We reported on the case of convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmieh Odeh (aka Rasmea Yousef), who is charged with falsely filling out her naturalization application by failing to disclose her conviction in Israel in the late 1960s on terrorism charges in connection with a supermarket bombing.

Odeh sought to contest that Israeli conviction as part of the current fraud trial, but the court rejected the request finding that whether or not she was justly convicted in Israel would not be relevant to her duty to disclose the conviction.

The Judge completely rejected various means by which Odeh sought to introduce her alleged torture and confession, and ruled that Israeli records of the conviction could be introduced, Devastating pre-trial rulings against Rasmieh Odeh in naturalization prosecution.

The result of the court’s ruling left Odeh with no viable defense. All the prosecution has to do is introduce the Israeli conviction and then her application which doesn’t disclose the conviction. While supporters of Odeh are screaming that this is an injustice, the Judge explained the legal authority behind his decisions in great detail.

Odeh could have disclosed the conviction when applying for naturalization with the explanation that it (allegedly) was the result of torture, but instead she made a false statement that she had no conviction. That is the sole legal issue, regardless of how much Odeh’s supporters claim the long arm of Zionism is persecuting her.

The Court just issued its Order with regard to the Final Pretrial Conference (embedded at bottom of post).

The Court (i) denied Odeh’s request for a postponement, noting that the case originally was scheduled for trial January 2014, and (ii) denied defendant access to Jury Questionnaires based on a local court Rule.

The Court also rejected oral motions at the conference on the very issues the Court previously rejected in writing:

(2) The Court will permit the Government to utilize Microsoft power point during its opening argument. Defendant’s objection to the Government’s use of Defendant’s Visa Application is OVERRULED. If Defendant provides the Court with authority for her contention that this evidence is inadmissible under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court will review such authority and may revisit its current decision.

(3) Defendant’s oral motion to allow Defendant to testify about her post-traumatic stress disorder is DENIED.

(4) Defendant’s oral motion to allow Defendant to testify about her background is
GRANTED IN PART. Defendant may provide some background facts, but may not testify to the torture she may have suffered in 1969.

The issue on the conviction not only is a legal sideshow, it is a factual sideshow.

Even this article supportive of Odeh acknowledges that there is evidence apart from Odeh’s confession that she was involved with the bombing, the only issue being whether she planted the bomb (for which she was convicted):

In the film, Ayesha Odeh discusses an operation involving the planting of a bomb at a West Jerusalem market called Super Saul. She explains that her role in the operation was minimal, saying, “I only got involved in the preparation of explosives. We wanted to place two bombs to blow up consecutively. I suggested to have the second bomb go off 5 or 6 minutes after the first bomb so that those who get killed in it would be members of the army and secret service but it did not explode… They diffused it 20 seconds before it exploded…”

She goes on to say that, “Rasmiyeh Oudeh [Rasmea Odeh] was more involved than I was, and Rasheedah Obeiduh had gone and studied the location and had come and done a report back.”

The criminal case for which Rasmea Odeh was convicted, however, charged that she was the one who placed the bomb in the market, according to Ruebner, who reviewed Odeh’s 1979 testimony before the U.N. He told MintPress, “She’s always maintained that she did not place the bomb in that supermarket.”

Odeh previously turned down a plea deal that would have kept her out of prison, but would have resulted in deportation.

Given that Odeh does not appear to have any viable defense now that she cannot put Israel on trial, she may be regretting — or perhaps reconsidering — that decision.

Rasmieh Odeh Case – Final PreTrial Conference Order Denying Motion for Continuance

[Featured Image: Rasmieh Odeh at earlier arraignment before Judge Paul Borman, who recused himself.]