Article

2006-03-17 Home Front: WoT

Witness Tampering Cited in Moussaoui Case

WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawyers for two airlines being sued for damages by 9/11 victims prompted a federal lawyer to coach witnesses in the trial of al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui so the government's death penalty case would not undercut their defense, victims' lawyers allege.

A light dawns. It's all about the money, stupid

The victims' lawyers, Robert Clifford and Gregory Joseph, claim that one of the airline lawyers forwarded a transcript from the first day of the Moussaoui trial to Transportation Security Administration lawyer Carla J. Martin. In violation of an order by Moussaoui trial judge Leonie Brinkema, Martin forwarded that day's transcript to seven federal aviation officials scheduled to testify later in the sentencing trial of the 37-year-old Frenchman. Martin's e-mailing of the transcript and her efforts to shape their testimony prompted Brinkema to toss out half the government's case against Moussaoui as contaminated beyond repair.

The contacts between lawyers for United and American Airlines and Martin were detailed in a legal brief filed on Moussaoui's behalf Thursday. That brief contained a March 15 letter from Clifford and Joseph complaining about Martin's actions to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is presiding over the civil damage case in New York. They wrote Hellerstein that the government's opening statement in the Moussaoui case "took the position that the hijackings were completely preventable and that gate security measures could have been implemented to prevent the 9/11 hijackers from boarding the planes had security been on the look out for short-bladed knives and boxcutters." "This stands in stark contrast to the position that has been repeatedly articulated by counsel to the aviation defendants in the September 11 actions."

Because that government position could have "devastating" impact on the airlines' defense in the civil suit, American Airlines' lawyer forwarded the transcript to a United Airlines lawyer who forwarded it to Martin, Clifford and Joseph wrote. As proof, they cited March 7 e-mails that they provided to Hellerstein but which were not immediately available here. "The TSA lawyer then forwarded the transcripts and sent multiple e-mails to government witnesses in a clear effort to shape their testimony in a manner that would be beneficial to the aviation defendants" in the civil suit, they wrote.

They then quoted a March 8 e-mail Martin sent to one of the government's Moussaoui witnesses that said:

"My friends Jeff Ellis and Chris Christenson, NY lawyers rep. UAL and AAL respectively in the 9/11 civil litigation, all of us aviation lawyers, were stunned by the opening. The opening has created a credibility gap that the defense can drive a truck through. There is no way anyone could say that the carriers could have prevented all short-bladed knives from going through. (Prosecutor) Dave (Novak) MUST elicit that from you and the airline witnesses on direct"

Carla J. Martin is a former flight attendant whose legal career has been devoted to defending aviation security secrets for the FAA, which has been in bed with the airline industry for years.

Clifford and Joseph said the developments represent "far more than appearance of impropriety" and asked Hellerstein to investigate "the mutual back-scratching relationship that appears to exist between the (airline) defendants and the TSA."

TSA = former FAA flunkys

Asked about the allegations by Clifford and Joseph, United Airlines spokeswoman Robin Urbanski said, "Our actions have been entirely appropriate as have those of our outside counsel." American Airlines did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.

Contacted after midnight, Martin's attorney, Roscoe Howard, said he not heard of the New York lawsuit or the letter from Clifford and Joseph. "I'll have to ask her about it," he said, declining to comment further. TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said she was unfamiliar with the allegations made by Clifford and Joseph. Earlier Thursday, Clark confirmed that TSA had put Martin on administrative leave.

In court on Tuesday, Brinkema said that Martin violated federal witness rules when she sent trial transcripts to seven aviation witnesses, coached them on how to deflect defense attacks and lied to defense lawyers to prevent them from interviewing witnesses they wanted to call. Brinkema warned her that she could face civil or criminal charges and that she appeared to have violated rules of legal ethics.

Martin was assigned to be a government lawyer for the aviation witnesses called by both sides and to be a liaison between prosecutors and defense attorneys. Beyond that, she co-signed one government brief submitted in the case, attended closed hearings on classified documents and worked closely with prosecutors on preparing their exhibits. Efforts to reach her for comment were unsuccessful, but her attorney, Roscoe Howard, said she was preparing a response. "Only her accusers' stories have been told, and those stories have been accepted as the whole truth," Howard said Thursday. "They are not."

Posted by Steve 2006-03-17 11:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 What this says is American and United conspired with Martin to tank the US case for the death penalty for Moussaoui!

If this is true, it should push the victims' families suit over the top.

And this from two airlines that have been scrounging off the taxpayaers and hiding behind bankruptcy for years. They should be liquidated.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-17 11:29|| 2006-03-17 11:29|| Front Page Top

#2 And Martin should be investigated for obstruction of justice. How does what Martha Stewart did compare to the actions of the traitor Martin?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-17 11:30|| 2006-03-17 11:30|| Front Page Top

#3 How does what Martha Stewart did compare to the actions of the traitor Martin?

They both abused inside information obtained through professional connections. Both of them deserve their respective punishments.

Posted by Zenster 2006-03-17 11:48|| 2006-03-17 11:48|| Front Page Top

#4 Wrong, Zenster. The government never made that case against Stewart because they could not make it stick. They convicted her for lying to the sleaze from the FBI.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-17 11:55|| 2006-03-17 11:55|| Front Page Top

#5 Funny how Stewart took her lumps. Had she been entirely innocent, it would stand to reason that she would have marshalled her considerable resources to fight all charges tooth and nail. She didn't do that. This is a tacit admission of guilt.

And please don't hand me that, "she just wanted to get it over with baloney." Stewart's name is a brand in and of itself. She, of all people, would know its worth and vigorously fight to defend any tarnishing of it if she were fully convinced of her own innocence. I certainly would have done so were it my name involved and similar firepower were within my grasp.

NS, the comments made in your first post remain the most salient. If Martin was a stooge for the airlines, then these industrial parasites need a major spanking. The way large corporations have abandoned their employee benefit programs so they become a taxpayer burden is simply ~~criminal~~ outrageous.

Posted by Zenster 2006-03-17 12:21|| 2006-03-17 12:21|| Front Page Top

#6 She was guilty of lying to the FBI, not insider trading. If the governement had a case, they would have made it.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-17 12:25|| 2006-03-17 12:25|| Front Page Top

#7 Actually, Carla Martin has not gone that far beyond normal witness preparation. What she did wrong was:

- brief witnesses in each other's presence
- send witnesses testimony previously given in court.
- violate a specific court order and,
- used email that was archived and was retrieved

Carla will be facing civil proceedings and maybe even criminal proceedings.

Let's wait to see how she pleads.

Posted by mhw 2006-03-17 13:07|| 2006-03-17 13:07|| Front Page Top

#8 It sounds like AMR and UAL should be on the line for co-conspirator and accessory to all those charges.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-17 13:38|| 2006-03-17 13:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Irrespective of the liability of airlines and airports with repect to potential damages, what does that have to do with Moussaoui's guilt or innocence.

A bank robber cannot be held liable for robbing the bank because the bank had poor security? If I am smart enough to get behind Fred's firewall, it is his problem? Right!

Posted by john">john 2006-03-17 13:52|| 2006-03-17 13:52|| Front Page Top

#10 It has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. He pled guilty. The trial is to determine whether he should get life or be executed.

The problem is the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth in two distinct cases

In the Moussaoui case the government says, If only Moose had told us about the plot we could have saved all those people. So he is as culpable as the 19 who actually killed everybody on 9/11 and should be executed.

In the airline case, the government says, Oh, there's no way we could have detcted the box knives even if we'd known about the plot, so there's no way the airlines can be held liable.

In order to assure that the airlines, for whom Martin no doubt hopes to work after securing her Federal pension, are not held liable, Martin tries to shape the testimony in the Moussaoui trial to protect the airlines contention that nothing could be done. In the process she taints the testimony and jeopardizes the governments chances of executing Moussaoui in order to protect the airlines.

I hope the families take her and the Feds to the cleaners.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-17 15:10|| 2006-03-17 15:10|| Front Page Top

#11 I hope the families take her and the Feds to the cleaners.

Yes, and I hope that the Feds pay for that settlement out of their own funds instead of taxpayer ones.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-03-17 15:32|| 2006-03-17 15:32|| Front Page Top

#12 All Federal Funds, at one time came from us. so we are going to pay, but i second the motion to have Martin and the airlines' laywers up on charges. Now if it can be shown that they acted without direction from the Feds, then the moneies involved should be from their own pockets and not the fed.

Posted by USN, ret. 2006-03-17 16:08|| 2006-03-17 16:08|| Front Page Top

#13 All Federal Funds, at one time came from us.

Glad to see you're paying attention.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-03-17 17:00|| 2006-03-17 17:00|| Front Page Top

#14 I thought we extracted the dough from the poor via tax-osmosis and the lottery.

Posted by 6 2006-03-17 19:19|| 2006-03-17 19:19|| Front Page Top

03:17 Grom the Reflective
02:45 Grom the Reflective
02:23 Grom the Reflective
02:11 Grom the Reflective
01:44 Beldar+Uneter3543
01:38 Grom the Reflective
01:29 Grom the Reflective
01:28 Grom the Reflective
01:26 Grom the Reflective
01:23 Grom the Reflective
01:21 Grom the Reflective
01:18 Grom the Reflective
00:59 Glenmore