IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA     
Case No. 1:08-cr-131
v.
SAMI AMIN AL-ARIAN

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF LINDA MORENO, ESQ.

I, Linda Moreno, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice in the state of Florida and its Middle
District, and I was co-counsel with William Moffitt, Esq. in the criminal
proceedings in Florida in the matter of United States vs. Sami Amin Al-Arian,
Case No. 8:03-cr-77. 
2. This Declaration is meant to supplement my Declaration of October 25, 2006 that
I wrote for the above referenced Florida proceeding. 
3. I write this Declaration to more specifically address the issue of “cooperation,”
our understanding and our client’s understanding of “cooperation,” and our plea
negotiations with the government on behalf of Dr. Al-Arian as it related to
“cooperation.”
4.  Without a doubt, Dr. Al-Arian knew and understood the concept of “cooperation”
to include, among other things, testimony before any future grand jury because
both Mr. Moffitt and I fully explained it to him in this manner. As a criminal


Case 1:08-cr-00131-LMB     Document 95-3      Filed 02/19/2009     Page 2 of 6

defense attorney for nearly 30 years, I have customarily explained the issue of
“cooperation” to include, among other things, grand jury testimony to numerous
clients and, without question, explained the same to Dr. Al-Arian.
5.  Without doubt,  Dr. Al-Arian understood and rejected any notion of cooperation,
especially testifying before any future grand jury,  because of its potential harm to
him in two significant ways: 
1) Such cooperation posed a potential danger to his life. This was specifically
discussed as it related to Dr. Al-Arian’s uncertain future in the unknown
country to which he would be deported. A reputation as a cooperating
witness for the United States government would have branded Dr. Al-
Arian, in some dangerous circles, as a “snitch” and could have subjected
him to violence or worse. 
2) And such cooperation would inevitably delay the expedited deportation
that the government promised, and which was specifically bargained for in
the plea agreement.  In fact, Dr. Al-Arian’s attorneys, led by Simon
Gaugush, met with Department of Homeland Security officials to discuss
deportation issues and release dates in an effort to confirm that Dr. Al-
Arian would be deported in the weeks after entering his plea.  Expedited
deportation was critical to the plea agreement, and the government
acknowledged that when they agreed to assist in a speedy, uncomplicated
process of deportation.1

1 It should also be noted here that Dr. Al-Arian considered the impact of any plea
agreement on his devoted family, which included his five children.  During the 6 month

trial and the subsequent plea negotiations, two of his youngest children were sent out of

the country to live with family members for their own well being (one child is still living
out of the country).  An expedited deportation would insure Dr. Al-Arian’s speedy
reunification with his loved ones. And his rejection of any cooperation provision would
also insure his safe return to his family, avoiding any potential threats from persons who
might feel betrayed by such cooperation.


Case 1:08-cr-00131-LMB     Document 95-3      Filed 02/19/2009     Page 3 of 6

6. On April 6, 2005, before trial and upon our request, Mr. Moffitt and I met with
Assistant United States Attorneys Terry Zitek, Cherie Krigsman and Walter Furr
to discuss any potential plea agreement.
7. At that meeting, AUSA Furr suggested that the government was looking for
“100% cooperation” because, as he suggested, Dr. Al-Arian was “connected.”  In
fact, Mr. Furr mentioned the witness protection program as a possible scenario for
Dr. Al-Arian and his family.  Mr. Moffitt immediately made it clear to the
government that any successful plea agreement could not include any cooperation
provision. He specifically explained that the only acceptable plea agreement
would have to end all business between Dr. Al-Arian and the government.  Grand
jury testimony would prolong, indefinitely and dangerously, further business with
the government; this was clearly unacceptable and Mr. Moffitt was unambiguous
about it.  
8. Thus, even before Dr. Al-Arian’s successes in his first trial, when his exposure if
convicted was life in prison, the issue of cooperation, including testifying before a
grand jury, was never acceptable. Understandably, after the government lost the
first trial, when the defense was in a much stronger position to negotiate a
favorable plea disposition, cooperation was immediately rejected. 
9. Over the initial two and a half years of Dr. Al-Arian’s pretrial incarceration, I
personally visited him in the local Tampa jails and at USP Coleman over 150


Case 1:08-cr-00131-LMB     Document 95-3      Filed 02/19/2009     Page 4 of 6

times.  We had lengthy discussions over all aspects of his case, his trial, and
possible sentencing scenarios.  I knew Dr. Al-Arian to be someone of profound
personal faith, deeply committed to the cause of Palestinians under the Israeli
occupation.  I understood that the notion of testifying before a grand jury against
other Palestinians would be morally repugnant to Dr. Al-Arian, even if it meant
his freedom. Mr. Moffitt and I had no doubt that Dr. Al-Arian would never agree
to cooperate with the government in any manner, including grand jury
investigations. 
10.  As I stated in my original Declaration, we wanted to bind the United States as a
sovereign to the plea agreement.  It was manifestly clear to the government
lawyers in Tampa, and the Counter-Terrorism section of the U.S. Department of
Justice, that Dr. Al-Arian understood and signed the plea agreement believing he
would never have to testify in any existing and  future cases. 
11. In late May 2006,  I received the phone call from AUSA Krigsman where she
explained that Dr. Al-Arian would be subpoenaed before the Eastern District of
Virginia grand jury, I expressed my shock and disappointment over such an
egregious violation to our agreement, signed only a few weeks previously.  In an
apologetic tone, Ms. Krigsman asserted that she had been unaware of the
subpoena prior to that point.  Contrary to Mr. Kromberg’s new position, AUSA
Krigsman never asserted that her understanding was that the plea agreement (that
she negotiated) left open the issue of Dr. Al-Arian’s cooperation as a grand jury
witness.


Case 1:08-cr-00131-LMB     Document 95-3      Filed 02/19/2009     Page 5 of 6

12. Since Mr. Moffitt and I negotiated the terms and conditions of this plea agreement
with the Justice Department, I have watched, in horror, Mr. Kromberg manipulate
and pervert its meaning to this Honorable Court. As a defense attorney, my sense
of confidence in dealing with the Department of Justice has been undermined by
the blind eye that the AUSA of the Eastern District of Virginia has turned to our
honestly brokered negotiations in the Middle District of Florida.  The Justice
Department should not be able to negotiate plea agreements in one jurisdiction
and then ignore them in another.

In conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Linda Moreno, Esq. declare under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on February 17, 2009.

/s/ Linda Moreno
Linda Moreno

Case 1:08-cr-00131-LMB     Document 95-3      Filed 02/19/2009     Page 6 of 6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*