20, 70:23

individual 22:17, 22:20, 

23:14, 25:21, 28:7, 29:12, 

31:13, 31:23, 32:25, 33:7, 

33:11, 77:3, 77:12, 77:17

individually 21:7, 77:7

individuals 47:21

inflame 45:20

inflaming 38:19

Infocom 7:17, 45:17, 49:14

inform 77:21

informally 19:7

information 74:18, 77:14

informed 62:18

infrequently 12:19

initial 50:15, 65:10, 67:16, 

75:22

inject 38:18

inquires 9:11

inspection 6:15

instance 46:25

instances 12:14, 73:8

institution 51:22, 51:23

institutions 17:7

instruct 12:14

instruction 12:12, 16:8, 

16:12, 76:11

Instructions 16:13, 19:5, 

20:4, 20:5, 21:17

insure 6:3

integrity 6:16

intend 4:18, 5:17, 9:16, 9:17, 

31:4, 36:2, 39:17, 39:24, 

48:19, 50:10, 50:12, 50:16

intends 12:9, 37:5, 59:16, 

60:21

intensive 30:18

intensively 31:22

intent 37:2, 51:8, 51:11, 56:7

intention 20:3, 35:22, 64:11, 

71:10, 71:11

intercepted 39:20

interested 9:8, 56:6

internet 51:22

Interpol 48:3

interpretation 68:19

interpreted 54:20

interpreters 67:2

interrupt 6:2

intimated 30:12

introduce 48:20, 48:21, 

50:12, 50:16

introduced 6:5, 16:9, 48:22

introduction 48:5

investigation 13:16

invoke 66:24

involve 36:25

involved 7:2, 12:15, 75:10

involving 6:10, 18:7

iron 16:3, 44:19

irrelevant 37:25, 39:1, 43:9, 

48:25, 49:15, 59:10, 64:22

Islam 14:10

Islamic 55:21

Israel 38:1, 47:15, 47:21, 

49:5, 50:10, 53:2, 53:5, 

60:22, 63:21

Israeli 19:21, 63:12

Israeli-palestine 43:6

issue 8:10, 15:2, 15:9, 16:6, 

27:14, 27:16, 27:24, 33:17, 

36:4, 38:18, 41:9, 41:12, 

41:18, 42:20, 43:8, 50:2, 

52:4, 52:5, 53:1, 56:19, 58:7, 

58:23, 60:10, 64:9, 64:16, 

65:7, 66:8, 66:13, 67:22, 

69:21
issues 5:15, 15:11, 25:3, 

61:16, 63:3, 63:4, 67:3, 74:9, 

74:19, 77:18, 78:4

item-by-item 57:13, 57:21

items 36:13, 54:9, 58:10, 

58:11, 58:18, 59:25

itself 48:20, 59:14

< J >

J. 2:4

Jacks 1:25, 4:13, 8:17, 

14:18, 23:2, 26:3, 29:6, 30:2, 

30:9, 32:1, 33:9, 35:15, 49:8, 

65:25, 66:11

James 34:18, 34:22

Jason 5:25

Jencks 65:9, 65:20

JIM 1:25

job 14:24

jobs 14:25

JOE 1:18

JOHN 2:29

Joint 34:17, 36:6, 62:3

JONAS 1:26, 7:17, 9:20, 

15:3, 15:13, 28:21, 29:3, 

34:9, 39:4, 39:8, 40:13, 

41:23, 42:15, 43:22, 47:11, 

52:1, 52:2, 57:2, 60:3, 60:7, 

60:8, 60:9, 60:13, 64:19, 65:4

Jones 2:30

JOSHUA 2:3, 2:5

Judge 6:11, 7:18, 35:17, 

44:20, 64:7, 71:23, 76:16

judges 12:17

judgment 73:8

Judicial 79:11

July 33:18

jump 77:11

juror 21:13, 22:13, 25:17, 

27:3, 28:23

jurors 16:22, 19:5, 19:6, 

20:7, 21:15, 22:3, 22:4, 

22:10, 23:8, 24:15, 24:24, 

25:1, 25:9, 27:24, 28:17, 

31:4, 31:8, 31:15, 75:2, 75:4, 

75:17, 75:18, 75:23, 76:3, 

76:6, 76:16

juryroom 19:3, 72:4

Justice 1:30, 50:24, 50:25, 

51:2, 51:15

justification 40:12, 40:17, 

40:19, 40:21, 40:24, 62:23

justifies 33:7

< K >

Kastigar 12:8, 17:25, 46:9, 

48:4, 70:17

keep 72:19

keeping 34:6

key 49:6, 53:18, 57:7

Khan 14:10

killed 40:21

kind 15:22, 22:4, 22:17, 

24:9, 67:6, 77:7

kinds 52:16, 52:20, 53:16, 

77:10

knocking 21:13

knowing 58:14

knowledge 39:13, 40:14, 

41:4, 41:7, 41:15, 51:11

knows 41:4, 41:5, 41:15, 

42:5, 49:7, 62:25, 76:6

< L >

L. 2:5, 3:13, 79:3, 79:17

Laden 45:16, 52:8, 52:11, 

52:23

Land 1:11, 4:3, 37:1, 37:3, 

37:5, 37:8, 37:12, 37:14, 

37:17, 37:20, 38:8, 46:6, 

46:17, 46:19, 46:20, 47:16, 

47:17, 47:23, 48:9, 48:11, 

48:12, 48:15, 49:16, 50:17, 

50:18, 51:14, 52:10, 52:17, 

55:7, 58:21, 59:3, 59:13

language 13:23, 13:24, 

14:11, 15:15, 44:1, 44:4, 

44:6, 44:8, 76:8

languages 14:4

lap 10:11, 11:8, 11:9, 11:11, 

11:15, 11:16, 11:19, 12:5

large 9:15, 14:24, 14:25, 

25:25, 36:13, 71:15

largely 20:14

larger 27:16

last 28:6, 41:1, 63:10, 67:9

later 5:21, 63:5

latter 30:25

LAW 2:5, 2:15, 2:24, 12:11, 

12:21, 13:9, 13:22, 15:22, 

31:23, 34:25, 35:3, 35:22, 

35:24, 50:7, 56:1, 58:25, 

59:4, 72:18

lawyer 71:3, 71:5

lawyers 16:1, 27:21, 29:6, 

54:6, 71:18

lay 15:21, 54:8

lead 71:3, 71:5

Leader 52:14, 52:15

leaders 48:24, 52:11, 52:24

Leah 60:20

learning 11:5

least 30:11, 46:11, 64:15, 

64:17, 70:9, 72:19, 73:20

leave 60:8

leaves 10:20

legal 30:6

Leigh 31:2, 31:8, 75:6

length 20:2, 33:2, 71:16

less 20:25

letter 5:23, 8:7

letterhead 5:24

letters 66:11

letting 70:25

level 29:1

levels 60:19

Levitt 66:4

liable 47:4

liaison 7:19, 9:7

library 55:21, 56:5

life 43:15

Limine 34:16, 34:18, 35:10, 

35:12, 36:7, 43:2, 43:8, 

44:25, 47:6, 54:1, 60:2, 

60:13, 60:16, 60:18, 60:23, 

60:25, 61:10, 61:16, 61:23, 

64:5, 64:17

limit 38:17, 41:3, 55:24

limited 44:16

limits 20:18, 24:23, 30:24

LINDA 2:23, 2:24

Lindsay 6:11, 7:18

link 48:13, 50:24, 51:10, 

51:15

linked 48:2

links 51:3, 51:24

list 4:24, 8:2, 26:8, 45:15, 
50:1, 50:2, 50:16, 61:15, 

62:8, 62:9, 62:11, 62:20, 

66:10, 70:19, 74:1, 74:23, 

75:4

listed 70:23

listen 14:12

lists 4:19, 5:7

litany 38:15

literally 63:23

litigation 15:22

little 20:11, 23:22, 44:23, 

64:2, 65:7, 68:9, 73:6, 76:22, 

77:8

live 20:17

loaded 11:18

local 65:13

locate 27:15

locating 4:11

location 31:5

logical 22:14

logistical 21:19, 31:3, 78:5

logistically 21:10

logistics 34:1

long 13:2, 14:14, 18:25, 

19:16, 19:24, 23:11, 33:20, 

65:11, 71:1

look 24:2, 33:5, 59:18, 65:18

looked 68:8

looking 11:11

looks 19:16, 73:1

lot 15:4, 17:1, 28:6, 37:23, 

73:7

Lowry 56:2

lunch 74:11, 74:12

Lyon 31:2

< M >

M-c-k 44:3

ma 16:14

magic 28:13

mail 71:17

main 36:24, 50:20

maintain 6:15, 22:11, 22:12

major 44:15

Mallick 3:6

man 5:25

Manchester 49:22

manner 54:21

manufacturer 47:2

maps 9:16, 9:25

March 34:21

margins 68:14

Marlo 2:14, 2:15, 67:10

material 14:22, 59:6, 63:15, 

64:21, 64:24, 65:9, 65:16

materials 4:18

math 25:8, 27:7

matter 13:4, 25:15, 35:3, 

41:19, 44:12, 44:16, 45:3, 

68:23, 69:24

matters 4:5, 4:6, 74:14, 

78:11

maximum 23:8, 24:20, 

25:11, 26:16, 28:9, 28:10

Mcgonigle 8:1, 8:9, 8:22, 

64:6, 64:10

Mckeef 42:14, 42:15

Mckinney 2:16

mean 17:18, 26:22, 50:25, 

55:22, 68:4, 71:11

means 37:9

meant 44:18

mechanics 28:7

media 6:20, 6:21, 9:7

Meeting 34:19

member 26:16

members 37:18, 40:2, 47:25, 

76:23

memo 68:24

Memorandum 36:8, 62:3

memory 14:14, 16:8, 20:11, 

21:8, 68:9

mention 33:13

mentioned 24:13, 31:1, 

36:14, 48:17

met 22:8

metaphor 47:8

method 25:17, 25:23

Mezain 78:4

mid-eighties 71:15

Middle 37:12, 72:14

midway 71:20

military 40:2, 53:3

millions 50:23

mind 6:24, 20:13, 26:15, 

29:15, 51:6, 51:11, 56:15, 

59:14, 59:18, 62:8, 63:17, 

72:19

minimum 70:7, 71:5

minister 63:20, 63:21, 63:22

minute 37:7

minutes 21:13, 22:8, 24:20, 

24:22, 25:1, 25:23, 26:16, 

26:20, 27:3, 27:9, 28:8, 28:9, 

28:11, 28:24

Miranda 69:17, 70:8

misidentified 5:13

missed 61:11

missing 5:11, 5:12

mix 28:18, 75:17

moment 9:13

Monday 23:12, 75:1

money 14:9, 37:13, 37:18, 

38:4, 38:12, 47:22, 59:7, 

59:18

months 4:8, 19:19, 66:18

moral 55:4, 58:8

MORENO 2:23, 2:24, 20:14, 

26:2, 28:17, 31:21, 32:5, 

76:10, 76:14

Morning 5:24, 7:18, 8:1, 

8:23, 9:5, 63:23, 64:6, 75:1

mosques 46:12, 46:23

mostly 50:18

Motion 34:18, 34:22, 35:12, 

36:3, 36:7, 43:2, 43:3, 43:8, 

44:24, 47:6, 54:8, 57:12, 

59:22, 59:24, 60:11, 60:15, 

60:25, 61:6, 61:10, 61:16, 

61:23, 62:3, 62:5, 63:2, 63:9, 

63:11, 63:18, 64:4, 64:5, 

64:8, 64:17, 64:19, 64:20, 

64:23

motions 34:16, 35:10, 45:7, 

60:2, 60:13, 61:10, 61:22, 

62:8, 62:13

move 25:7, 40:10

Mufid 2:11

murders 40:22

Muslim 14:8

myself 8:7, 31:20, 75:13

MYSLIWIEC 2:4

< N >

name 19:2, 44:2

named 5:25, 47:23

names 75:24

NANCY 1:41
narrow 26:7

Nasrallah 52:12

NATHAN 1:28

nationals 14:8

native 14:11, 15:15

nature 52:20, 55:6, 56:19, 

59:12, 59:13, 72:15

nay 73:5

necessarily 35:18, 66:18, 

67:14

necessary 22:25, 23:14, 

33:1, 41:20, 72:6

need 8:12, 8:19, 9:3, 9:11, 

18:16, 20:9, 21:24, 22:9, 

23:9, 23:10, 25:9, 26:17, 

27:4, 29:3, 60:13, 61:2, 

62:14, 67:18, 67:19, 68:6, 

72:16, 73:13, 73:19, 73:20, 

73:24, 74:6, 74:13, 74:17, 

75:10, 76:23

needed 22:21, 23:18, 27:18

needs 22:5, 60:8

neither 7:23

network 58:20, 58:21

New 2:7, 30:7, 42:12, 63:4, 

63:22

News 5:24, 7:18, 8:1, 8:23, 

9:5, 64:6

newsletters 39:22

newspaper 6:15

newspapers 50:15, 53:19

next 23:16, 24:2, 47:14, 64:3

night 65:14

ninety 14:15

Ninth 59:4

NM 1:46

Nobody 51:14, 76:5

nodding 18:12

nondemonstratives 73:20

None 15:14, 53:24

none. 44:23

nonexistent 71:5

nonissue 69:11

noon 74:11

nor 58:14

normally 26:20

NORTHERN 1:2, 1:31, 79:19

notes 20:3, 20:5, 20:6

notetakers 20:7

Nothing 46:20, 55:24, 57:10, 

57:25

notice 36:10, 39:20, 62:12

notified 77:9

nullification 35:14, 43:11

NUMBER 1:5, 4:4, 4:5, 

21:14, 22:3, 23:3, 25:8, 

25:11, 28:13, 30:3, 34:1, 

36:13, 43:3, 50:23, 61:16, 

61:25, 62:2, 66:15, 74:6, 

79:21

numerous 12:13

NY 2:7

< O >

o'clock 74:16

O'neal 23:23

object 48:4

objected 60:17, 60:19, 60:23

objecting 37:21

objection 9:24, 35:20, 45:1, 

48:7, 48:23, 52:6

objections 49:3, 59:25

obsolete 9:14

Obtained 62:4

obviously 10:14, 66:16

occasion 44:14

occurring 48:14

occurs 12:19

Odeh 3:1

offense 38:20, 39:2

offer 48:7

offered 45:2, 45:4, 59:25

Office 2:5, 2:15, 2:24, 8:8, 

8:19, 11:23, 49:9, 53:8, 53:9, 

73:18

official 79:5

often 26:10

Okay 7:7, 9:6, 13:17, 16:23, 

28:1, 45:11, 63:25, 72:11, 

76:12, 77:23, 78:10

once 21:14, 28:12, 28:13, 

31:4, 59:4, 75:16, 75:22

one. 26:20

ones 53:7, 61:14, 61:21, 

73:23

Onori 13:3

open 18:13, 73:1

opened 43:13

opening 72:1

openings 33:20

operate 10:21

operated 28:14

operating 11:21

Operation 37:22, 53:3, 53:4

operational 38:10

operatives 53:5

opportunity 20:23, 26:4, 

74:9

oppose 8:20

opposed 21:23, 22:6, 25:24, 

27:25

opposing 17:8, 64:13

opposition 51:2

option 21:11

Order 4:9, 4:16, 34:4, 61:1, 

65:7, 70:3, 70:17, 70:20, 

70:22, 70:24, 70:25, 71:7, 

74:25, 75:24

organization 37:10, 38:6, 

39:13, 39:14, 39:15, 40:16, 

41:10, 42:8, 42:21, 43:10, 

43:14, 46:13, 47:5, 51:9, 

51:12, 56:11, 56:12, 58:9, 

58:18, 59:8

organizations 37:18, 38:5, 

46:6, 46:15, 47:23, 48:1, 

48:6, 48:9, 59:13, 59:19

orient 77:20

oriented 77:5, 77:9

original 4:22, 64:1, 74:1

originals 73:20, 74:6

orphans 38:12

Osama 45:16, 52:8, 52:11, 

52:23

Others 4:4, 60:6, 60:14, 

75:13

Otherwise 6:7, 73:15

ourselves 17:20, 17:22

outbreak 25:6

outside 21:1, 26:22, 54:25

outstanding 61:10, 61:14, 

66:9

outweighed 45:21

outweighing 44:11

overall 24:3

overblown 32:20

overrules 48:7

oversaw 6:14

overseas 14:9
own 8:17, 11:8, 11:15, 12:24, 

16:2, 20:5, 26:15, 30:6, 71:12

own. 6:17

< P >

P. 2:15

Pace 43:24, 43:25, 44:9, 

55:23

Page 16:20, 44:4, 44:5

pages 79:7

Palestine 37:23, 54:25

Palestinians 50:9

panel 20:24, 20:25, 21:16, 

21:17, 22:3, 23:3, 25:14, 

25:15, 25:17, 26:16, 32:9, 

77:1

panels 25:25, 74:25, 75:2, 

77:3

paper 6:22, 7:10, 7:14, 

16:21, 32:21, 73:24

papers 43:1, 64:13

paragraph 39:12

paragraphs 19:22

paralegal 11:10, 11:24, 

16:18

paralegals 11:21

part 19:23, 30:25, 31:9, 

40:13, 41:8, 46:9, 46:12, 

54:11, 57:3, 57:5, 58:19, 

58:20, 69:10

particular 33:21, 34:15, 

45:4, 45:14, 48:4, 49:9, 

54:11, 56:6, 56:11, 58:8, 

61:21, 68:2, 68:15, 75:25

Particularly 33:25, 55:6

parties 4:18, 6:19, 13:6, 

13:10, 16:22, 22:16, 22:19, 

72:4, 76:4, 77:18

parts 15:20, 38:16, 38:19, 

38:21

pass 62:18

past 8:23, 20:11, 21:9, 

28:19, 28:20, 68:9

Pattern 12:12, 20:4

pay 76:7

payment 38:23

pays 76:15

pending 62:9, 65:2

people 20:25, 21:3, 22:22, 

22:23, 23:3, 25:4, 26:17, 

26:23, 27:2, 28:16, 34:1, 

34:14, 46:19, 51:14, 55:3, 

56:3

Per 21:13, 24:21, 24:22, 

26:16, 26:17, 27:3, 28:8, 

28:11

percent 14:16

perhaps 66:20

permission 5:1, 69:14, 75:7, 

78:3

permit 44:19, 56:14, 69:22, 

78:7

permits 44:11

permitted 43:12, 70:8

person 28:8, 28:11, 28:25, 

34:15, 38:23, 39:12

personally 47:9, 68:18

personnel 8:12

perspective 64:12

pertaining 64:20

pervasive 32:19

phone 41:16, 42:4, 63:24

photograph 19:17

photographs 9:15, 19:1, 

19:18

picture 19:13

pictures 19:11, 45:16

piece 36:19, 73:24

pile 73:12

place 20:16, 30:24, 31:10, 

34:2, 54:14

placed 10:10, 56:25

plain 55:11

plan 21:21, 23:9, 31:13, 

32:4, 33:4, 50:13

plans 34:4

PLATT 3:5

playing 12:4

Plaza 1:45

pleadings 4:10, 33:6

plus 23:22

PO 2:25

point 5:14, 13:21, 18:17, 

21:16, 29:2, 35:19, 36:3, 

43:7, 55:9, 56:13, 57:23, 

59:24, 71:25

pointed 57:3

points 13:16, 60:16

Policies 49:12

political 52:20, 55:13, 55:14, 

55:19

pool 7:22, 15:6

portable 6:13

portion 6:2, 22:16

portrayed 19:14, 32:24

position 17:9, 17:23, 32:11, 

33:8, 34:23, 35:19, 35:21, 

37:17, 37:24, 37:25, 53:23, 

61:7, 77:23

positive 22:4, 22:20

possession 52:21

possibility 71:24, 72:19

possible 13:6, 13:17, 16:4, 

17:24, 61:12, 74:17

poster 9:20, 56:9

posters 49:6, 52:7, 52:8, 

52:9, 52:16, 52:21, 52:22, 

53:18, 57:7

potential 23:8, 24:15, 33:12, 

64:20, 67:20

practicable 6:21

practical 7:1

practice 35:5

precluded 39:3

prediction 29:16

prejudice 36:3, 41:19, 44:11, 

45:1, 45:19, 45:22, 59:24

prejudicial 38:2, 38:7, 38:19, 

41:13, 44:10, 44:18, 51:18

preliminary 25:20

preparation 29:20, 36:9

prepare 18:18, 68:24

prepared 36:1, 63:19

preparing 35:8

prerogative 29:8

prescribed 79:11

present 40:4, 43:12

presentation 70:22

preserve 44:20

presided 71:16

press 6:18, 7:19

presumably 75:11

PRETRIAL 1:16, 4:2, 4:17, 

13:4, 32:7, 32:19, 35:1, 

74:13, 74:15

pretty 25:7

prevent 51:14

previous 16:24, 31:25

previously 43:3
primary 12:16, 13:23

principally 34:24

prior 6:10

probably 15:10, 16:16, 

18:15, 23:7, 23:9, 24:12, 

26:22, 67:11, 75:12, 76:1

probative 44:11, 44:17, 

50:19

problem 21:22, 25:22, 29:17, 

33:22, 41:22, 54:16, 58:2, 

67:17, 68:20, 75:8

problematic 77:12

procedure 19:9, 22:22, 

71:20

procedures 20:10, 33:10

proceeding 44:20

proceedings 50:9, 79:4, 

79:6

process 23:5, 27:19, 29:23, 

30:15, 30:19, 75:9, 76:12, 

77:21

produce 12:24

produced 13:8

product 15:18

productive 73:2

progress 17:2

prohibit 35:13

prohibited 68:6

project 58:17

prolonging 33:2

promised 74:7

prone 41:1

proof 21:18, 25:19, 48:8, 

77:10

proposal 24:9, 24:10, 31:14, 

31:17, 67:4

propose 22:19, 66:23

proposed 17:6, 30:12, 33:4, 

33:10, 60:18, 77:25

prosecuted 56:13, 56:21

prosecution 12:20, 42:23, 

49:1, 57:2, 71:15, 71:18

prosecutor 14:8

protect 43:4, 64:10

protected 56:16

protocol 31:22

prove 50:12, 51:8

provenance 53:14

provide 59:1, 63:20, 70:14

provided 37:20, 40:3, 53:7, 

59:17

providing 59:6, 64:22

provision 54:19

publicity 32:20

punish 55:3, 56:3

purpose 57:11

put 4:9, 33:19, 42:22, 51:3, 

53:14, 55:17, 56:1, 64:17, 

68:13, 75:24

puts 22:25, 42:6

putting 51:14, 57:12, 77:7

< Q >

Qaeda 45:14, 45:18, 49:18, 

49:21, 49:23, 52:7, 55:7, 

55:10, 55:15, 57:9, 57:10

quantities 53:4, 53:5

quash 64:8

question 5:22, 9:14, 10:13, 

11:6, 14:18, 21:7, 27:7, 

27:21, 28:2, 28:21, 46:8, 

58:6, 60:12, 68:15, 69:23, 

72:8, 72:18, 76:18

questioned 28:24, 31:15

questioning 24:24, 77:7

questionnaire 5:2, 21:5, 

23:7, 32:14

questionnaires 5:2, 23:5, 

26:5, 26:10, 75:11

Questions 4:19, 20:23, 22:8, 

22:19, 27:13, 27:22, 32:16, 

71:5

quickly 8:15

quite 17:23, 55:11

quotation 43:25

quote 6:2, 44:7

quoted 43:23, 44:4

< R >

raid 49:13

raise 13:5, 33:16, 67:19, 

74:9

raised 49:3, 49:24, 60:4, 

63:10, 67:10

raises 5:22, 52:25, 65:6

raising 57:22, 57:24

rallies 46:5

random 75:24

range 58:11

rank 50:19

rate 27:2, 76:19

Rather 12:23, 15:21, 22:13, 

52:18

reach 23:18, 69:7, 69:9

reaction 67:16

read 6:8, 8:15, 29:8, 29:13, 

29:14, 36:9, 39:10, 49:2, 

54:22, 54:23

ready 19:12, 43:21, 61:4, 

61:6

real 61:1, 75:3

realize 8:22, 29:7, 60:10, 

73:3

realized 35:8

really 13:25, 15:17, 17:8, 

22:25, 25:7, 25:25, 26:18, 

27:24, 29:23, 32:25, 38:17, 

38:24, 39:1, 41:3, 41:20, 

51:13, 56:4, 67:12, 68:10, 

69:1, 69:23, 72:17, 74:25, 

77:13

rearraigned 18:2

rearraignment 18:9

reason 10:7, 30:25, 42:18, 

45:18, 76:5

reasonable 20:18

reasons 42:17, 43:13, 71:11

recall 14:3, 18:11, 19:5, 

32:2, 32:3, 32:4

received 14:19, 21:6, 39:21, 

63:16

receiving 65:9

recent 68:9

recently 8:24, 17:17, 18:24, 

66:11

receptive 70:25

recess 74:11, 78:10

recognize 8:23, 30:1, 43:25

recollection 18:21, 52:8

reconsider 63:11, 63:15

record 9:20, 19:23, 62:19, 

64:18, 71:16

recording 12:17

records 16:25, 17:7, 66:4

red 41:21

reduce 4:12

reference 49:16

referring 46:13
reflect 9:21

refresh 21:7

regard 51:25

Regarding 4:9, 49:4, 61:16, 

70:21, 77:17

regret 71:18

regular 75:17, 76:2

reiterate 29:25

related 38:9, 38:16, 45:17, 

47:19, 48:24, 49:17, 52:7

relates 38:18

relating 48:1, 50:8

relation 41:12

relationship 48:8, 57:6

relationships 42:9

relax 44:19

relevance 36:16, 44:19, 

44:21, 46:7, 51:20, 51:24, 

52:4, 55:7, 60:23

Relevant 40:24, 41:18, 

44:10, 44:12, 53:25, 64:12, 

64:25

reliance 50:14

Religious 34:11, 61:17

reluctant 73:6

rely 12:9, 20:6

relying 13:25, 30:23, 70:13

remarks 20:21, 20:23, 25:20, 

74:20

remedy 12:23

remember 4:14, 18:6, 18:10, 

19:19, 20:22, 25:10, 29:19, 

29:20, 29:21, 29:23, 44:2

remind 45:20, 58:16

reminded 17:25

remote 31:5

render 59:10

renew 61:5

renewed 36:4, 48:23

repeat 16:13

repeats 16:14

report 6:6, 16:18

reported 14:6

REPORTER 3:13, 5:25, 6:14, 

8:1, 8:23, 18:11, 64:6, 79:5, 

79:18

reports 51:4

represent 40:18

representation 43:16

representations 30:23

representatives 6:15

represented 42:25

request 9:3, 15:19, 17:16, 

34:17, 65:8, 69:22, 70:7, 

70:12, 76:10

requested 7:14

requests 65:12, 66:9

require 38:15

required 35:1

Requirements 34:20

requires 30:2, 41:24

reserved 48:21

resolve 15:23

resolved 17:10

resources 35:6, 37:20, 59:1, 

59:7

respect 10:5, 37:3, 37:22, 

50:3, 64:5, 64:9, 78:4

respectfully 32:12, 41:23

respective 71:9

respond 17:12, 39:4, 39:6, 

47:11, 58:15

responded 34:21, 62:12, 

66:12

response 22:5, 36:1, 37:24, 

39:7, 43:22, 44:5, 47:13, 

48:19

responses 22:21

rest 4:14, 7:19, 39:3

Restoration 61:17

result 30:15, 38:23

results 18:24

resume 78:11

reverse 40:12

review 20:19, 24:9, 45:15, 

50:11, 50:15, 64:24, 65:1

reviewed 20:12, 29:18, 39:7

reviews 19:8

reward 38:25

rewarded 38:13

rid 21:18

rights 58:1

ring 32:23

Rm 3:14

room 60:8, 70:5

round 23:3

routine 37:11

row 25:25

Rule 8:10, 9:24, 10:8, 29:2, 

29:3, 34:20, 43:21, 44:6, 

44:14, 44:18, 44:19, 45:5, 

65:13, 65:14, 66:15, 66:24, 

67:6, 68:7, 68:9, 68:10, 

68:18, 69:18, 69:20

ruled 61:11, 72:6

Rules 10:6, 10:14, 25:12, 

44:6

ruling 35:25, 63:11, 69:8, 

72:18

rulings 62:22

rummage 6:17, 8:17

running 27:25, 74:25

< S >

sake 44:17

San 2:33

sanitized 44:14

save 30:19

saw 17:13, 53:15

saying 8:11, 23:2, 27:25, 

33:3, 38:25, 41:4, 41:8, 42:2, 

51:7, 54:22, 55:12, 56:13, 

57:11, 57:20

says 5:25, 6:1, 8:7, 8:13, 

8:16, 22:14, 29:6, 30:10, 

32:21, 35:21, 41:16, 54:13, 

54:19, 54:20, 56:16, 56:20, 

56:22, 57:24, 59:1, 59:2, 

62:19, 70:21

scan 6:22, 7:11, 8:8

scanned 6:14, 63:24, 63:25

scanner 6:13

scanning 43:21

scant 44:16

scenarios 44:13

schedule 22:11, 33:13, 34:6, 

34:14, 34:15

scope 33:25

screen 11:12

screens 11:12

seal 62:5

Sealed 32:8, 62:3

search 37:22

seats 11:10

second 21:24, 23:4, 23:15, 

40:13, 40:14, 45:12, 70:10

secondary 12:16

secondly 49:15

Section 39:9, 57:25
seem 36:2

seemed 8:18

seems 21:10, 21:25, 69:10

seen 5:8, 8:24, 9:22

seized 37:23, 38:1, 48:16, 

49:4, 49:13, 49:22, 52:9, 

53:2, 53:4, 53:5, 54:24

select 7:7

selected 31:4, 33:20, 71:25, 

75:16

selection 10:20

sell 47:2

seminars 46:5

send 19:3, 19:12

sending 14:9

sense 32:12, 32:14, 56:20, 

58:8, 75:22

sent 17:6, 18:8, 32:15, 63:24

series 39:9

serious 15:8

serve 43:10

serving 76:6

session 10:5, 20:20, 21:4, 

23:13, 72:2, 72:11

sessions 20:13, 21:4, 22:2

set 5:17, 32:25

Seven 24:22

several 19:19, 36:15, 36:16, 

45:9

shall 54:20, 56:20, 57:25

SHAPIRO 1:27, 8:3, 8:25, 

19:24, 33:16, 52:4, 52:6, 

52:15, 54:15, 58:15, 60:17, 

63:8, 63:18

share 66:22

sharing 9:4, 68:7

Shield 37:22, 53:3

shoes 43:18

short 59:6, 63:7, 64:5

shorten 17:10

shortly 65:5

shouldn't 42:22, 51:19, 

53:12, 55:17

show 47:1, 47:3, 47:5, 51:6, 

52:16, 52:18, 57:4, 57:8, 

58:19, 59:12, 59:16, 62:8

shown 79:6

shows 50:16, 55:18

shred 19:22

Shukri 1:38

side 5:8, 7:23, 12:24, 15:25, 

24:21, 24:22, 29:1, 30:13, 

39:6, 66:23, 71:3, 71:8, 74:9, 

78:8

sides 5:7, 11:15, 11:21, 

13:20, 24:21, 26:11, 69:4

sign 31:6

signature 5:24, 64:1

signed 18:9

similar 42:17

simply 35:3, 56:9

sir 4:21, 5:16, 5:19, 11:7, 

12:3

sit 68:3, 69:15

site 48:12, 48:14, 50:22, 

51:1, 51:9, 51:12

sites 48:10, 50:23

sitting 11:10, 22:12, 25:4, 

77:6

six 25:12, 26:21

sixteen. 25:9

sixty 23:8, 23:13

size 9:20, 24:14, 33:25

slightly 34:9

small 21:12, 22:6, 24:13, 

31:16

smaller 21:6, 21:24, 46:1

smoothly 16:3

social 58:20, 58:21, 58:24

socialization 39:25

sole 12:17

solely 56:21

somebody 25:19, 26:25, 

54:23

somehow 75:17

someone 9:8, 39:5

sometime 26:6

somewhat 71:8

soon 17:24

sorry 30:21, 35:8, 45:10, 

49:1, 52:15, 71:14

sort 41:6, 71:3, 76:11

sorted 66:13

sorts 51:4

sounds 21:21

source 64:9, 64:11, 64:14, 

64:16

sparing 44:15

sparingly 44:7

speakers 12:18

speaking 46:19

special 30:2

specific 38:22, 38:23, 39:2, 

45:1, 67:3, 70:11

specifically 42:24, 52:22

speed 64:1

spend 26:18, 26:20, 76:23

spent 24:25, 25:1, 28:6

spoke 75:5

sponsored 46:5

spots 36:21, 46:2

St 2:31

stage 56:4

stages 62:17, 62:21

stand 19:17

standard 22:15, 65:14, 77:19

start 23:6, 24:10, 35:18, 

65:12, 66:1, 77:11, 77:17

started 11:5, 18:24, 77:18

starts 35:19, 44:3

state 28:4, 51:6, 51:11, 

56:15, 59:14, 59:17

Statements 34:19, 36:18, 

50:3, 50:4, 72:1

STATES 1:1, 1:5, 1:29, 1:30, 

4:3, 13:2, 14:6, 34:24, 39:8, 

43:23, 50:24, 50:25, 51:2, 

55:1, 71:17, 79:12, 79:18

status 29:9, 31:25

statute 39:10, 54:19, 54:20, 

55:2, 56:14, 56:20

stay 33:13, 73:10

stenotypy 79:5

step 10:7, 22:25, 24:7, 

24:13, 26:3

Steve 64:6

Stewart 62:7, 62:16, 62:19

stick 61:15

Stickney 64:7

stipulate 16:25, 17:14, 26:7

stipulation 17:6, 26:11

stipulations 17:15, 66:2, 

66:3, 72:9

stop 28:14, 37:7

stopping 72:14

stops 27:9, 28:5

stories 8:24, 32:21

strategy 71:12

Street 1:33, 2:6, 3:14, 56:10

stretched 24:5
strict 24:23

struck 25:17, 25:23, 28:25

structure 58:24

stuff 38:24

subject 9:12, 10:4

subpoena 64:8

Subsection 39:11

substantial 73:9, 74:6

substantive 66:6

substitute 64:1

sufficient 25:6

sufficiently 65:17

suggested 13:2, 28:17

suggestion 62:7

suicide 37:2, 38:13, 38:14, 

38:16, 39:23, 41:5, 41:16, 

42:2

Suite 1:45, 2:16, 3:7

summarize 35:11

Summit 3:7

summons 32:15

superseding 18:1, 18:3, 

18:8

Support 36:8, 40:1, 40:3, 

43:9, 43:10, 55:4, 55:5, 

55:10, 58:8, 58:13, 58:18, 

59:6, 59:7, 59:8, 59:17

supported 52:10, 52:17

supporting 31:23, 55:3, 

55:8, 55:14

suppose 61:6, 61:11

Suppress 62:3

Supreme 35:4, 56:2

surprised 32:1

Surveillance 62:4

suspect 69:22

switch 70:25

sworn 76:2

sympathizer 56:9

sympathizing 55:3

sympathy 59:6

sync 51:1

system 10:4, 28:14

< T >

table 16:7, 69:15

talked 20:19, 21:11

talks 30:4, 40:13

Tampa 2:26

tape 12:16, 12:17, 13:22, 

13:23, 14:12

tapes 12:1, 12:2, 15:4

tapped 74:20

target 31:10

task 15:9

technique 38:14

technologically 10:21

tee'd 73:4

ten 24:6, 25:3, 25:5, 25:18, 

27:22, 31:15

tenure 36:22

TERESA 1:42

term 59:9

terms 18:14, 20:11, 24:3, 

32:11, 55:4

terrorism 36:25, 43:19

terrorism. 39:16

terrorist 37:21, 37:24, 38:5, 

38:22, 39:13, 39:15, 39:23, 

40:3, 40:5, 40:7, 42:18, 

42:21, 43:10, 43:14, 45:14, 

52:11, 56:12, 58:18, 59:8

Tesemel 60:20

testified 19:6

testifies 65:15

testify 19:2, 19:12, 40:7, 

61:5, 69:18, 69:19, 70:4

testifying 19:15, 70:6

testimony 13:25, 36:22, 

41:24, 64:13, 66:22, 68:7, 

70:4, 70:9, 72:17

TEXAS 1:2, 1:31, 1:34, 2:17, 

3:8, 3:15, 79:19

thanks 5:5

theirs 66:25, 67:5

theories 38:12

theory 37:10, 37:13, 38:21, 

47:3

therein 34:24

thinking 72:10

third 23:18, 69:17

Thirty 21:13, 24:2, 25:23, 

76:24

though 75:19

thousands 15:7

three 4:8, 20:16, 21:3, 40:22, 

65:12, 66:18, 71:19, 73:23

throughout 13:14, 76:8

throw 25:13

thrust 44:5

today 7:7, 29:20, 30:13, 

35:9, 36:9, 63:2, 63:5

together 30:3, 46:1, 63:11

tomorrow 26:5

took 43:15, 54:14, 72:7, 79:5

top 10:11, 11:8, 11:9, 11:11, 

11:15, 11:16, 11:19, 25:13, 

44:5

Tops 12:5, 25:24

torture 60:22

total 59:19

Tower 3:6

traditional 27:15

Trahan 5:25, 9:3, 9:10, 9:11

training 10:5, 11:22, 11:25

transcribed 79:6

TRANSCRIPT 1:17, 12:15, 

12:21, 12:23, 12:25, 13:6, 

13:11, 13:19, 13:25, 16:8, 

16:9, 29:9, 29:19, 79:8, 79:10

transcription 14:1

transcriptions 13:15

transcripts 12:9, 12:11, 

14:19, 14:20, 15:4, 16:19, 

20:12, 33:5

translation 15:5, 67:23

translations 15:16, 67:24

translator 14:1

translators 66:25, 67:1, 

67:3, 67:5, 67:20, 68:13

transport 31:7

treating 32:13

trials 44:12, 48:17, 48:22

tried 4:13, 16:7

true 15:8, 41:6, 54:15, 79:8

try 6:18, 13:19, 15:22, 15:25, 

17:10, 17:24, 34:3, 41:19, 

52:19, 54:10, 54:18, 65:16, 

74:5, 78:7

trying 14:18, 14:20, 15:8, 

17:13, 17:22, 26:14, 66:12

turn 11:3, 65:16

turned 64:25

turns 27:22

twenty-five 26:23, 27:8

twenty-four 76:21

twice 35:7

two 4:8, 14:19, 16:15, 20:24, 

21:3, 22:2, 23:25, 40:4, 
48:17, 60:19, 69:14

two. 23:25

type 46:13, 47:5, 50:12, 

54:18, 57:16

typically 16:11, 46:12

< U >

unavailability 34:12

unavailable 33:18

unclassified 64:23

understand 6:6, 11:20, 

12:21, 13:22, 14:24, 22:2, 

23:2, 23:4, 33:5, 33:8, 41:25, 

42:3, 42:7, 53:20, 54:7, 

57:10, 57:19, 57:20, 67:25, 

77:23

understanding 12:10, 13:9, 

26:4, 31:14, 37:16, 68:10, 

68:25

understood 20:17, 31:12, 

31:18, 37:9, 63:14

undue 35:6

unduly 20:6

unfair 44:10, 45:22

Unfortunately 10:20, 63:1, 

63:9

UNITED 1:1, 1:5, 1:29, 1:30, 

4:3, 13:2, 14:6, 34:24, 39:8, 

43:23, 50:24, 50:25, 51:2, 

55:1, 71:17, 79:12, 79:18

Unlawful 39:11

Unless 21:1, 38:21, 41:17, 

44:12, 68:22, 70:23

unmonitored 51:23

unnecessary 24:7

unreal 44:13

unrelated 37:1, 37:5, 37:8, 

37:15, 46:19

until 17:13, 78:10

unusual 28:20, 30:1

Using 6:13, 11:15, 25:23, 

26:23, 32:14

usual 30:4

< V >

vacuum 59:19

vague 68:10

value 44:11, 50:19

van 31:7

variety 71:11

various 13:15, 49:5, 50:9, 

53:19, 62:17, 62:21

varying 71:7

vast 53:4, 53:5

vein 69:13

verbal 16:12

versa 30:8

version 12:24, 13:1, 16:15

versions 13:7

VERSUS 1:8

vice 30:8

victim 40:20, 40:22, 40:25

victims 40:6, 42:17

video 12:1, 12:17, 15:4

view 68:23

violate 39:12, 50:7

violence 36:25, 37:4, 37:11

violent 40:16

virtually 12:14

visit 29:8

voir 4:19, 4:25, 20:10, 22:1, 

22:15, 22:16, 22:17, 22:20, 

23:9, 23:13, 23:14, 24:3, 

25:21, 28:7, 28:8, 29:12, 

31:13, 31:23, 33:1, 33:7, 

33:11, 77:12, 77:17, 77:19

volume 16:20, 65:16, 69:15

voluminous 4:10, 5:21, 

62:25

< W >

wait 31:16

waiting 72:3

waiver 18:8, 18:16, 18:18

walk 36:19

Wall 2:6, 74:10

wanted 4:5, 5:20, 12:10, 

13:21, 18:23, 20:18, 21:6, 

21:7, 33:16, 33:19, 34:16, 

64:15, 64:17, 67:15, 71:24, 

75:19

wants 7:11, 7:23, 10:7, 

58:22, 64:10

waste 28:15

wasted 28:16

wasting 72:10, 72:21

watching 22:13, 27:8

water 43:18

wearing 19:14

web 48:10, 48:11, 48:13, 

50:22, 50:23, 51:1, 51:9, 

51:12

week 9:8, 30:22, 30:25, 31:1, 

31:2, 41:1, 50:14, 65:17

weekend 26:6

weeks 71:19

weight 56:25

WESTFALL 3:4, 3:5, 16:5, 

18:18, 21:9, 21:10, 24:8, 

24:17, 24:22, 25:13, 26:18, 

26:24, 28:22, 29:1, 30:20, 

46:22, 47:9, 70:20, 73:10, 

74:24, 75:3, 75:14, 76:21, 

78:9

whatever 13:16, 77:17

Whether 6:21, 9:9, 10:1, 

10:13, 12:21, 17:14, 17:15, 

22:10, 23:17, 28:24, 41:9, 

53:10, 58:7, 67:7, 67:18, 

68:15, 69:23

whole 20:24, 25:1, 25:17, 

32:6, 39:10, 60:10, 77:1

whom 47:16

widows 38:12

willing 9:10, 20:17, 24:23, 

30:20, 65:25, 73:25

wind 52:3

window 38:24

wing 40:2

wings 42:9

wish 6:2

within 20:16, 20:17, 27:15, 

50:13, 69:1, 69:21

without 36:3, 44:25, 45:3, 

48:12, 57:17, 59:24, 73:7, 

73:9

witness 4:19, 4:24, 8:2, 8:19, 

9:1, 11:1, 11:2, 19:12, 19:16, 

19:20, 33:17, 33:18, 33:22, 

34:4, 34:7, 34:12, 39:18, 

49:19, 50:1, 61:2, 61:4, 61:7, 

63:12, 65:15, 65:16, 66:5, 

66:6, 67:16, 68:2, 68:15, 

68:16, 70:10, 71:4, 72:6, 

72:16

witness-by-witness 67:12

witnesses 17:1, 19:2, 34:4, 
40:6, 43:5, 64:21, 65:10, 

66:1, 66:16, 67:21, 68:11, 

68:17, 69:16, 70:3, 70:5, 

71:2, 73:9

wonderful 56:11

wondering 11:14

word 34:14

words 58:16, 70:7

work 7:6, 15:17, 24:16, 

71:21, 78:7

worked 4:14, 30:3, 47:16, 

72:9

working 5:14, 32:22, 62:15, 

62:16, 62:20, 71:22

works 76:15

world 56:12

worse 42:25

Worth 3:8

wrinkle 7:25

writing 4:12, 6:9, 19:2, 34:21

written 16:13, 55:21

wrote 43:1, 43:2, 49:25

< Y >

yea 73:5

years 30:3

yesterday 10:5, 17:17, 

21:11, 48:3

yield 35:15

York 2:7, 30:7, 42:13

yourself 19:15

yourselves 17:18

< Z >

zakat 37:18, 40:1, 40:2, 

47:15, 49:5, 49:9, 52:10, 

53:19, 55:9, 55:12, 55:24, 

57:4, 57:6, 58:4

zakats 40:1, 58:19

zero 54:13