NationStates Jolt Archive

Hahahaha!!!!

Fuck him.

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (AP) -- Convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui says he lied on the witness stand about being involved in the plot and wants to withdraw his guilty plea because he now believes he can get a fair trial.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/08/moussaoui.ap/index.html

Lol. On second thought, I'm not guilty. That fact kinda slipped my mind during the first trial, but now I remember!

Its what he should do, and obviously what he was planning to do all along.

Confessions are pretty worthless evidence, because they don't demonstrate anything save for the defendant's ability to sign his name.

He has some very strong grounds for appeals, particularly with his history of making wild, false statements about his involvement in 9/11.

What an idiot. I bet he's also upset that he can't be a martyr and get those virgins. he's gonna rot for the rest of his miserable life!

Its what he should do, and obviously what he was planning to do all along.

Confessions are pretty worthless evidence, because they don't demonstrate anything save for the defendant's ability to sign his name.

He has some very strong grounds for appeals, particularly with his history of making wild, false statements about his involvement in 9/11.
He wasn't convicted based solely on those statements. He was also convicted based on his getting money from the same accounts as money the hijackers got money from, his taking pilots' training and a bunch of corospondance shit..

In anycase, he has no grounds for appeal at all because grounds for appeal is decided by the courts and they decided, long ago, that appeals in confession cases cannot be filed after sentence has been imposed. He signed his waiver knowing full well what he signed. If he hadn't wanted to go on the stand so badly so he could tell everyone how he laughed when he heard those frantic cries of people calling 911 then he could appeal. He wanted to rub salt in the wounds of 9-11 so badly that he gave up his right to appeal.

Even if he did lie, wouldn't it be wise to say that during the trial. There's no take backs after a sentence has been handed down.

He wasn't convicted based solely on those statements. He was also convicted based on his getting money from the same accounts as money the hijackers got money from, his taking pilots' training and a bunch of corospondance shit..

In anycase, he has no grounds for appeal at all because grounds for appeal is decided by the courts and they decided, long ago, that appeals in confession cases cannot be filed after sentence has been imposed. He signed his waiver knowing full well what he signed. If he hadn't wanted to go on the stand so badly so he could tell everyone how he laughed when he heard those frantic cries of people calling 911 then he could appeal. He wanted to rub salt in the wounds of 9-11 so badly that he gave up his right to appeal.


He wasnt convicted on the basis of any evidence, he plead guilty and did not go to trial.

He wasnt convicted on the basis of any evidence, he plead guilty and did not go to trial.
But there were reams of evidence supporting this. he didn't just stand up after 9-11 and say, "Hey! I was gonna do that!" The authorities found him because they were tracking financials and they led them to him. Once they found him they looked at emails, searched his crib and found letters and manuals and all sorts of shit. That aside, he still knowingly signed a waiver that stated explicitly that, post sentencing, he gets no appeals. Ergo, he has no grounds for appeal. Grounds for appeal means he has a reason for appeal grounded in law and the law says, "no, you don't."

But there were reams of evidence supporting this. he didn't just stand up after 9-11 and say, "Hey! I was gonna do that!" The authorities found him because they were tracking financials and they led them to him. Once they found him they looked at emails, searched his crib and found letters and manuals and all sorts of shit. That aside, he still knowingly signed a waiver that stated explicitly that, post sentencing, he gets no appeals. Ergo, he has no grounds for appeal. Grounds for appeal means he has a reason for appeal grounded in law and the law says, "no, you don't."


Unless he could demonstrate that signing the waiver was coerced, or that he was not of sound mind at the time.

Unless he could demonstrate that signing the waiver was coerced, or that he was not of sound mind at the time.

Are you defending this lousy wart?

He doesn't have grounds for appeal From what I'm seeing, the trial was done fairly and within the rules of the court. Since there has been no violation of court procedure, there is not grounds for appeal.

Are you defending this lousy wart?

He doesn't have grounds for appeal From what I'm seeing, the trial was done fairly and within the rules of the court. Since there has been no violation of court procedure, there is not grounds for appeal.


No corny, I'm defending the notion that insane people should not be imprisoned, and that confessions are shakey grounds for conviction.

Remember, he was not found guilty, he plead guilty. He's confessed repeatedly to a lot of things that aren't true.

No corny, I'm defending the notion that insane people should not be imprisoned, and that confessions are shakey grounds for conviction.

And how is he insane when they didn't go for the insanity defense?

Remember, he was not found guilty, he plead guilty. He's confessed repeatedly to a lot of things that aren't true.

Remember something, he made that choice himself. Not our fault he was being a jerk. Also, he isn't insane for they did not plead insanity. They did not go for the insanity defense. I doubt the jury would've bought it anyway.

And how is he insane when they didn't go for the insanity defense?



Remember something, he made that choice himself. Not our fault he was being a jerk. Also, he isn't insane for they did not plead insanity. They did not go for the insanity defense. I doubt the jury would've bought it anyway.


I dont remember claiming he went for the insanity defense, he signed a confession instead.

He certainly seems insane though, and if he can demonstrate that the confession was coerced or that he was less-than-sane when he signed it, he has a shot at getting a jury trial.

If he wants to mount an insanity defense, thats where he'd have to do it.

It's humorous according to a radio story on this. Apparently Moussaoui claimed the only reason he confessed to the charges and went on the "Death to America and God Protect Osama Bin Ladin" rant was he expected no mercy at all from the court and to be put to death as an example. After the sentencing he was finally convinced that his attorneys were right about the impartiality of the American Justice System.

Sorry Zach but you confessed and expected to be a martyr, and you got life instead. Them's the breaks.

Sort of like that Twilight Zone episode where a condemned man makes a deal with the Devil for immortality so he could survive the electric chair, only to have his sentence commuted to Life in Prison.

...and your ignorance of your own laws...:rolleyes:

Once a conviction has been handed down and you have been sentenced, you may NOT withdraw or change your plea. The appelate court will not hear his case either. This is just another attempt to stay in the eye of the media. The sooner we forget about this farce of a trial and this maniac, the better.

...and your ignorance of your own laws...:rolleyes:

Once a conviction has been handed down and you have been sentenced, you may NOT withdraw or change your plea. The appelate court will not hear his case either. This is just another attempt to stay in the eye of the media. The sooner we forget about this farce of a trial and this maniac, the better.

Moussaoui is not an American :rolleyes:

Indeed he cannot simply "change his mind," but there are grounds other than 'changing your mind' to have a conviction based on a guilty plea vacated and a jury trial held.

Indeed he cannot simply "change his mind," but there are grounds other than 'changing your mind' to have a conviction based on a guilty plea vacated and a jury trial held.

I believe it has already been explained to you that he cannot appeal.

He's just pissed that he can't be a martyr. At first I was hoping they would fry his sorry ass, but then I realize that if they do, he would be hailed as a martyr to the Islamic World, so life in prison is better. I wonder if he would still be considered a martyr if he went the way of Jeffery Daharmer.

I think he took one look at his cell in supermax, realised that he was going to be in it for a very, very long time; and that once in, the only news statement anyone would print from him any more would be the one (many years later) saying, "9/11 terrorist dies in sleep in prision".

And then suddenly, "Wait! I was testing y'all, I lied, can I get a trial now?"

I believe it has already been explained to you that he cannot appeal.


Go to findlaw and look this up corny.

JOHNSON v. ZERBST



"A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. "

Do some research for yourself into what "intelligent waiver" entails.

Like I said, correctly, and you either did not read or did not understand:

"Indeed he cannot simply "change his mind," but there are grounds other than 'changing your mind' to have a conviction based on a guilty plea vacated and a jury trial held."

This is why it is so difficult to take the War on Terror seriously. Because the people we are supposed to be up against, are n00bs. :rolleyes:

Go to findlaw and look this up corny.

JOHNSON v. ZERBST



"A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. "
Question though, that rulling seems to apply to waving the right to counsel and attempting to represent yourself, not signing a confession. I am not sure if it is applicable in this case, though I see where you are coming from with it.

Can the courts stall an appeal case? You know, stall it until he's dead?

Question though, that rulling seems to apply to waving the right to counsel and attempting to represent yourself, not signing a confession. I am not sure if it is applicable in this case, though I see where you are coming from with it.
Which happens to be exactly what he did. He did both. Raises an interesting "ineffective counsel" argument.

Yea, but the appeals court can always turn down the case, which is what they'll probably do.

And here I thought he was a badass, what with insulting American soldiers right to their face. He’s gone soft.

Which happens to be exactly what he did. He did both. Raises an interesting "ineffective counsel" argument.
He was represented by counsel. He ignored them, but he was still represented.

Question though, that rulling seems to apply to waving the right to counsel and attempting to represent yourself, not signing a confession. I am not sure if it is applicable in this case, though I see where you are coming from with it.


Indeed, though the reasoning behind it, the standard it sets for waiving significant constitutional rights, appears to apply to jury trials as well.

Ibid,. the Justice explains that courts should always be extremely wary of honoring any waiver of rights.

Unless he could demonstrate that signing the waiver was coerced, or that he was not of sound mind at the time.
That shouldn't be too difficult? He doesn't seem quite... stable.

:eek: He's mad, mad I tell you, MAD!!!

Two things:

1. The precedent in question is not about waiving right to counsel. He had counsel.

2. The precedent also spells out the limit to appeal. It does not say you cannot appeal, it says that you must appeal before sentencing.

I'd be very surprised if they give him a new trial.

That shouldn't be too difficult? He doesn't seem quite... stable.

:eek: He's mad, mad I tell you, MAD!!!
He'd have to prove that he didn't know what he was doing. In law crazy often isn't crazy enough. I could go out and kill a bunch of people and use their parts plus some typewriter and television parts to try to build a cyborg. Sounds crazy, right? In a court of law I wouldn't succeed with a Not Guilty by reason of Insanity plea.

He'd have to prove that he didn't know what he was doing. In law crazy often isn't crazy enough. I could go out and kill a bunch of people and use their parts plus some typewriter and television parts to try to build a cyborg. Sounds crazy, right? In a court of law I wouldn't succeed with a Not Guilty by reason of Insanity plea.
Thanks.

The legal definition is whether he knew right from wrong. You can be a diagnosed schitzophrenic and still lose an insanity plea if teh prosecution can prove you knew your actiosn were wrong.

I'd be very surprised if they give him a new trial.

If they could "assemble" a jury who they think will hand out a death sentence, the prosecution just might say "sure...we'll retry..."

If they could "assemble" a jury who they think will hand out a death sentence, the prosecution just might say "sure...we'll retry..."
Makes no difference what the prosecution wants. All that matters is whether his lawyers can get a court to grant a new trial. In order to do that he has to find legal grounds upon which a retrial can be granted.

Makes no difference what the prosecution wants. All that matters is whether his lawyers can get a court to grant a new trial. In order to do that he has to find legal grounds upon which a retrial can be granted.

*sigh*

I am an educated American, I know how our legal system works. It was a joke. J.O.K.E.

But for arguments sake, suppose if the government were to taint the jury pool to ensure a guilty verdict, then they could just get one of the procecutors to admitt withholding some piece of evidence- giving him grounds for a retrial. The AG's office could not oppose a new trial, so the judge would not have to consider the weight of the withheld evidence and merely grant the retrail on it's face value. Then a new procecution team could take over, get a guilty verdict, and the jury can hand out the sentence he should have gotten in the first place.

He'd have to prove that he didn't know what he was doing. In law crazy often isn't crazy enough. I could go out and kill a bunch of people and use their parts plus some typewriter and television parts to try to build a cyborg. Sounds crazy, right? In a court of law I wouldn't succeed with a Not Guilty by reason of Insanity plea.
;)

Just sayin' that this guy seems to be mad as a lorry, completely of his rocker, crazy as a wet hen, sane as a brick...

Two things:

1. The precedent in question is not about waiving right to counsel. He had counsel.

2. The precedent also spells out the limit to appeal. It does not say you cannot appeal, it says that you must appeal before sentencing.

I'd be very surprised if they give him a new trial.


Read above, there's no reason to explain the same thing twice in a three-page thread.

Read above, there's no reason to explain the same thing twice in a three-page thread.
I read your post and it ignores the issue here. The only issue here is whether he can appeal a verdict after sentencing. The Supreme Court says no. In order for him to use insanity now he would have to prove that the court improperly threw out an insanity defense or evidence that spoke to said defense. Since he did not present an insanity defense at trial he cannot appeal that. In order for him to say he refused counsel in error he would have to have not been represented by counsel. He was represented by counsel. The only other option he has is to prove that the judge erred in some procedural matter. He's not even claiming that and would probably not be able to prove it anyway and in this case, since he is now convicted, the burdon of proof is no longer on the prosecution, it is on him. He simply has no grounds for appeal that I can see and none have been presented in this thread largely because the issue that prevents it, namely that the Supreme Court says you can't appeal after sentencing based solely on a desire to change yoru plea, has been ignored or minimized.

who?? we all should know that bush did 11/9.

who?? we all should know that bush did 11/9.

Only in your mind.

;)

Just sayin' that this guy seems to be mad as a lorry, completely of his rocker, crazy as a wet hen, sane as a brick...
And I'm just saying the "return" key keeps sticking and the flyback transformer from the TV keeps shorting out causing the body to convulse uncontrolably.

who?? we all should know that bush did 11/9.
We all know you're a gullible fool for believing that despite all the evidence.

who?? we all should know that bush did 11/9.
sure!

What did Bush do on the 9th of november?

We all know you're a gullible fool for believing that despite all the evidence.
what evidence. The official story defies the laws of physics, which is not something that muslims can change. Watch this (http://www.bushflash.com/swf/wtc.swf) and this (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm) for more proof..

sure!

What did Bush do on the 9th of november?
I am talking about the 11th of September.

what evidence. The official story defies the laws of physics, which is not something that muslims can change. Watch this (http://www.bushflash.com/swf/wtc.swf) and this (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm) for more proof..

Both have been debunked so many times on this forum, do we have to go through it again?

And I'm just saying the "return" key keeps sticking and the flyback transformer from the TV keeps shorting out causing the body to convulse uncontrolably.
Yeah, don't you just hate that?

I read your post and it ignores the issue here. The only issue here is whether he can appeal a verdict after sentencing. The Supreme Court says no. In order for him to use insanity now he would have to prove that the court improperly threw out an insanity defense or evidence that spoke to said defense. Since he did not present an insanity defense at trial he cannot appeal that. In order for him to say he refused counsel in error he would have to have not been represented by counsel. He was represented by counsel. The only other option he has is to prove that the judge erred in some procedural matter. He's not even claiming that and would probably not be able to prove it anyway and in this case, since he is now convicted, the burdon of proof is no longer on the prosecution, it is on him. He simply has no grounds for appeal that I can see and none have been presented in this thread largely because the issue that prevents it, namely that the Supreme Court says you can't appeal after sentencing based solely on a desire to change yoru plea, has been ignored or minimized.


From post #17:
"Indeed he cannot simply "change his mind," but there are grounds other than 'changing your mind' to have a conviction based on a guilty plea vacated and a jury trial held."

One of these grounds is a guilty plea which is less than an "intelligent admission," either through coercion or through lack of comprehension of what it entailed.

This may not be what he's attempting right now, but it might be his most viable contention down the line.

HENDERSON v. MORGAN and other cases were appeals of guilty pleas post-sentencing.

Both have been debunked so many times on this forum, do we have to go through it again?
No. Some people won't believe dog shit stinks even if you rub their noses in it. It's like religion. You believe it because you want tio, not because the evidence is there.

Both have been debunked so many times on this forum, do we have to go through it again?
I don't know what you are saying. WAKE UP!! this whole official story was weitten just so bush could use 11/9 as a propaganda device.

i am suprised he didnt try to play the mentally ill card more

From post #17:
"Indeed he cannot simply "change his mind," but there are grounds other than 'changing your mind' to have a conviction based on a guilty plea vacated and a jury trial held."

One of these grounds is a guilty plea which is less than an "intelligent admission," either through coercion or through lack of comprehension of what it entailed.

This may not be what he's attempting right now, but it might be his most viable contention down the line.

HENDERSON v. MORGAN and other cases were appeals of guilty pleas post-sentencing.
But it must be appealed on those grounds before sentencing. It's too late.

I don't know what you are saying. WAKE UP!! this whole official story was weitten just so bush could use 11/9 as a propaganda device.

Oh brother. I think you are in a very extreme Minority who do not recognize proof when it hits you upside the head. The proof has been presented in so many threads that this has become rediculous.

No, you're using the lies in your conspiracy theory as a propaganda device to clear the terrorists of blame and attack bush. Bush isn't a good president, but you are a complete fool if you think the US government could kill three thousand of it's own citizens and keep it a secret. You're also a lousy person if you're seeking to exonerate the guilty of blame for killing 3,000 people.
I do not support terrorism in any way shape or form. Thats why I will not fall for the lies of the official story.

No, you're using the lies in your conspiracy theory as a propaganda device to clear the terrorists of blame and attack bush. Bush isn't a good president, but you are a complete fool if you think the US government could kill three thousand of it's own citizens and keep it a secret. You're also a lousy person if you're seeking to exonerate the guilty of blame for killing 3,000 people.
Not to mention the assumption that Bush et. al. have the intellectual capability to pull it off. He's WAY too incompetent to do that.

I do not support terrorism in any way shape or form. Thats why I will not fall for the lies of the official story.

Despite the fact that the official story is really a true story of what happened?

i am suprised he didnt try to play the mentally ill card more
I have a sneaking suspicion that he didn't because, well, he is mentally ill! :)

Not to mention the assumption that Bush et. al. have the intellectual capability to pull it off. He's WAY too incompetent to do that.
well, of course he's incompetent, look at his poor handling of hurricane Katrina. however, I am sore that bush did 11/9, becuase he, like anyone other incompent leader, wants to rule the world, and he needed some excuse to start his stupid wars.

Sort of like that Twilight Zone episode where a condemned man makes a deal with the Devil for immortality so he could survive the electric chair, only to have his sentence commuted to Life in Prison.

Irony?
Damn man, that'd suck huge.

well, of course he's incompetent, look at his poor handling of hurricane Katrina. however, I am sore that bush did 11/9, becuase he, like anyone other incompent leader, wants to rule the world, and he needed some excuse to start his stupid wars.

When losing a debate, invoke Katrina, forgetting that all government levels screwed up Katrina.

You're a useful idiot to the terrorists. You're an embarrassment to all who oppose Bush. All in all, you're a useless, pointless, gullible fool.
No. You might as well think Michael Jackson is a ballerina, becuas ehtats just about as false as your statement. and you have to be gullible to fall for the official 11/9 story, which I did not fall for.

With people like you around Bush and pals will always have someone to point to to paint the left as stupid and anti-american. You're Bush's best ally.
I am not left-wing. look at my sig.

I am not left-wing. look at my sig.

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

Yep.... you are to the left of center :D

I am not left-wing. look at my sig.
You know what? I'm deleting all my posts to you on this thread. They can be construed as flaming. This will be my last response to you because you're not worth the time. Consider for a moment, all your "evidence" has been debunked in previous threads. The laws of physics and the video actually show the conspiracy theory to be false. Your argument isn't based on evidence, just on pig-headed obstinacy. Every post you write on this subject makes people respect you less. As for me, I couldn't respect you any less.

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

Yep.... you are to the left of center :D
Oh really:
Left/Right: 7.63
That obviously means I am not left of centre.

Oh really:
Left/Right: 7.63
That obviously means I am not left of centre.

that's your economic rating. Not your social libertarian/Authoritarian rating. your SL/A is to the left of center.

You know what? I'm deleting all my posts to you on this thread. They can be construed as flaming. This will be my last response to you because you're not worth the time. Consider for a moment, all your "evidence" has been debunked in previous threads. The laws of physics and the video actually show the conspiracy theory to be false. Your argument isn't based on evidence, just on pig-headed obstinacy. Every post you write on this subject makes people respect you less. As for me, I couldn't respect you any less.
More to the point, it has been debunked by engineers who actually know what they are talking about like in here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Moussaoui is not an American :rolleyes:

That has nothing to do with it. And I think you underestimate our little friend, he has had plenty of time to learn all about our laws. Regardless, hes gone now so move on.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But it must be appealed on those grounds before sentencing. It's too late.

You claim there is a Supreme Court decision to this effect. Could you name that case?

I believe you are confused. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) provides:

After the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack.

Thus, a guilty plea may not be withdrawn after sentencing, but it can be set aside on direct appeal or collateral attack. A guilty plea does not necessarily void one's right to appeal. (Note: Judge Brinkema summarily dismissed Moussaoui's motion per FRCP 11(e) (http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:01-cr-00455/docs/72456/0.pdf)).

A guilty plea may include or constitute a waiver of grounds for appeal or the right to appeal. Even in those circumstances, appeals are possible (but severely limited).

Moussaoui's motion to withdraw his plea did not contend that his plea was not "knowing, voluntary, or intelligent." Nor did it raise any other issue that would appear to be basis for appeal. Thus, nothing would indicate that Moussaoui has any grounds to appeal -- but that is different from saying he is unable to appeal or challenge collaterally his conviction/sentence.

But it must be appealed on those grounds before sentencing. It's too late.

Read above, the case I cited.

"Respondent was indicted for first-degree murder, but by agreement with the prosecution and on counsel's advice respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced."

The first sentence.

Why didn't you read it?

I've answered your false statements and been polite, now you must answer my question.

Why didn't you read it?

You know what? I'm deleting all my posts to you on this thread. They can be construed as flaming. This will be my last response to you because you're not worth the time. Consider for a moment, all your "evidence" has been debunked in previous threads. The laws of physics and the video actually show the conspiracy theory to be false. Your argument isn't based on evidence, just on pig-headed obstinacy. Every post you write on this subject makes people respect you less. As for me, I couldn't respect you any less.

Good move. I put him on ignore ages ago, and the only time I see any of his stuff is when someone quotes it.

Apparently the thought of spending the next 80 years in a jail cell 23 hour a day in a cell in what is basically isolation (he couldnt be allowed contact with other inmates and the guards would be none to friendly), doesnt appeal to him.
I personally think its far better than a death sentence. Somebody, I think it was the judge, said something along the lines of 'You will be forgotten', and I think that is the worst possible sentence in his mind.
Personally, I would take death over a life sentence any day, especially a sentence to a Supermax prison. Having every aspect of my life strictly controlled by guards would not be fun. Most of them dont even have prison libraries :P

As to the French wanting us to extradite Moussaoui (its mentioned in one of those articles on CNN) so he can be imprisoned in the same country where his mother lives...I say screw the French. If Moussaoui is extradited to anywhere, it should be to the NorthWest province of Canada with nothing but his prison jumpsuit. Then they can make a reality show out of it.
Mmmmm, thats good irony.

Ahhh well he had his 15 minutes and wants more .

let him rot . Justice was served . The sooner he fades away into the dark hole his existance now occupies the better.

I still cant believe this buffoon represents the face of the enemy . he's as dumb as mud ...You gotta ask if the enemy is as dumb as this wanker..why are they not dead yet ?