https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbXPqWGGQ5U&ab_channel=FRONTLINEPBS%7COfficial
The Man Who Knew (full documentary) | FRONTLINE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HEg8maeZ8M&ab_channel=CTV911
Bill Cooper predicts 9/11 in June 2001 & Introduction MAVs
Mobbed-up US “justice” system delivers 9/11 injustice
“If there were any justice in the USA, the entire federal bench would be hanged by the neck until dead. (But don’t worry, there isn’t.)”
Press TV
It has been widely reported that the FBI was run for decades by Jewish mafia boss Meyer Lansky thanks to Lansky’s blackmail photos of closet homosexual J.Edgar Hoover in various unflattering poses. It is less well-known that the Bureau is still controlled – at least at the top – by organized crime. FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has testified that the Bureau is full of mafia moles who enjoy high-level protection. She even implicates the FBI’s leadership in the 9/11 cover-up.
Sadly, the US federal courts are dominated by the same crime mob. A long series of federal court decisions, including several involving 9/11, have made a mockery of justice, blaming the victims and blessing the perpetrators with a disregard for logic and evidence that makes the courtroom scene in Alice and Wonderland seem a model of judicial probity.
The latest example comes to us thanks to the Zionist-run New York Daily News: On Monday, Manhattan Federal Magistrate Judge Frank Maas “awarded 9/11 relatives $6 billion in their suit targeting Al Qaeda and silent partner Iran for complicity in the heinous plot that killed nearly 3,000 people.”
Iran!? Despite a decade of Zionist propaganda, virtually nobody in the world is crazy enough to imagine that Iran would collaborate with anti-Shia al-CIA-duh extremists on anything, least of all 9/11. The judge might as well blame a conspiracy between Elvis Presley and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.
In reality, Iran was intended to be the biggest victim of 9/11. The intellectual architects of 9/11 – Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Benjamin Netanyahu, Philip Zelikow, and other neocons – treasonously orchestrated 9/11 in order to use the US military as cannon fodder in wars for Israel. They used 9/11 to launch Netanyahu’s “Clean Break,” otherwise known as the Wolfowitz Plan, to impose regime change on Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia and (most importantly of all) Iran.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the considered view of Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former head of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College, and of a great many other high-level insiders in the US military and intelligence community. Dr. Sabrosky has discussed with his War College colleagues the “100% certainty” that Israel and its US assets, including the neocons in the Bush Administration, did 9/11.
Judge Maas’s delirious fantasy that Shi’a-majority Iran helped the anti-Shi’a extremists of al-Qaeda perpetrate 9/11 is just the latest insane, treasonous ruling from an American federal court.
Let’s review a brief history of 9/11 treason on the federal bench.
Perhaps the most outrageous traitor posing as a federal judge is Alvin K. Hellerstein. Judge Hellerstein is a notorious asset of the Zionist crime mob that runs New York, which is why he was chosen as the choke point through which most New York 9/11 litigation must pass.
Hellerstein’s wife and son Joseph have “made aliyah” to Occupied Palestine; Joseph currently lives in an illegal settlement on the West Bank. Journalist Christopher Bollyn, who was run out of the US by the Zionist crime mob and its judicial assets, has reported that Hellerstein worked with “Bugsy” Siegel’s criminal syndicate in the 1950s smuggling weapons to Israel. Bollyn also reports that Hellerstein came to the federal bench from the Zionist-mob law firm of Stroock, Stroock & Lavan, which represented Silverstein Properties when Larry Silverstein acquired the lease for the World Trade Center in July 2001. Because he is a made man at Stroock, Stroock and Levin, Judge Hellerstein has an obvious conflict of interest that should prevent him from hearing any case involving Larry Silverstein. But Zionist mobsters aren’t concerned about such niceties as conflict of interest. Hellerstein is currently presiding over Larry Silverstein’s attempt to squeeze insurance agencies for 12.3 billion dollars.
Back in 2007, Hellerstein’s Zionist mob associate, Judge Michael Mukasey, awarded his fellow mobster Larry Silverstein double indemnity for the destruction of the World Trade Center – the very destruction that Silverstein has confessed on national television that he helped orchestrate!
Silverstein, a reputed mobster and close friend of Netanyahu whose path to fortune began in the illicit sex industry, completed his purchase of the condemned, asbestos-ridden World Trade Center two months before 9/11 with the help of Judge Hellerstein’s old law firm. He doubled the insurance and hard-balled his insurers into changing the policy to “cash payout.” WikiSpooks reports:
Silverstein had breakfast in “Windows on the World” restaurant (located in North Tower 107th Floor) every morning but was absent from this routine meeting on the morning of September the 11th. Silverstein’s two children, who also worked in the WTC, decided to take that day off as well.
Everyone at Windows on the World (minus the Silversteins) died.
9/11 was the luckiest day of Larry Silverstein’s life. Had the World Trade Center not been destroyed, Silverstein would have been bankrupted within months. Instead, after hitting the jackpot on 9/11, he demanded double indemnity on the already-doubled insurance, claiming he had been victimized by two completely separate and unrelated terrorist attacks: the two planes. Judge Mukasey agreed with that bizarre argument, creating a new legal principle: Jewish lightning CAN strike twice in the same place.
But Silverstein (and Hellerstein) apparently didn’t think that 4.6 billion dollars was a big enough jackpot. In 2008, Silverstein walked into Hellerstein’s courtroom demanding another 12.3 billion dollar payout! And Hellerstein appears to be doing everything possible to put the squeeze on the insurers and deliver Silverstein his billions.
Judge Hellerstein’s treason goes far beyond colluding with Larry Silverstein in the mother of all insurance frauds. Hellerstein has done all he could to block the lawsuits of every 9/11 victim who has gone to court seeking truth and demanding justice. For example, he illegally quashed the lawsuits of Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband on 9/11 and sued Bush Administration officials for perpetrating the September attacks. Hellerstein blatantly violated the law in closing Mariani’s lawsuits without a hearing, on the grounds that as a widow she has no standing to ask for damages in the death of her husband! (If a widow doesn’t have standing, who on earth does?)
Another traitor usurping the federal bench is Judge Ilston of the District Court in Northern California. Ilston dismissed Stanley Hilton’s suit against George Bush and his cabinet for perpetrating the 9/11 attacks on the basis of “sovereign immunity.” In other words, Judge Ilston ruled that the President and his cabinet are “sovereigns” who are Constitutionally authorized to mass-murder Americans in false-flag terror attacks at will.
Another traitor posing as a federal judge – a man whose chutzpah rivals that of Hellerstein and Silverstein combined – is Judge John Walker, a cousin of the two former Presidents Bush. Judge Walker refused to recuse himself from Pentagon victim April Gallop’s case alleging that George W. Bush and his neocon cabinet orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. When Gallop’s attorney William Veale pointed out the monumental conflict of interest, Walker and his two co-panelists had the chutzpah to issue punitive sanctions against Veale for “impugning the integrity of a federal judge”!
These are just a few of the many thousands of examples illustrating that the US federal judiciary today operates as an appendage of organized crime, and is guilty of treason against the Constitution of the United States of America. If there were any justice in the USA, the entire federal bench would be hanged by the neck until dead. (But don’t worry, there isn’t.)
Rebecca J Rutter
52 Lane Road,
Derry, NH 03038
Phone 603 434-0068
Ellen Mariani
Rebecca Rutter, Robert Morgan (and opposing counsel) Thomas Pappas and Charles Capace
The court records also revealed that Phillip Berg claimed
not to have made any legal errors in the case according to Mariani--absent a
court-adjudicated legal opinion from Judge O'Neill--since Mariani said:
"No one on either side of this case presented me with legal documentation
as to the nature of these so-called grave errors and fatal flaws which Phillip
Berg committed. Mr. Berg even told me last night (last Wednesday) that 'these
legal claims and accusations are not valid. I did nothing wrong.' "
Mariani said in the petition that "Rebecca Rutter and Robert Morgan told
me that I was going to lose the MOTION TO REMOVE ELLEN M. MARIANI AS
ADMINISTRATRIX anyway."
The petitiion also said "They told me to just accept it and not fight it
because my Pennsylvania attorney had made several mistakes, one of which was
filing on my behalf a RICO lawsuit against President Bush and other high
government officials....apparently, for some reason, Rebecca Rutter, Robert
Morgan (and opposing counsel) Thomas Pappas and Charles Capace did not want me
in court this morning to testify in front of you, Your Honor."
Mariani also told Judge O'Neill "Lauren Peters went to Boston and met with
Daniel Bakinowski, an attorney with the Greenberg Traurig law firm. The
Greenberg firm represented President Bush in the 2000 election vote recount and
currently represents the President's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush. I
believe this to be a conflict of interest."
Foretelling what eventually happened, Mariani's court petition said "Mr.
Bakinowski told Rebecca Rutter, 'Don't worry. We're going to take her into
court and remove her.' And that's what they had planned and it happened to me
today. I wanted Rebecca to report this telephone conversation to your court,
and she refused. But she also said 'If you publicize anything about Dan
Bakinowski's telephone call, I will quit.' "
Mariani told us she is guardedly optimistic that Judge O'Neill will consider
all the facts surrounding her case and declare the resignation agreement null
and void, and that she will retain her position as administratrix of her late
husband's estate."
C/o Martin Honigberg and John Malmberg, Cambridge Meridian Group, Inc.
97 Eddy Road 50 Church Street 5th
Floor
Manchester, NH 03105
Cambridge, MA 02138
Paul Hodes
Justin Nadeau
26 Pleasant St. 340 Granite Street
Concord, NH 03301 Manchester, NH 03103
Rebecca J. Rutter Ellen M. Mariani
52 Lane Road, PO Box 306
Derry, NH 03038
East Derry, NH 03038
RE: Corruption
Hey,
With the sole exception of the lady, Ellen M. Mariani all of you know exactly who I am and why I have contacted you all in the past. The last person I called was Ms. Rutter today to stress test my thinking about her severe lack of integrity. I was not surprised when she did not call me back. I have now remained true to my word and brought this hard copy of the materials that so many of your friends have received in the past.
This envelope contains exactly the same material served upon my political opponents as I ran for Parliament in Canada plus some other interesting stuff pertinent to the interests of politicians in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont Politicians who should have been worthy of the Public Trust. In my opinion they are all losers just like all the above named lawyers and all the ones named within these documents. The copy of CD which contains a copy of wiretap tape numbered 139 is served upon all of you except Mrs. Mariani, as officers of the court in order that it may be properly investigated before my Trial as a Criminal Defendant begins on November 19th, 2004. I will be naming each of you as witnesses to testify in my defense, hostile or otherwise. I love to argue. Ask the Yankees Assistant Attorney General Rob Quinan or J. Owen Todd about that fact. If you have any questions may I suggest that you contact the office of Suffolk County District Attorney in Boston. It is he I must argue first. From now to the 19th, I am playing dumb as you folks have in the past and exercising my rights under the Fifth Amendment. The only two people I will discuss my matters with now are Granny D and Ellen Mariani. They are the only to people that I can think of that could have no possible malicious motives behind their very ethical actions in their pursuit of Truth, Justice and the American Way. You Go Girls and let me know if an ugly guy can be of assistance.
Cya’ll in Court
Dated November 2nd, 2004 David R. Amos
PO Box 2
South Acworth, NH 03607
https://www.scribd.com/document/5362629/911-lawsuit
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Wood
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 2:32 AM
Subject: Fw: Federal Lawsuit: Ellen Mariani (911 Widow) vs. Bush
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Printable Acrobat .PDF file of this Complaint available Here)
. . )
)
)
ELLEN MARIANI, Individually, as )
Personal Representative of the Estate )
of LOUIS NEIL MARIANI, deceased, )
and others similarly situated[1], )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 03-5273
)
GEORGE W. BUSH[2], President of ) Judge Eduardo C. Robreno
the United States, Officially and )
Individually, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
and )
)
RICHARD CHENEY, Vice President of )
The United States, Officially and )
Individually, )
)
and )
)
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of )
the United States (DOJ), Officially and )
Individually, )
)
and )
)
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of )
Defense (DOD), Officially and )
Individually, )
)
and )
)
GEORGE J. TENET, Director, Central )
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Officially and )
Individually, )
)
and )
)
NORMAN Y. MINETA, Secretary, )
Department of Transportation (DOT), )
Officially and Individually, )
)
and )
)
PETER G. PETERSON, Chairman of the )
Board, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN )
RELATIONS (CFR)[3], Officially and )
Individually, )
)
and )
)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, National )
Security Advisor, to Defendant Bush, )
Officially and Individually, )
)
and )
)
GEORGE H. BUSH[4], Former, )
Director, Central Intelligence Agency, )
(CIA), Vice-President and President of )
the United States of America, Officially, )
and Individually, )
)
and )
)
KENNETH R. FEINBERG, Special Master, )
"September 11 Victim Compensation )
Fund of 2001" Officially and Individually, )
and )
)
Other unnamed past, present, officials, )
representatives, agents, and private )
consultants of THE UNITED STATES )
OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendants.[5] )
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT[6]
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Ellen Mariani, on information, belief and established facts, by and through her counsel of record, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and for her causes of action against all named and unnamed Defendants states the following:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiff commenced this civil action on September 12, 2003, by filing of Complaint with this Honorable Court. Since Plaintiff's initial filing and the 'firestorm" surrounding Defendant GWB's refusal to comply with the "911 Commission[7]," this Amended Complaint provides newly discovered substantial additional facts, evidence and voluntary support from former federal employees and other concerned American Citizens who all seek justice and the truth as to how and why the events of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter "911"), occurred. Plaintiff hereby asserts Defendants, officially and individually are exclusively liable to answer the Counts in this Complaint under the United States Constitution and provisions of the 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) and (c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter "RICO Act") for "failing to act and prevent" the murder of Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, for financial and political reasons and have "obstructed justice" in the aftermath of said criminal acts and omissions.[8]
2. On "911," Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, an American Citizen and paying passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, was murdered by unidentified perpetrators, (hereinafter "terrorists") according to Defendant GWB.
3. At the time of the "911" attacks Defendant GWB was and continues to be President of the United States of America and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Defendant GWB "owed a duty" not only to Plaintiff, but the American People to protect and defend against the preventable attacks based upon substantial intelligence known to Defendant GWB prior to "911" which resulted in the death of Plaintiff's husband and thousands of other innocent victims on "911."
4. Defendant GWB has purported to the American People, this Court and the Plaintiff that the infamous attacks of "911" were directly masterminded by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda Network terrorists (hereinafter "OBL"), almost immediately after the attacks. Yet, Defendant GWB has not been forthright and honest with regard to his administration's pre-knowledge of the potential of the "911" attacks and Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant GWB to justify why her husband Louis Neil Mariani died on "911.' Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB is invoking a long standard operating procedure of invoking national security and executive privilege claims to suppress the basis of this lawsuit that Defendant GWB, et al., failed to act and prevent the "911" attacks. This Court must see through this and Plaintiff argues from the onset, the reasons why "911" occurred are no longer a national security risk, but a national security disgrace and tragedy. Plaintiff asserts, contrary to Defendant GWB's assertion that OBL is responsible for "911," the compelling evidence that will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power by this Court and testimony at trial will lead to one undisputed fact, Defendant GWB failed to act and prevent "911" knowing the attacks would lead to our nation having to engage in an "International War on Terror (IWOT)" which would benefit Defendants both financially and for political reasons. Plaintiff asserts, her husband was murdered on "911" and Defendant GWB and many of his cabinet members are now profiting from the IWOT. Plaintiff will prove, the "Bush family" has had long ties to power in the federal government and with the OBL family which raises serious public trust questions yet to be answered, to include, but not limited to, the fact that Defendant Cheney is profiting immensely from his former company's exclusive contracts to rebuild Iraq.[9]
5. Plaintiff reasonably believes Defendants knew or should have known the attacks on "911" would be carried out and intentionally and deliberately failed to act and prevent these deadly attacks leading to the untimely death of her husband. Plaintiff believes, Defendant GWB et al, allowed the attacks to take place to compel public anger and outcry to engage our nation and our military men and women in a preventable "IWOT" for personal gains and agendas. The statement of "911 Commissioner" and former United States Senator Max Cleland reinforces Plaintiff's claims that her President and Commander-in-Chief Defendant GWB has not been honest and forthright to her or the American public with regard to "911":
"As each day goes by, we learn this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted."[10]
6. Plaintiff believes the facts, circumstances and substantial evidence once presented to a jury will ultimately establish Defendants allowed the "911" attacks to occur to create an "IWOT" for malicious personal agendas, to include, but not limited to war profiteering. A pattern of this financial war profiting and the "Bush Family" goes back to their dealings with Nazi Germany during World War II. Plaintiff understands this assertion will be a shock to her fellow Americans who are not aware of this fact, however, her sentiment is expressed in the following Paul Donovan: "Why Isn't the Truth Out There?" Observer (U.K.), October 5, 2003, article which states in part:
"This is the staggering story of the events of 9/11. No reasons have been given for the Bush administration's conduct on that day; no one has been brought to account. Yet from the tragedy that was 9/11, Bush has been able to deliver for his backers in the arms and oil industries…" (Emphasis added).
7. Plaintiff intends to prove to a "reasonable jury" the Defendants in this matter have engaged in a long history of foreign policy decisions and have possessed absolute control of power of her government and have not been honest and forthright with the American public as to "911" and have "obstructed justice" setting a second basis for a "RICO Act" claim as evident by its secrecy and refusal to comply with the "911 Commission" in the aftermath of "911." For example, the following phillynews.com, September 11, 2003, William Bunch article; "Why Don't We Have Answers to these 9/11 Questions" goes to the heart of Plaintiff's claims and states:
"NO EVENT IN recent history has been written about, talked about, or watched and rewatched as much as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - two years ago today. Not only was it the deadliest terrorist strike inside America, but the hijackings and attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington were also a seminal event for an information-soaked media age of Internet access and 24- hour news. So, why after 730 days do we know so little about what really happened that day? No one knows where the alleged mastermind of the attack is, and none of his accomplices has been convicted of any crime. We're not even sure if the 19 people identified by the U.S. government as the suicide hijackers are really the right guys."[11]
8. Defendants have influenced American national security policy either as public officials or private citizens to the detriment of innocent American lives to include the wrongful death of Plaintiff's husband that provides her standing to seek answers on behalf of others similarly situated who, without question, "fear" even questioning the Defendants' conduct or misconduct prior to, on and after "911." Plaintiff will prove Defendants have engaged in a "pattern of abuse of public powers" dating back to the late 1970's to support her civil RICO Act and Bivens constitutional tort action in this matter. The facts will show, Defendants' have engaged in both personal business and national security "deals" with alleged terrorists, "OBL" and Saddam Hussein, providing the foundational claim of Plaintiff that her husband was murdered due to Defendants' "failure to act and prevent" the attacks on the United States of America on "911" for one overall chilling reason, to profit either personally or politically from the so-called "IWOT."[12] Plaintiff asserts, in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, Defendants were allies with OBL and Saddam Hussein during the former Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq war respectively, wherein, personal and political deals were made and it is believed upon discovery, these dealings hold the truth about "911."
9. Plaintiff will establish herein claims based upon the United States Constitution, statutory and case law, to compel judicial redress of her husband's wrongful death and to set a precedent to prevent future abuses of power in the United States Government as will be clearly established by the wanton acts and omissions of Defendants' in this case. Plaintiff's husband was murdered on "911" and Defendants have yet to be honest and forthright as to the truth as to how and why "911" occurred. For these reasons, Plaintiff brings this cause of action with the genuine belief Defendants have broken the law and continue to show great contempt towards herself, the American Public and the laws of the United States of America. Plaintiff's Complaint is historical in nature as our Constitutional way of government has been attacked and the following quote of Justice Louis Brandeis is very relevant to this cause of action:
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy." (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)).
10. As widely reported and confirmed by many American independent researchers of the facts and circumstances of "911," Defendant GWB knew the attacks of "911" were probable and failed to act. Specifically, Special Agent Robert Wright wrote a memo on June 9, 2001, warning his superiors, Defendant DOJ/FBI of the potential of terrorists hijacking aircraft to attack the United States and two (2) months later, Defendant GWB's National Security Advisor, Defendant Condoleezza Rice, acknowledged that on August 6, 2001, (one month prior to the "911" attacks), she provided a written brief to Defendant GWB at his Texas ranch which warned "OBL" might try to hijack U.S. aircraft. Plaintiff, as all Americans have a "right to know" why these reports provided Defendant GWB were not acted upon to prevent the most deadly attacks against our nation since Pearl Harbor which led us into War World II as "911" is now leading us into the never ending "IWOT." From the mountain of evidence and the ongoing "secrecy" of Defendant GWB and his unwillingness to cooperate with the "911 Commission," Plaintiff brings this RICO Act civil action to obtain justice for herself and husband Louis Neil Mariani and to expose the "truth" to the American public as to the great betrayal Defendants have inflicted upon each and every freedom-loving American arising from the crimes prior to, during and after "911."[13]
11. Plaintiff asserts, Defendants acting in their official and individual capacities were grossly and criminally negligent in failing to act and prevent the attacks on "911" resulting in the wrongful death of her husband and attacks against her country. Plaintiff incorporates for the public record at Exhibit "A", an "Open Letter" directed at Defendant GWB that provides her personal reasons for proceeding with this cause of action. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and "open letter" will of course be supported by substantial facts and evidence to prove Defendant GWB and all subordinate Defendants named herein have not been "truthful" with the American People and must be held accountable to Plaintiff and the families of the thousands of other innocent people who lost their lives on "911." [14]
12. In sum, Plaintiff having "standing" to bring forth this cause of action and its claims herein, will set forth bona fide challenges to the "official version" of the events of "911" version as purported by Defendant GWB. Plaintiff will establish inconsistencies establishing a prima facie case for this matter to proceed to a jury trial in the search for truth and justice to redress the untimely death of her husband and thousands of other innocent people.
13. Plaintiff asserts, in a free society such as America, no one, including the President of the United States of America is above the law. This Honorable Court must afford Plaintiff her fundamental United States Constitutional First Amendment Right to petition this Court for redress of Defendant USA, et al., "failure to act and prevent" the "911" attacks which led to the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani and thousands of other innocent people to include daily, our brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces who Plaintiff believes are dying in Iraq because of Defendant GWB's lies.
14. For the above stated reasons and the Counts provided hereinafter, Plaintiff's Complaint is exclusively based upon the United States Constitution and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act)(citations omitted), however, other basis for jurisdiction and venue are based upon special factors due to the "unique" nature of this matter. For the good of Plaintiff and her nation this case merits judicial review, relief and vindication to ensure another "911" never occurs again due to the wrongful acts and omissions of federal employees as will be proven in this matter at trial.[15]
15. In sum, Plaintiff will call to trial former federal employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise with military intelligence and other duties to support the underlying RICO Act foundational basis to prove Defendants have engaged in a "pattern of criminal activity and obstruction of justice" in violation of the public trust and laws of the United States for personal and financial gains. Plaintiff will prove, Defendants have engaged our nation in an endless war on terror to achieve their personal goals and agendas.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. The following jurisdictional and venue claims merit this Complaint to be afforded judicial review on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated Americans who lost loved ones in the aftermath of the terrorists' attacks on "911."
17. Jurisdiction is based upon:
a. 28 U.S.C. 1331, in that it is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States, and the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, (federal question);
b. 28 U.S.C. § 1346, United States as a Defendant;
c. 28 U.S.C. § 1361, An action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty;
d. 28 U.S.C. § 1366, Construction of reference to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress;
e. 28 U.S.C. § 1357, Injuries under Federal law;
f. 28 U.S.C. § 1365, Senate actions;
g. 28 U.S.C. § 1349, Corporation organized under federal law as party;
h. 32 U.S.C. § 102(3), Federally recognized agencies as all Defendants, named and unnamed are all employees, former employees, agents or consultants of the United States Federal Government;
i. 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(2)(3), Civil rights and elective franchise and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, Public Health and Welfare Act in conspiracy and or failure to act and prevent criminal violations of civil rights;
j. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), in that there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs;
k. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1964(a)(c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) civil remedies and Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), compensation for victims of "constitutional torts" by federal actors; and
l. 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaratory and injunctive relief as deemed necessary.
18. Venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is proper due to the special factors involved in this "unprecedented" federal lawsuit and the fact the United States Constitution, the "supreme law of the land' originated at the May 25, 1787, Constitutional Convention in the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiff reasonably believes in the wake of the national tragedy giving rise to this action on "911" and its serious and controversial claims, New York City is an inappropriate venue for justice to be served in this matter. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (a) because Defendants reside, are found, operate under color of authority or office, have agents, or connected with or related to the aforesaid and transact affairs in this district. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (b) because, to the extent any Defendant may reside outside this district, the ends of justice require such Defendant(s) to be brought before the Court. Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (b) (2) or, alternatively, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (a) (2). Further, certain of the conspiratorial acts alleged herein took place and continue to take place within this judicial district. Any and all Defendants, named and unnamed who are employed with, were employed with, contracted with and connected to Defendant USA and GWB, can be compelled through order and/or subpoena power of this federal court to be subjected to discovery or otherwise appear before the court under federal law, executive order, or the Code of Federal Regulations or other process to establish venue in this Honorable Court. Venue is further proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) as Plaintiff's Counsel of Record, (agent), under the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and (b), practices law in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the ends of justice require this matter to be heard in this District, wherein the Constitution and Nation were born.
PARTIES
19. Defendant, the United States of America (hereinafter "Defendant USA[16]"), an international sovereign nation, empowered, limited and controlled subject to its United States Constitution, is the USA as set forth by its territorial boundaries description which the Court is requested under Federal Rules of Evidence ("F.R.E."), Rule 201, to take judicial notice of said territorial description and boundaries commonly referred to as the USA, herein as defined and set forth under the United States Constitution.
20. Defendant GWB, under color of authority and office is responsible as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America and Armed Forces respectively, officially and individually, under the United States Constitution and National Security Act of 1947, (hereinafter "NS Act") was and continues to be in control of Defendant USA and all other named and unnamed Defendants, officially and individually. At all times relevant to the claims herein, all Defendants present and past federal employees of the USA or national security consultants have long had personal ties to Defendant GWB and or his family relevant to establish and support the RICO Act basis of this lawsuit. Defendant GWB is an individual who is also a citizen of the United States who acted with executive power as the President of the United States of America under Article II of the Constitution. Defendant GWB receives for his compensation for services payments from the United States Treasury to conduct his official acts in a faithful manner and solemnly swore he will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will do the best of his ability, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution. Defendant GWB's conduct prior to, on and after "911" raises serious doubt on the face of the evidence he failed to uphold his "oath" to protect Plaintiff's husband and our nation from the devastating attacks of this infamous day. Due to the complexity of this litigation and large number of named and unnamed Defendants in this matter, for clarity purposes, Defendants USA, et al., will mean GWB as he is solely responsible for all acts and omissions of all subordinate Defendants under the provisions of the "NS Act".[17]
21. Plaintiff ELLEN MARIANI is an adult individual and a citizen of the Defendant USA and is domiciled and a resident of the State of New Hampshire. On "911" Ellen Mariani and Louis Neil Mariani were domiciled in New Hampshire. Plaintiff is the surviving wife of decedent Louis Neil Mariani, who died on "911" as a fare-paying passenger in the crash of United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself, the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani [step-daughter Lauren Peters and Ellen Mariani], and all wrongful death beneficiaries who believe the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, P.L. 107-42, Section 408(b)(3), 49 U.S.C. Section 40101 (2002), is unconstitutional as ex post facto law and a ploy by Defendant GWB to silence and bury the truth as to the reasons Plaintiff's husband and thousands of other innocent people died from the attacks on "911." Plaintiff has a legal duty to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting her personal, financial interest, welfare, safety or security as a citizen of the Defendant USA and the State of New Hampshire, and on behalf of others similarly situated, by petitioning the federal judiciary for redress of grievances as provided for under Article(s) 4, Section 2 and 3 and as thereafter amended Article I, IV, V, IX, X or XIV of the United States Constitution to compel answers by Defendants as to how and why her husband and thousands of others died on "911."
SUMMARY OF FACTS[18]
22. That on January 20, 2001, Defendant GWB was sworn in as President of the United States of America and assumed the duties as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.
23. That, the evidence will show that Defendant GWB from the period of July through August 2001, was provided by his subordinate Defendants credible intelligence information that the attacks against the United States of America on "911" were imminent. Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB both grossly and criminally failed to carry out his duties as President and Commander-in-Chief and should be held accountable to her and the American People as to what he knew prior to the "911" attacks. In the wake of "911" it was later stated by United States House of Representative Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, "The reports are disturbing that we are finding this out now." Plaintiff stands on her claim Defendants at the minimum were "grossly negligent" in acting to prevent "911" as early as two (2) months prior to the deadly attacks. Another lawmaker, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York stated:
"Certainly if the White House had knowledge that there was a danger or an intent to hijack an American airplane and did not warn the airlines, that would be nonfeasance in office of the highest order…That would make the President bear a large amount of responsibility for the tragedy that occurred."
24. That, on or about, August 6, 2001, Defendant GWB received intelligence reports that a potential attack against the United States of America was being planned by the use of hijacked civilian airliners. The American people were never warned of this potential threat to their health and well-being as Defendant GWB owed a duty to inform and warn the public as apparently high level cabinet members to include Defendants Rumsfeld and Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft prior to the "911" attacks.
25. That, on September 10, 2003, Plaintiff and her husband Louis Neil Mariani spent their last day together as husband and wife on this earth.
26. That, on or about 8:00 a.m. on "911," Defendant GWB sat down for his Presidential Daily Briefing ("PDB"). "The President's briefing appears to have included some reference to the heightened terrorist risk reported throughout the summer" but contained nothing serious enough to call National Security Adviser Defendant Rice. The briefing ends at on or about 8:20 a.m.
27. That, on "911" on or about and between 8:13 a.m. and 8:20 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11, is not responding to Defendant FAA communications, goes off course and its transponder signal stops transmitting "Friend or Foe" (IFF) beacon signal. On or about 8:24 a.m. Defendant "FAA," by and through an unidentified employee at this time, hears alleged terrorist over United Airlines Flight 11's radio; "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move." At this very moment, Defendant "FAA" was mandated to alert Defendant NORAD to expedite immediate defensive measures to prevent loss of life or property damage via scrambling of American alert fighters to intercept Flight 11 and Defendant GWB should have been immediately briefed of the situation and should have by a simple phone call.[19]
28. That, on or about 8:32 a.m., eight [8] minutes after Defendant FAA was first alerted to the highjacking of Flight 11, Defendant Bush's motorcade leaves the resort en-route to Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. That, it is believed Defendant NORAD was notified by Defendant FAA on or about 8:36 a.m., ten [10] minutes prior to the first crash into the WTC that Flight 11 was hijacked.[20]
29. That, on or about 8:46 a.m., Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (hereinafter "WTC") and Plaintiff husband's plane, United Airline Flight 175 transponder signal stops transmitting "IFF" beacon signal, as did Flight 11 before it crashed into the WTC.
30. That, on or about 8:47 a.m., Defendant NORAD was alerted that Flight 11 crashed into the WTC and at 8:48 a.m., the first news broadcasts on radio and television report a plane crashed into the WTC.
31. That, on or about 8:51 a.m., Defendant GWB arrives at Booker Elementary and should be completely aware Flight 11's crash was not an accident, especially in light of the "PDB" provided him 51 minutes earlier.
32. That, on or about 9:05 a.m. Andrew Card walks up to Defendant GWB in front of the world while Defendant GWB is listening to a goat story and is alleged to have whispered in his ear; "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." For approximately the next seven (7) to eighteen (18) minutes Defendant GWB continues to listen to the goat story while Plaintiff's husband was just murdered and does not immediately assume his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.
33. Plaintiff believes if Defendant GWB, DOD and NORAD responded expeditiously as trained for and according to protocol, at 9:03 a.m, thirty-nine (39) minutes after being alerted to the highjacking of Flight 11, and Defendants acted responsibility and warned all U.S. Commercial aircraft captains of potential danger to their aircrafts, crews and passengers, Plaintiff's husband and thousands of other innocent people might still be alive today.
34. Plaintiff as previously stated, incorporates at Exhibit "C" a comprehensive list of "timelines" of Defendant GWB's acts on "911." Under this section, Plaintiff will provide the foundation of "pre-911" and "post-911" events that support the basis of this Complaint that Defendants GWB and subordinate United States Government officials are grossly and criminally negligent for failing to act upon credible evidence to prevent the "911" attacks and have engaged in a pattern of "obstruction of justice" since the "911" attacks to mislead the American People. For these reasons, Plaintiff possesses "standing" to bring this cause of action arising from the wrongful death of her husband, Louis Neil Mariani and does speak on behalf of others similarly situated who might fear bringing a cause of action arising from the evil events of "911" against Defendant GWB, et al., provides the following "Counts" in support of this cause of action:
Count I
Plaintiff asserts the Ex Post Facto "Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act"
as unconstitutional and Defendants GWB et al., are exempted parties under the Act's
specific 'exemption' for claims against Terrorists and Their Aiders, Abettors and Conspirators
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length.
36. Plaintiff asserts the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, (hereinafter "Act") is unconstitutional and ex post facto legislation specifically intended to silence the truth of the true perpetrators or terrorists which have yet been captured or held to account for the "911" attacks which resulted in the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani.
37. Plaintiff asserts the "exclusive jurisdiction" under the Act mandating her to bring this claim into the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York due to the serious nature of this Amended Complaint and the fact that New York City was the primary target of the "911" attacks will prejudice her case. Plaintiff reasonably believes venue in Philadelphia is appropriate in the federal district wherein the United States Constitution was signed as the Defendants have tested the United States Constitution and pose the greatest threat to our way of life if they are not held to account for their actions prior to, during and after the "911" attacks. Moreover, Defendant GWB, the primary focus of this Amended Complaint, and a majority of the Defendants are employees of the United States who were acting within their official capacity on "911" and Plaintiff can bring this action in "any judicial district" predicated upon the fact that "a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise" to this action occurred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff argues, the entire United States of America and its Citizens were victims of "911" for that matter, coupled with the fact that the United States Constitution is under attack in of itself, merits this Amended Complaint to be tried and decided in the Birth Place of the Constitution and where our Declaration of Independence was written and signed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and where our battle of freedom was won in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Furthermore, all of the Defendants conduct public business and/or have offices throughout the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
38. Plaintiff further believes Section 408(c) of the Act provides one critical "exception" relevant to Plaintiff's case being heard in this Honorable Court and venue set therein. The Act states in part:
"The Southern District has 'original exclusive jurisdiction' over all actions brought for any claim (including any claim for loss of property, personal injury, or death) resulting from or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001"with the exception of claims to recover collateral source obligations and claims against terrorists and their aiders and abettors and conspirators." (Emphasis added) (Act Section 408(c)).
39. Plaintiff asserts from the mountain of evidence that will be produced and based upon her RICO Act claim, Defendant GWB et al., are exempt from the Act's jurisdiction in New York because Defendants will be directly connected to their true standing in the "911" attacks as "aiders and abettors and conspirators" who intentionally and deliberately "failed to act and prevent" the "911 attacks on the United States of American leading to the murder of Plaintiff's husband Louis Neil Mariani and thousands of other innocent people for many years to come, to advance their agendas, including but not limited to an "IWOT." [21]
40. Plaintiff, herein also names Defendant Kenneth R. Feinberg, Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, (hereinafter "Fund") as a party for his questionable strong-arm tactics and hostility towards Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts and alleges, Defendant Feinberg's appointment by Defendant Aschroft was tactical placement of a "go along to get along" move by Defendant GWB to ensure all "911" families joined the fund to prevent any questions of liability, gross or criminal negligence on behalf of Defendant GWB and his administration for failing to act and prevent the "911" attacks.
41. Plaintiff provides at Exhibit "D" proof of his lack of independence in administering the "Fund" via a letter signed by Defendant Feinberg to Donald J. Nolan, Esquire dated February 8, 2002. Most notable is the handwritten statement below Defendant Feinberg's signature that states: "So – are you bringing your clients into the Fund? Give me a call. Best - K."
42. Plaintiff asserts Defendant Feinberg's overall involvement with the "Fund" and his appointment by Defendant Ashcroft is highly suspect and will call at trial staff members of the "Fund" who will expose the appropriate facts to support Plaintiff's claim that Defendant Feinberg's assignment is not to administer just compensation to the families but, a ploy to silence any traditional lawsuits that will expose Defendant GWB's failure to act and prevent the "911" attacks. Furthermore, Red Cross delays have in effect thrown needy families into the waiting arms of Defendant Ashcroft and Defendant Feinberg while also serving to keep the government of the United States out of the courtroom via what Plaintiff originally termed "the Feinberg hush fund." Defendant Feinberg has maintained total control over fund settlements while allowing the Red Cross to extend payments in the millions from donations to displaced renters and homeowners who did not even lose a family member, and also to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) workers, all of whom should have been paid from FEMA's well-established and budgeted funds approved by Congress. Defendant Feinberg allowed the U.S. government to use Red Cross funds specifically donated to the families who lost their loved ones, said funds given to other parties, which only helped to extend and intensify the financial difficulties of victims family members, as many just decided to give up and submit to Defendant Feinberg's fund while also absolving the government of the United States of all future accountability.
43. Plaintiff, reasonably believes, Defendants are hiding behind arbitrary legislation such as this "Act" [Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act] and the Patriot Act to silence Americans such as herself from obtaining the truth as to how and why "911" ever occurred. To protect and preserve the United States Constitution Plaintiff's Amended Complaint merits judicial redress and all extraordinary relief for the good of our nation.[22]
Count II
Defendant "GWB's" Official Version of "911" and refusal to cooperate with his "911 Commission" demands judicial scrutiny in this cause of action
44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein at length.
45. Plaintiff asserts from the timelines as set forth in the "Summary of Facts" Defendant GWB's behaviors, both officially and individually are highly suspect. Plaintiff, a reasonable person with "standing" seeks to find the truth of "911" and questions why it has taken almost two (2) years for Defendant GWB to establish the "911 Commission."
46. Plaintiff believes from the substantial investigations and news reports from around the world, Defendant GWB must be compelled to answer the claims and assertions in her lawsuit as it has been over two (2) years since her husband's death and yet to date, no "terrorists" have be held to account.
47. Plaintiff deserves her day in court in this matter for many reasons, most specifically to challenge Defendant GWB's purported fact that the "terrorist" responsible for the "911" attacks and its mastermind is "OBL." Defendant GWB has not released to the public intelligence reports or statements to remove suspicion regarding his own good faith efforts to find the terrorists responsible for "911." Moreover, why are several alleged terrorists named by Defendant GWB who allegedly died in the "911" attacks still alive?
48. Plaintiff asserts and alleges Defendant GWB's behaviors on the morning of "911" upon being informed the nation was under attack to include but not limited to his continued reading of a children's story when he should have expeditiously carried out his joint duties as President and Commander-in-Chief to order air defenses to prevent continued attacks against our Nation, in of itself, calls into question his stability and motives to carry out this nation's top public office.
49. Plaintiff seeks to find and obtain the answer as to why her husband was murdered on "911" and to date, political reasons and "obstruction of justice" by Defendant GWB in failing to release intelligence reports and to fully cooperate with the "911 Commission" provide Plaintiff with no other option but to proceed with this cause of action. In light of the fact that Defendant Ashcroft is a party to this litigation, this Honorable Court must provide Plaintiff justice by issuance of subpoenas and by affording Plaintiff discovery to support her claims regarding Defendant GWB failing to act and prevent the deadly attacks on "911." Moreover, the fact that the only federal employee who has the power to seek prosecution of the murders responsible for "911," namely Defendant Ashcroft who has spent more time advocating for his Patriot Act than seeking the "terrorists" responsible for the "911" attacks is yet another bona fide issue which advances Plaintiff's right to judicial review in this matter.[23]
Count III
Defendant "USA" and "DOD" for Twenty-Five (25) Years had prior knowledge
American Airspace was vulnerable to terrorist attacks via highjacking of
Commercial Airliners
50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein at length.
51. Plaintiff's basis for alleging Defendants had prior knowledge "terrorists" could highjack commercial aircraft and attack the United States is not only due to Defendant GWB's continued withholding of facts and public records necessary for the "911 Commission" to perform its public duty, but, supported by the sworn affidavit of Timothy Stuart McNiven, former United States Army participant in a 1975 Congressional funded military study which purpose was to "identify security lapses and submit corrective actions" to Congress. (See Exhibit "B").[24]
52. Based upon review of Affiant McNiven's sworn statement Plaintiff asserts Defendant USA, et al., charged with defending America had prior knowledge before "911" that the events of this infamous day in American history could take place and did. Hence, Defendant USA's failure to implement the findings of the study was grossly/criminally negligent and Defendant's "failing to prevent" the attacks of "911" raises other serious national security and public trust matters important for Plaintiff to obtain justice in this case. Affiant McNiven's testimony and the chilling similarities of the study's scenarios to the actual events of "911," support a basis Defendants were grossly/criminally negligent in failing to prevent "911." Affiant McNiven's testimony also provides the "nexus" to include Defendant George H. Bush, Sr., (hereinafter "Defendant GHB") as a critical party to this litigation as Defendant GHB as CIA Director at the time of the study and reasons for its not being implemented are very relevant for Plaintiff to find the answers as to why her husband was murdered on "911." Plaintiff believes, Defendants' GWB and his father, GHB, hold the answers for the entire nation to be informed of the truth as to "911" and why it occurred and was not prevented.[25]
53. Plaintiff asserts the facts and circumstances as set forth in Affiant McNiven's statement provide the foundation to call into question all Defendant GWB's official and private national security advisors' apparent ill-willed "advice" which once full discovery is achieved, will prove not only that Defendants were grossly negligent in failing to prevent the "911" attacks, they were also criminally negligent wherein this Court, for the good of the nation, must grant any and all declaratory and injunctive relief to hold Defendants' accountable for all crimes proven in this civil action. For these reasons, Defendant GWB cannot and must not be afforded "Executive Privilege" or any other governmental immunity from defending this lawsuit as the "national security" interests of Plaintiff and the American People outweigh the "national security" interests of "individual Defendants" in this matter.[26]
54. In sum, on July 25, 2003, a report by a joint panel of House and Senate Intelligence Committees concluded that 9/11 resulted from C.I.A. and F.B.I. "lapses." Defendant GWB is solely responsible as President of the United States of America for the "lapses" that resulted in the murder of Plaintiff's husband Louis Neil Mariani and must be held to answer by this Court to explain his failure to act and prevent the attacks of "911."
Count IV
Defendant GWB and his Administration were provided ample warning the
"911" attacks were Imminent and Failed to Act
55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein at length.
56. Plaintiff asserts Defendant GWB received and ignored advance warnings of an imminent plan to hijack passenger airplanes and fly them into buildings in the United States and will be further supported by the actions of high cabinet officials who stopped flying commercial airliners leading up to the "911" attacks.
57. Plaintiff through reason and belief maintains the cloud of "secrecy" Defendant GWB and his subordinate advisors continue to engage in by not being forthright and honest with the United States Congress, its "911" hearings and now, the "911 Commission" support her claim Defendants were provided ample warnings to prevent the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani.
58. Plaintiff believes and upon discovery and compelling of the release of Defendant CIA's July 2001, "Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB)" will clearly demonstrate Defendant GWB's lack of swift and decisive action during his story telling session at the school on the morning of "911" occurred for one reason – Defendant GWB knew the attacks would occur.[27]
59. Plaintiff asserts perhaps the single most damning indictment of Defendant GWB and all Defendants who failed to protect our nation on "911" was the failure of Defendants DOD/NORAD to follow normal military protocol to be followed as standard procedure. The following testimony of "911" victim family member Mindy Kleinberg, presented on March 31, 2003 before the "911 Commission" is so articulate that it stands with Plaintiff's "open letter" to Defendant GWB as cited at "A" and to support this Count:
"Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings. These 'protocols' were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason -- with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.
Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to 'intercept' commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.
If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semi-annual exercise known as 'Vigilant Guardian." This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, 'fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board.'
Lucky for the terrorists that none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th. Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example:
American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston's Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost -- (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).
Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.
Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.
Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?
Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the World Trade Center.
Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?
So the hijackers' luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures. Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.
"Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives."
60. From the above public statement of Mindy Kleinberg, Plaintiff does not stand alone in her belief that Defendant GWB's and all subordinate Defendants in this action should be held to account for the worst attacks on our nation since Pearl Harbor leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including Plaintiff's husband Louis Neil Mariani. Mrs. Kleinberg has also voiced her support for Plaintiff in this cause of action and will be called as a favorable witness on behalf of Plaintiff at trial.
61. Plaintiff, with the assistance of other concerned Americans are actively involved in assisting with the production of facts and circumstances to set a prima facie case proving Defendant GWB knew of and failed to prevent the "911" attacks. The following "Pre-911" facts and circumstances provided by independent researcher Allan Duncan, a Citizen of the State of Pennsylvania are hereby provided verbatim to support Defendant GWB's pre-"911" knowledge the attacks would take place:
A. Explicit warnings from foreign sources
(1) 1999. The U.S. was warned by British intelligence two years prior to "911" that terrorists were planning to use airplanes in unconventional ways, perhaps as bombs
In 1999, Britain's intelligence agency, M16, warned the U.S. in a classified report that al Qaeda was planning to use airplanes in an unconventional manner to attack U.S. interests. No targets were specified. The Times of London quoted a British senior Foreign Office source saying, "The Americans knew of plans to use commercial aircraft in unconventional ways, possibly as flying bombs." (cited in AFP 6-9-2002)
(2) April to May 2001. U.S. government received 'specific' threats of terrorist attacks against U.S. targets or interests
Condoleezza Rice admitted that the U.S. government had received "specific" threats that "al Qaeda attacks against U.S. targets or interests…might be in the works. There was a clear concern that something was up, … but it was principally focused overseas. The areas of most concern were the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula and Europe." (cited in CNN 5-16-2002 "Timeline: Events leading up to September 11") She did not elaborate on where the intelligence originated, but the Independent of London, reported that the information had been relayed to Washington by British intelligence sources. (Bennetto and Gumbel 5-18-2002)
(3) June 6, 2001. German intelligence warned CIA
The German intelligence agency, the BND, warned both the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." This intelligence reportedly came from Echelon, a high-tech electronic surveillance system used by the intelligence agencies of several nations to glean through electronic communications for certain keywords. It was first reported by the German daily newspaper, Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung on September 13. Its sources were reportedly from the BND itself. (Stafford 9-13-2001; Thomas 5-21-2002) According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002) of Global – Intel, the original source of information actually came from Israeli Mossad agents operating in the U.S. who had infiltrated al Qaeda. According to his account the Mossad also informed British and Russian intelligence about the attacks, who then in turn notified the CIA. Thomas's sources are allegedly informants within the Mossad itself.
(4) July 16, 2001. British intelligence sent a report to Tony Blair warning of imminent attacks. The report was also sent to Washington
The British Cabinet Office Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) sent a memo authored by the heads of British intelligence agencies, MI6, MI5 and GCHQ, to Tony Blair and other cabinet ministers, warning that al Qaeda was in the final stages of preparing for a terrorist attack. The memo suggested that the attacks would likely be aimed at American or Israeli targets. The report did not indicate however that the agencies had any knowledge with regards to the "timings, targets and methods of attack." According to the Times of London, the warning was "based on intelligence gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency, which has staff working jointly with GCHQ." [Emphasis added] The newspaper added, "The CIA sometimes has a representative on the JIC. The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall confirmed." (Evans 6-14-2002)
(5) June 23, 2001. Arabic News Network reported that bin Laden had predicted a 'severe blow' to the United States.
"According to the June 23rd AirlineBiz.com report, the Arabic satellite television network MBC claimed that 'the next two weeks will witness a big surprise.' An MBC reporter who had met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on June 21st predicted that 'a severe blow is expected against U.S. and Israeli interests worldwide. There is a major state of mobilization among the Osama bin Laden forces. It seems that there is a race of who will strike first. Will it be the United States or Osama bin Laden?' " (Grigg 3-11-2002)
(6) Summer 2001. Jordan's General Intelligence Division (GID) warned Washington of an attack planned on the U.S mainland using aircraft.
According to John Cooley (5-21-2002), author of the book, Unholy Wars: America, Afghanistan, and International Terrorism, Jordan's intelligence agency, GID, intercepted al Qaeda communications indicating that a terrorist operation, code-named 'Al Ourush al Kabir' or 'The Big Wedding,' was being planned for within the U.S. and would involve aircraft. Cooley confirmed the validity of this warning. (see also Bubnov 5-24-2002)
(7) Summer 2001. Iranian man warned U.S. authorities of a planned terrorist attack during the week of September 9, 2001
Online.ie reported "German police have confirmed an Iranian man phoned US police from his deportation cell to warn of the planned attack on the World Trade Centre" during the week of September 9. He reportedly called several times. Very little information was given about the 'Iranian man' other than the fact that he was 28-years old. No other news agencies independently reported the incident. (Online.ie 9/14/01; cited in Anova 9-14-2001; Ruppert 11-2-2001; 11-24-2001; 4-22-2002)
(8) August 2001. Moroccan intelligence warned Washington about "large scale-operations in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001"
According to reports published in November 2001 by a French magazine and a Moroccan newspaper, Morocco's royal intelligence informed Washington that one of its agents, who had penetrated al Qaeda, learned that bin Laden's organization was preparing "large operations in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001." The agent, who is said to be presently in the U.S. helping its intelligence agencies, also informed Moroccan intelligence that bin Laden was 'very disappointed' with the first WTC bombing which failed to bring the two towers down. John Cooley (5-21-2002), who reported this in the International Herald Tribune wrote that as of 5-21-2002, he had not independently verified this warning. (see also Bubnov 5-24-2002)
(9) August 2001. Israel warned U.S. about large-scale attacks on the U.S. mainland
"Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent." (Jacobson and Wastell 9-16-2001; Davis 9-17-2001; Stafford 9-13-2001; Serrano and Thor-Dahlburg 9-20-2001; Martin 1-5-2002; Martin 1-16-2002) According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002), this information was based on intelligence gleaned from Israeli Mossad agents who had penetrated or were spying on the al Qaeda operatives. Thomas's sources are allegedly informants within the Mossad itself.
(10) August 2001. Intelligence sources warned Argentine Jewish leaders of imminent attacks
According to Argentine Jewish leaders, the Jewish community in that country "received a warning about an impending major terrorist attack against the United States, Argentina or France just weeks before September 11." Forward quoted Marta Nercellas, a lawyer for the Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas, or DAIA, Argentina's main Jewish representative body: "It was a concrete warning that an attack of major proportion would take place, and it came from a reliable intelligence [source]. And I understand the Americans were told about it." [Emphasis added] (Forward 2-5-2002)
(11) August 24, 2001. Russian intelligence warned of possible hijacking
Russian intelligence warned the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots were specifically training to crash airliners into planned targets. This was reported by the Russian Izveztia on September 12 and translated for From The Wilderness Magazine by a former CIA officer. (cited from Ruppert 11-2-2001; see also Ruppert 11-24-2001; 4-22-2002; Martin 1-5-2002; Martin 1-16-2002) According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002) Russian intelligence received this information from the Israeli Mossad.
(12) August 31, 2001. Egyptian president warned U.S. that something was brewing
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned the U.S. that "something would happen" 12 days before the terrorist attacks. (AP 12-7-2001; MacFarquhar and Tyler 6-4-2002; Martin 1-5-2002). Egypt had also warned the U.S. on June 13. (Martin 1-16-2002). The U.S intelligence denied that they had received this information soon before the attacks and instead alleged that the only warnings that had been given to them from Egypt occurred between March and May of 2001. (MacFarquhar and Tyler 6-4-2002)
(13) September 1, 2001. Russian intelligence warned the U.S. again about 'imminent attacks'
"Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government 'in the strongest possible terms' of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings" (We do not have a reference to the original source. See Ruppert 11-2-2001; 4-22-2002 based on MS-NBC interview with Putin, September 15. See also Martin 1-16-2002; Thomas 5-21-2002) According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002) Russian intelligence received this information from the Israeli Mossad.
(14) Early September 2001. Mossad chief warned CIA of possibility of attacks
According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002), Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy warned both the CIA and FBI of the possibility of near term attacks. George Tenet presumably thought that it was "too non specific."
(15) September 5-6, 2001
Commenting on the U.S. intelligence failure, the French Le Monde reported: "The first lapse has to do with the processing of intelligence items that come out of Europe. According to our information, French and American officials did in fact hold important meetings in Paris from the 5th to the 6th of September, that is, a few days prior to the attacks. Those sessions brought representatives of the American Special Services together with officers of the DST (Directorate of Territorial Security) and military personnel from the DGSE (General Overseas Security Administration). Their discussion turned to some of the serious threats made against American interests in Europe, specifically one targeting the U.S. Embassy in Paris. During these talks, the DST directed the American visitors' attention to a Moroccan-born Frenchman who had been detained in the United States since August 17 and who was considered to be a key high-level Islamic fundamentalist. But the American delegation, preoccupied above all with questions of administrative procedure, paid no attention to this 'first alarm,' basically concluding that they were going to take no one's advice, and that an attack on American soil was inconceivable. It took September 11 for the FBI to show any real interest in this man, who we now know attended two aviation training schools, as did at least seven of the kamikaze terrorists." (cited in Ridgeway 5-28-2002)
(16) September 7, 2001. Mossad chief warned CIA a second time of possible attacks
According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002), Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy sent another alert to the CIA warning of possible terrorist attacks. The message was received in Washington on September 7.
(17) September 3-10, 2001. Anonymous caller informed a radio talk show that Osama bin Laden's organization would be launching imminent attacks against the U.S.
"MSNBC reports on September 16 that a caller to a Cayman Islands radio talk show gave several warnings of an imminent attack on the U.S. by bin Laden in the week prior to 9/11." (We do not have a reference to the original source. See Ruppert 11-2-2001)
(18) September 10, 2001.
U.S. intelligence intercepted conversations from al Qaeda that were extremely specific. USA Today, reported "Two U.S. intelligence officials, paraphrasing highly classified intercepts, say they include such remarks as, 'Good things are coming,' 'Watch the news' and 'Tomorrow will be a great day for us.' " [Emphasis added] This information was contained with 13,000 pages of material from the National Security Agency that was handed over to the Congressional 9-11 inquiry. It is unclear when these intercepts were reviewed by U.S. intelligence. They may not have been reviewed until after 9-11. (Diamond 6-3-2002)
(19) September 11, 2001. Employees at Odigo Inc, received warnings predicting the attacks hours before they happened
The Israeli company, Odigo, Inc. was apparently warned two hours before the attacks. Odigo CEO Micha Macover told the Ha'aretz that 'two workers received the messages predicting the attack would happen.' The FBI was quickly notified but it is presently not clear if U.S. authorities are still investigating the incident. The company's offices in Israel are located suspiciously near the Israeli Institute for Counter Terrorism which broke story of the insider trading scam on 9-11. (McWilliams 9-28-2001; Seberg 9-28-2001; Ruppert 2-11-2002; 4-22-2002)
B. Evidence that U.S. authorities were concerned
(1) 1994. FBI videotaped an informant being recruited as a suicide bomber by two men, one of whom was linked to Osama bin Laden
Summarizing a letter written by former FBI Special Agent James Hauswirth, the Los Angeles Times wrote, "The 27-year FBI veteran said in the letter reviewed by the Los Angeles Times that the Phoenix office had evidence of Islamic potential terrorists operating in the region as far back as 1994. That year, two men were videotaped by FBI agents recruiting a Phoenix FBI informant as a suicide bomber, the letter says. One of those men, according to a source, was linked to a terrorist in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing." ( Los Angeles Times 5-27-2002)
(2) 1996-2001. The FBI was investigating suspected terrorists enrolled in flight schools
In 1996, after the Philippine police had discovered the 'Bojinka' plot (see above), US officials began investigating al Qaeda terrorist suspects who were training in U.S. flight schools. "Since 1996, the FBI had been developing evidence that international terrorists were using US flight schools to learn to fly jumbo jets. A foiled plot in Manila to blow up U.S. airliners and later court testimony by an associate of bin Laden had touched off FBI inquiries at several schools, officials say." (cited in Fairnaru and Grimaldi 9-23-2001; Martin 1-16-2002; Shelon 5-18-2002)
(3) 1996 or 1997. FBI Counter terrorist specialist John O'Neil warned of terrorist capabilities
Soon after the late John O'Neil had become head of the FBI's New York unit, he warned, "A lot of these groups now have the capability and the support infrastructure in the United States to attack us here if they choose to." (Loeb 9-12-2002) John O'Neil, who was described as one of the FBI's 'most pugnacious' agents, resigned from the FBI shortly before 9-11. He subsequently took a position as head of the WTC security, where he is believed to have died on the day of the attacks while attempting to rescue other people in the towers. September 11 had been his first day on the job. (Loeb 9-12-2002) John O'Neil had complained that the Bush administration had impeded his investigations into suspected Saudi terrorists. (Brisard and Dasquie 2001in Godoy 11-16-2001; Marlowe 11-19-2001)
(4) 1997. FBI was investigating Middle Eastern flight school students in Phoenix
Summarizing a letter written by former FBI Special Agent James Hauswirth, the Los Angeles Times wrote: "In 1998, the office's international terrorism squad investigated a possible Middle Eastern extremist taking flight lessons at a Phoenix airport, wrote Hauswirth, who retired from the FBI in 1999."
(5) 1998. The FAA issued a warning that al Qaeda may attempt to hijack commercial airlines
In 1998, Federal Aviation Administration warned airlines to be on a 'high degree of alertness' against possible hijackings by members of Osama bin Laden's organizations. (AP 5-26-2002). May 18, 1998. FBI memo observed that an 'unusually' large number of Middle Eastern men were attending flight schools. The memo revealed that an Oklahoma FBI pilot had warned his supervisor "that he has observed large numbers of Middle Eastern males receiving flight training at Oklahoma airports in recent months." The FBI pilot further observed, "This is a recent phenomena and may be related to planned terrorist activity." Washington 5-30-2002)
(6) 199? – 2001. According to anonymous sources it was widely known that important warnings were being ignored
The New American magazine interviewed three federal law enforcement agents who confirmed that the FBI had foreknowledge of the attacks. They spoke only on conditions of anonymity, although two of them told the magazine that they would be willing to testify to Congress. One agent stated that it was widely known "all over the Bureau, how these [warnings] were ignored by Washington... All indications are that this information came from some of [the Bureau's] most experienced guys, people who have devoted their lives to this kind of work. But their warnings were placed in a pile in someone's office in Washington...In some cases, these field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th. So we were all holding our breath…hoping that the situation would be remedied." [Emphasis added] (cited in Grigg 3-11-2002)
(7) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 2001 report
The New York Times reported, "The Federal Aviation Administration published a report called Criminal Acts Against Aviation on its Web site in 2001 before the hijackings that said that although Osama bin Laden 'is not known to have attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the wherewithal to do so.' It added, 'Bin Laden's anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation'." (Martin 1-16-2002; Sanger and Bumiller 5-17-2002)
(8) Early 2001. Court proceedings revealed that al Qaeda operatives were training in
American flight schools
In early 2001, the trial of four men accused of being involved in the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania revealed that members of bin Laden's network had received flying lessons in Texas and Oklahoma. (USA vs. Usama bin Laden et al.; Foden 9-13-2001; Martin 1-16-2002)
(9) January-February 2001. Case of Hani Hanjour
During his attendance at an Arizona flight school, Hani Hanjour arose the suspicion of flight instructor Peggy Chevrette, who felt that Hani both lacked the skill and English for the pilot license he already had. She repeatedly called FAA authorities, who sent one of their inspectors, John Anthony, to look into her concerns. In spite of the fact that FAA guidelines clearly stipulate that fluency in English is required for a U.S. commercial pilot's license, the FAA inspector, according to Chevrette, suggested Hanjour be provided with a translator. Even after Anthony had visited the school, the flight instructor continued calling the FAA twice more with concerns that he didn't have the skills needed to have a license. Hani Hanjour left the school before completing the program. (MSNBC 5-10-2002) The flight school, JetTech, closed after September 11. Sources did not explain why. In addition to the suspicion that he arose at the flight school, he also caught the attention of an FBI informant. Aukai Collins told ABC news that he was an FBI informant for four years. He claims that in 1996, he provided the FBI with very specific information about Hani, including "his exact address, his phone number and even what car he drove." While the FBI admitted that Collins had been an informant, they 'emphatically denied' that he had tipped the agency off to Hani Hanjour. (ABC News 5-23-2002)
(10) February 2001. Warning from George Tenet: bin Laden and al Qaeda are the most serious threat to the U.S. and they intend to inflict mass casualties
In February of 2001, CIA Director George Tenet warned that bin Laden should be considered the "most immediate and serious threat" to the U.S and added, "As we have increased security around government and military facilities, terrorists are seeking out 'softer' targets that provide opportunities for mass casualties." (cited in CNN 5-16-2002 "Timeline: Events leading up to September 11"; Cornwell 5-25-2002)
(11) Summer 2001. Former chief investigative counsel warned U.S. Justice Department that FBI believed terrorists were planning to attack lower Manhattan
(a) David Shippers, a Chicago attorney who had been the chief investigative counsel in the attempted impeachment of Clinton, warned the U.S. Justice Department that a massive terrorist attack had been planned for lower Manhattanbased on what FBI agents from Chicago and Minnesota had told him. His warning was shunned by officials, one of which stated, "We don't start our investigations at the top." (cited in Grigg 3-11-2002)
(b) During an October 10, 2001 radio interview, he revealed that he had warned "Attorney General John Ashcroft and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that he had proof from a credible source (that he has still not revealed) about a plot to use hijacked commercial airliners to ram the White House and Capitol." (Chin 5-19-2002)
(d) On May 30 2002, one of Shipper’s sources in the FBI, Special Agent Robert Wright disclosed in a testimony broadcasted on C-SPAN that FBI officials and other agents had 'stymied’ his own investigations into suspected terrorists. (Horrock 5-30-2002)
(12) Summer 2001. The 'threat assessment’
On July 26 2001, CBS News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft was no longer using commercial airliners to travel – even for personal business – because of a "threat assessment" issued by the FBI. Instead Ashcroft was using a chartered jet that cost taxpayers $1,600/hr to fly. The news network further reported: "Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it." (CBS News 7-26-2001)
(13) June 2001. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) June circular
According to ABC sources the FAA distributed a circular in June of 2001 that stated, "Although we have no specific information that this threat is directed at civil aviation, the potential for terrorist operations, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the U.S. remains a concern." (ABC 5-17-2002; Hersh and Isikoff 5-27-2002) According to Newsweek’s sources, 10-12 such circulars were issued to U.S. airports between June 11 and September 11 (Hersh and Isikoff 5-27-2002). One of the circulars reportedly warned of possible hijackings on flights originating from East Coast airports. (Salant 5-26-2002)
(14) June 9, 2001. Internal FBI memo
Special Agent Robert Wright wrote a memo on June 9 warning the FBI that the Bureau’s failure to take decisive action against known terrorist suspects operating within the country would likely result in the loss of American lives. Parts of the memo read, "Knowing what I know, I can confidently say that until the investigative responsibilities for terrorism are transferred from the FBI, I will not feel safe. The FBI has proven for the past decade it cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens at home and abroad. Even worse, there is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI's International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected international terrorists living in the United States. Unfortunately, more terrorist attacks against American interests - coupled with the loss of American lives - will have to occur before those in power give this matter the urgent attention it deserves." (cited in Johnson 5-30-2002)
(15) July 2, 2001. FBI memo
FBI issued a memo stating, "There are threats to be worried about overseas. While we cannot foresee attacks domestically, we cannot rule them out." (cited in CNN 5-16-2002 "Timeline: Events leading up to September 11")
(16) July 3, 2001. Federal investigators learned significant intelligence from Ahmed Ressam, and al Qaeda operative who had planned to bomb Los Angeles Airport
Newsweek reported, "After he was convicted in the spring of 2001, Ressam started giving investigators detailed information on Al Qaeda’s designs in the United States. He left no doubt that U.S. airports were a prime target "because an airport is sensitive politically and economically," as Ressam said in Court on July 3. (Hirsh and Isikoff 5-27-2002)
(17) July 10, 2001. Internal FBI memo warned that men with suspected ties to terrorist groups were training in Arizona flight schools
(a) On July 10 of 2001, FBI agent Kenneth Williams in Arizona sent a memo from the Phoenix FBI office to the radical fundamentalist anti-terrorism unit (which was aware of the Moussaoui case -see below) in the Bureau’s Washington headquarters warning that several Arab men with suspected ties to terrorist groups were training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona. (Solomon 5-3-2002; Risen 5-4-2002; Johnston 5-15-2002; Hersh and Isikoff 5-27-2002; Johnston and van Natta 5-21-2002; Cornwell 5-25-2002; Lumkin 5-25-2002)
(b) Interestingly, the memo mentioned Osama bin Laden by name and speculated that his organization may be attempting to infiltrate the U.S. aviation industry with pilots, security guards, and maintenance workers. (Johnston 5-15-2002). Williams had associated the flight school students with al Qaeda based on a link he had established between several of the students and the London-based militant Muslim group, al-Muhajiroun, whose leader was an open supporter of bin Laden (Seper 5-23-2002; AP 5-23-2002). One Senator who had read the memo told reporters, "I will tell you, though, that although he didn't come up with the exact Sept. 11 scenario, what he presents in that memo was so close to the fact pattern that emerged on Sept. 11 that, as you read it, it just takes your breath away." (De la Garza 5-23-2002). William’s concerns were spurned in part with interviews he had conducted with the Arab students who had demonstrated extreme anti-American views (Johnston and van Natta 5-22-2002; Mitchell 5-22-2002).
c) The memorandum also made some suggestions about possible recourses of action. It stated, "Phoenix believes that the F.B.I. should accumulate a listing of civil aviation universities/colleges around the country. F.B.I. field offices with these types of schools in their area should establish appropriate liaison. F.B.I. HQ should discuss this matter with other elements of the U.S. intelligence community and task the community for any information that supports Phoenix's suspicions." No action was taken. (cited in Solomon 5-3-2002; Risen 5-4-2002)
(18) July 18, 2001. FBI memo
The memo stated, "We’re concerned about threats as a result of the millennium plot conviction....There’s no specific target, no credible info of attacks to U.S. civil aviation interests, but terror groups are known to be planning and training for hijackings, and we ask you therefore to use caution." (cited in CNN 5-16-2002 "Timeline: Events leading up to September 11")
(19) August 6, 2001. Memo ("The Smoking Gun RICO Act Obstruction of Justice Claim")(emphasis added).
(a) On August 6, President George Bush received an intelligence briefing, titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE U.S." that warned that bin Laden may attempt to hijack airplanes and that the Saudi millionaire’s terrorist organization wanted "to bring the fight to America." This information was relayed to Bush after he had previously been supplied with intelligence of a more generalized quality that had indicated that al Qaeda was planning to attack the U.S or U.S. interests abroad. (Eggen and Woodward 5-18-2002; CBS News 5-16-2002; Boncombe 5-19-2002).
(b) An intelligence officer told CBS News (5-16-2002) that a hijacking "was among the many things that we talked about all the time as a potential terrorist threat. But when we talked about hijackings, we talked about that in the traditional sense of hijackings, not in the sense of somebody hijacking an aircraft and flying it into a building. We talked about concern about the general noise level about al Qaeda planning and we were trying to figure out what they would do. We never had specifics about time, place, MO (method of operation)."
(c) Dan Eggen and Bob Woodward (5-18-2002; see also Buncombe 5-19-2002) of The Washington Post revealed that according to their sources, the August 6 briefing had been a result of Bush’s request for "an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the United States, because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas." Furthermore they noted that the content of the memo, as described by their sources, "was focused primarily on a discussion of possible domestic targets." This stands in stark contrast with what Condoleezza Rice had told reporters when she said that the memo had focused primarily on threats to U.S. interests abroad. Additionally, the two reporters questioned the truthfulness of a statement given by Ari Fleischer. Whereas The Washington Post’s sources insisted that the title of the memo was "Bin Laden determined to strike in America," Fleischer had stated that the title was "Bin Laden determined to strike America." The source of the terrorist threats contained in the August 6 memo reportedly came from British intelligence. (Bennetto and Gumbel 5-18-2002)
(d) Commenting on the disturbing revelation, The New York Times pondered, "It was not clear this evening why the White House waited eight months after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington to reveal what Mr. Bush had been told." (Sanger 5-16-2002)
(20) August 2001. The Case of Zacarias Moussaoui
(a) In August of 2001 the FBI was warned by a flight instructor in Oklahoma that an Arab student he was training could be a terrorist. The FBI responded to the lead only after receiving repeated calls from the instructor. He was arrested, but not intensely investigated until after 9-11, at which point it was discovered that he would have taken part in the 9-11 hijackings had he not been arrested.
(b) During the summer of 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui enrolled in a Pan Am flight school in Eagon, Minnesota. He paid his $6,300 tuition in cash. (Eggen 1-2-2002; Martin 5-27-2002) After a short period of taking flight lessons at the school, it became obvious to the instructor that Zacarias had little hope of becoming a pilot. Additionally, the student’s odd behavior arose suspicions. He was notably unfriendly and insisted on training to fly a Boeing 747 despite the fact that he had little experience with even small planes. (Eggen 1-2-2002; Barnett et al. 9-30-2001; Martin 1-5-2002; Martin 5-27-2002) The instructor notified the FBI, conveying his suspicions that Moussaoui might be a terrorist. It is not clear how quickly and competently the FBI responded because the accounts vary.
(c) On August 16, Moussaoui was detained for immigration violations. Here are some important aspects of the investigation that followed:
(1) FBI was immediately suspicious. Investigators immediately suspected that Moussaoui was a terrorist. (Rowley 5-21-2002; Eggen 1-2-2002)
(2) French intelligence revealed that Moussaoui was possibly an al Qaeda operative. The FBI contacted the CIA and requested that a background check be performed on Moussaoui. On August 26, French intelligence informed the CIA that Moussaoui had radical Islamic beliefs and indicated that his friend had fought in Chechnya with a group known to have ties to Osama bin Laden. The CIA relayed this information to the FBI. (Rowley 5-21-2002; United Press International 9-14-2001; Gordon 12-21-2001; Eggen 1-2-2002; Margasak 5-24-2002; Risen 5-25-2002; Ridgeway 5- 28-2002)
(3) Investigators discovered he had previously trained at the same flight school where another known terrorist had attended. Investigators learned about his lessons at the Airman Flight school in Norman, Oklahoma where he had been deemed such a poor pilot that he had not been allowed to fly the small planes by himself. (Eggen 1-2-2002; Martin 1-5-2002) This is the same flight school, where Abdul Hakim Murad had trained in preparation for an attack on the CIA headquarters. This plan had been revealed in 1996 when Murad testified in Court during the trial of Ramzi Ahmed Yusef, the man who had been behind the 1993 bombing of the WTC. After 9-11, authorities discovered that several of the 9-11 hijackers had trained there. (Martin 1-5-2002; Shelon 5-18-2002; Lewis 5-30-2002)
(4) Personal notes written by a Minneapolis agent had speculated that perhaps Moussaoui was planning to "fly something into the World Trade Center." Newsweek reported, "When agents learned, from French intelligence, that he had radical Islamic ties, they sought a national-security warrant to search his computer - and got turned down. From his e-mail traffic they found he wanted to learn to fly a 747 from London’s Heathrow to New York’s JFK. The agents held 'brainstorming’ sessions to try to figure out what targets might be en route. The agents were 'in a frenzy,' 'absolutely convinced he was planning to do something with a plane,' said a senior official" (cited in Isikoff 5-20-2002; see also Johnston 5-15-2002) During this brainstorming session, one of the agents wrote in the margins of his notes that perhaps Moussaoui was planning to "fly-something into the World Trade Center." (cited in Isikoff 5-20-2002; see also Johnston 5-15-2002; Cloud, Fields, and Power 5-20-2002) His notes were included in an internal report that did not leave the Minnesota office. (Cloud, Fields, and Power 5-20-2002)
(5) Investigators were denied a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer hard drive. The request for a search warrant was handled by lawyers at FBI headquarters and other FBI officials, who denied the request citing insufficient evidence. (Rowley 5-21-2002; Cloud, Fields, and Power 5-20-2002; Eggen 5-27-2002) At the same time the FBI was trying to secure a warrant, the U.S. attorney's office was also attempting to receive permission to access Moussaoui's hard drive from the Justice Department, which also turned down the request. (Gordon 10-3-2002) Even more interesting, the FBI office that was communicating with Minneapolis was the same one that had received the July 10 ' Phoenix memo.' (CNN 5-27-2002; Martin 5-27-2002) According to a 13-page letter sent by senior FBI agent and general counsel in the Minneapolis office, Colleen Rowley, senior officials at FBI headquarters provided a formidable barrier to further investigating the Moussaoui. (Rowley 5-21-2002; Risen and Johnston 5-24-2002; Martin 5-27-2002; Meyers 5-28-2002; Eggen 5-27-2002) In fact the Minneapolis agent went so far as to accuse headquarters of altering the search warrant application. The New York Times reported, "Officials who have seen Ms. Rowley's letter say it accuses the supervisor of altering the application to play down the significance of information provided by French intelligence officials about Mr. Moussaoui's links to Islamic extremists," making "it all but impossible to convince the F.B.I.'s national security lawyers to pursue court authorization for the search." (Rowley 5-21-2002; Risen 5-24-2002; see also Lumkin 5-25-2002; Martin 5-27-2002; Eggen 5-27-2002)
(6) The Minneapolis FBI office went behind the backs of their superiors to the CIA for help investigating Moussaoui. The New York Times reported, "Ms. Rowley contended. Ms. Rowley said Minneapolis agents became so frustrated by inaction at F.B.I. headquarters at one point that they went directly to the Central Intelligence Agency for help in building their case against Mr. Moussaoui. Going behind the backs of their superiors was a breach of bureau protocol, and officials at headquarters reprimanded the Minneapolis agents, the officials said." (Risen and Johnston 5-24-2002; see also Risen 5-24-2002; Cornwell 5-25-2002; Oliphant 6-2-2002) The AP received excerpts of Ms. Rowley's letter, which read, "When, in a desperate 11th-hour measure to bypass the FBI HQ roadblock, the Minneapolis division undertook to directly notify the CIA's counter terrorist center, FBI HQ personnel chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the direct notification without their approval." (Rowley 5-21-2002; cited in Margasak and Solomon 5-24-2002; Martin 5-27-2002)
(7) After the attacks, authorities searched his hard drive, which had important information. Immediately after the attacks the warrant was granted. Interestingly, the FBI was granted the search warrant based on information that did not include the intelligence that had been supplied by France (Rowley 5-21-2002). The files on the hard drive revealed information about jetliners, crop dusters, and wind currents (Eggen 1-2-2002; Martin 1-5-2002). Within hours, Moussaoui was traced to bin Laden (Gordon 5-19-2002) and linked to Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, two other 9-11 hijackers. (Gordon 5-19-2002; Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002)
(8) Minneapolis FBI agent, Colleen Rowley, took issue with Mueller's assertion that had the Minneapolis office received the warrant that nothing could have been done to prevent the attacks. In her letter to Mueller, she wrote: "The official statement is now to the effect that even if the FBI had followed up on the Phoenix lead to conduct checks of flight schools and the Minneapolis request to search Moussaoui's personal effects and laptop, nothing would have changed and such actions certainly could not have prevented the terrorist attacks and resulting loss of life. With all due respect, this statement is as bad as the first!...I don't know how you or anyone at FBI Headquarters, no matter how much genius or prescience you may possess, could so blithely make this affirmation without anything to back the opinion up than your stature as FBI Director. The truth is, as with most predictions into the future, no one will ever know what impact, if any, the FBI's following up on those requests, would have had. Although I agree that it's very doubtful that the full scope of the tragedy could have been prevented, it's at least possible we could have gotten lucky and uncovered one or two more of the terrorists in flight training prior to September 11th, just as Moussaoui was discovered, after making contact with his flight instructors. It is certainly not beyond the realm of imagination to hypothesize that Moussaoui's fortuitous arrest alone, even if he merely was the 20th hijacker, allowed the hero passengers of Flight 93 to overcome their terrorist hijackers and thus spare more lives on the ground. And even greater casualties, possibly of our Nation's highest government officials, may have been prevented if Al Qaeda intended for Moussaoui to pilot an entirely different aircraft. There is, therefore at least some chance that discovery of other terrorist pilots prior to September 11th may have limited the September 11th attacks and resulting loss of life." (Rowley 5-20-2002; Martin 5-27-2002; Eggen 5-27-2002; Oliphant 6-2-2002) After the publication of a significant portion of Rowley's letter, Robert Mueller III admitted that had the FBI responded differently to the warnings, the 9-11 attacks might have been averted. (Lewis 5-30-2002; Oliphant 6-2-2002)
(9) Immediately after the attacks, Minneapolis agents 'joked' that FBI headquarters must have spies or moles working for Osama bin Laden. In the endnotes of her letter, Colleen Rowley explained: "During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBI HQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why? --Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)' (Rowley 5-21-2002; Martin 5-27-2002; Meyer 5-28-2002).
(21) August 23, 2001. CIA memo: the case of Kahlil Almihdar and Nawaf Alhamzi
On August 23, the CIA issued an urgent alert that put two men known to have ties to al Qaeda, Khalid Almihdar and Nawaf Alhamzi on a 'watch list.' Post 9-11 investigations revealed that the CIA had long been aware that these two hijackers were connected to al Qaeda and had entered the U.S. in January of 2000. It was further revealed that the CIA did not notify the FBI, INS, or the State Department at that time, but instead waited until just 19 days before the terrorist attacks. Here is a timeline of events relating to these two men:
(a) Late December of 1999. The CIA discovered through communications surveillance on an al Qaeda safe house in Yemen that Muslim radicals with ties to al Qaeda, including Kahlil Almihdar and Nawaf Alhamzi, would be meeting together in a condo in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The safe house was owned by the Yemeni bin Laden supporter, Ahmed al-Hada, who was the father-in-law of Kahlil Almihdar. The CIA notified Malaysian intelligence, the Special Branch, and requested that an agent follow and take pictures of the men during their stay in Kuala Lumpur. (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002; Becker and Johnston 6-3-2002; Scotsman 6-3-2002; Price 6-3-2002; Eggen and Pincus 6-4-2002)
(b) January 15, 2000. On January 15, shortly after the January 6 meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar (Almihdhar had obtained a multiple-entry visa) arrived at New York's JFK airport. While the CIA was immediately aware of Almihdhar's arrival, they reportedly did not learn of Alhazmi's presence until March 2000 when they received word from a foreign intelligence agency (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002; Becker and Johnston 6-3-2002; Scotsman 6-3-2002). Though the CIA reportedly passed on this intelligence to the FBI via e-mail (Risen 6-3-2002; Eggen and Pincus 6-4-2002), the correspondence left out key information, such as the fact that the two men had been linked to the Cole bombing and that they had visited the U.S. Moreover, the information was never relayed to the INS or the U.S. State Department (Risen 6-3-2002). The CIA just let them breeze right into the U.S. despite the fact that "as 2000 dawned, U.S. law-enforcement agencies were on red alert, certain that a bin Laden strike somewhere in the world could come at any moment." And once these two men were safely in the country, no government agency monitored their activities or their whereabouts (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002).
(c) January 15, ???? Malaysian authorities continued to monitor the Kuala Lumpur condo, but notably, the CIA lost interest. Newsweek reported that had the CIA followed up in events in Malaysia, they would have been led to Zacarias Moussaoui. The magazine reported: "Had agents kept up the surveillance, they might have observed another beneficiary of Sufaat's charity: Zacarias Moussaoui, who stayed there on his way to the United States later that year. The Malaysians say they were surprised by the CIA's lack of interest following the Kuala Lumpur meeting. 'We couldn't fathom it, really,' Rais Yatim, Malaysia's Legal Affairs minister, told NEWSWEEK. 'There was no show of concern.' " (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002)
(d) September 2000. "Alhazmi opened a $3,000 checking account at a Bank of America branch. The men also used their real names on driver's licenses, Social Security cards and credit cards. When Almihdhar bought a dark blue 1988 Toyota Corolla for $3,000 cash, he registered it in his name. (He later signed the registration over to Alhazmi, whose name was on the papers when the car was found at Dulles International Airport on September 11.)" (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002;)
(e) October 2000. In the aftermath of the Cole bombing the subsequent investigations led to a one-legged al Qaeda fighter by the name of Tawfiq bin Attash. When the CIA pulled a file on him they "discovered pictures of him taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting. In one of the shots, he is standing next to Almihdhar . . . yet the agency still did nothing and notified no one" with regards to Almihdhar whom the CIA knew had been in the U.S. (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002; Eggen and Pincus 6-4-2002)
(f) Mid-to late 2000 until July 4, 2001. Almidhar left the U.S. and spent the next few months in the Middle East and Southeast Asia . When it came time for him to return, his visa had already expired. This apparently was not a problem. He simply went to a consulate in Saudi Arabia and received a new one and on July 4, 2001 he returned to the U.S., arriving in New York City's JFK Airport. (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002; Drogin, Lichtblau, and Krikorian 10-18-2002; see also Martin 1-18-2002; Price 6-3-2002)
(g) Early 2001. After two unsuccessful experiences at two California flight schools, Alhazmi went to Phoenix for additional training. While in Phoenix, he met up with Hani Hanjour, another 9-11 hijacker. (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002)
(h) August 23. Presumably spurred into action by the numerous explicit and implicit warnings of imminent terrorist attacks, CIA Director George Tenet had his staff look through the files for any possible terrorists. It was immediately discovered that both Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the U.S. (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002; Becker and Johnston 6-3-2002; Scotsman 6-3-2002; Price 6-3-2002) By that time, the two were confirmed to have links to Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives (Drogin, Lichtblau, and Krikorian 10-18-2002). According to Newsweek, that same day, the CIA "sent out an urgent cable, labeled IMMEDIATE, to the State Department, Customs, INS and FBI, telling them to put the two men on the terrorism watch list" (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002; Becker and Johnston 6-3-2002; Scotsman 6-3-2002). Although the FBI denied that the cable was labeled urgent, agents quickly set out on the trail to locate the two men, which of course they failed to do. As it turned out, both of the men had been living in San Diego and Alhazmi's real name was listed in the phone book. The Los Angeles Times reported, "that a simple check of public records and addresses from the California Department of Motor Vehicles would have shown the FBI that Almihdhar and Alhazmi had been living at a series of addresses in the San area." (Drogin, Lichtblau, and Krikorian 10-18-2001; Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002; see also Martin 1-18-2002; Scotsman 6-3-2002). A Newsweek article concluded:
"The FBI's claim that it could have unraveled the plot by watching Alhazmi and Almihdhar, and connecting the dots between them and the other terrorists, seems compelling.
The links would not have been difficult to make: Alhazmi met up with Hanjour, the Flight 77 pilot, in Phoenix in late 2000; six months later, in May 2001, the two men showed up in New Jersey and opened shared bank accounts with two other plotters, Ahmed Alghamdi and Majed Moqed. The next month, Alhazmi helped two other hijackers, Salem Alhazmi (his brother) and Abdulaziz Alomari, open their own bank accounts. Two months after that, in August 2001, the trail would have led to the plot's ringleader, Mohamed Atta, who had bought plane tickets for Moqed and Alomari. What's more, at least several of the hijackers had traveled to Las Vegas for a meeting in summer 2001, just weeks before the attacks. "It's like three degrees of separation," insists an FBI official.
(22) September 7, 2001. State Department memo
On September 7, 2001, the State Department issued a memo warning that Americans "may be the target of a terrorist threat." It is not clear what exactly prompted the State Department to issue this warning. While several federal agencies claimed that they received no word of this warning, there is evidence that at least one airport may have been informed of the memo. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "someone in the airport security section knew of it and passed word of the warning onto Mayor Willie Brown when he called to check on the status of flight he was planning to take to New York." (Matier and Ross 9-14-2001)
D. Evidence that, prior to 9/11, U.S. intelligence had knowledge that terrorists might use commercial airliners as weapons.
(1) 1993 book mentioned possibility of suicide air bombings
In 1993, Yoseff Bodansky (1993), director of the congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, wrote the report, Target America: Terrorism in America, in which he claimed that there were airport-training camps in Iran dedicated to hijacking and suicide air bombings. (see also Gul 11-8-2001; McCarthy 2-1-2002; Chin 5-19-2002) Here are some selected quotes from that report:
(a) "The training of suicide pilots started in the Busher air base in Iran in the early 1980s with some 90 Pilatus PC-7 aircraft purchased from Switzerland."
(b) "The leading terrorists are known as 'Afghans,' having been trained with the mujahadeen in Pakistan. Some fought in Afghanistan. Muslim volunteers from several Arab and Asian countries were encouraged to come to Pakistan and join the Afghan Jihad."
(c) "According to a former trainee in Wakilibad (a base for the training of kamikaze pilots), one of the exercises included having an Islamic Jihad detachment seize (or hijack) a transport aircraft. Then trained air crews from among the terrorists would crash the airliner with its passengers into a selected objective" (cited in Chin 5-19-2002)
(2) 1993 DOD brainstorming session raised possibility of suicide hijackings
In 1993, the Defense Department's Office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict held a conference to brainstorm on possible terrorist attack scenarios. According to Air Force Colonel Doug Menarchik the results of the study were not published out of fear that it might inspire potential terrorists. One of the possibilities discussed was the use of planes to bomb national landmarks. (Steven and Warrick 10-2-2001; Martin 1-16-2002)
(3) 1994. Terrorism expert raised possibility of suicide bombings
In 1994, the terrorism expert Marvic Cetron, submitted a report to the Pentagon warning of the possibility of terrorists using hijacked airplanes to bomb American targets. He told ABC News, "We knew that was going happen and we were scared." ABC news (2-18-2002) reported, "But Cetron said Pentagon officials told him to delete the warning from the report. ''I said, 'It's unclassified, everything is available,' and they said, 'We don't want it released because you can't handle a crisis before it becomes a crisis, and no one is going to believe it anyhow,'' Cetron said. Even with the warnings of an airborne attack deleted, the report was not released to the public."
(4) 1994. A man flew a small plane into tree in front of White House
In September of 1994, a man stole a small plane and crashed it into a tree in front of the President's bedroom at the White House. (Wald 10-3-2001; Martin 1-16-2002)
(5) 1994. Terrorists intended to crash a hijacked airliner into Eiffel tower
In December of 1994, hijackers attempted to carry out a plan to crash an Air France plane into the Eiffel tower. They were thwarted in Algiers when a French swat team stormed their plane as they waited for it to be filled with three times the needed fuel for the short flight to Paris. (Wald 10-3-2001; Martin 1-16-2002; Los Angeles Times 9-27-2001)
(6) 1995. Project Bojinka: plans were uncovered by Philippine authorities to crash hijacked plane into CIA headquarters
(a) In January of 1995, Filipino police uncovered a plan referred to as "Project Bojinka" to blow-up eleven [11] planes simultaneously in the air and crash another plane into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Another plane was to be flown into the Pentagon. One report that was issued by the Filipino police stated, "Murad's idea is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger, then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters. There will be no bomb or any explosive that he will use in its execution. It is a suicidal mission that he is very much willing to execute." The informant, Abdul Hakim Murad, had himself trained at a flight school in Norman, Oklahoma. According to the AP, "Murad, who later claimed he was tortured during his interrogations, detailed to Filipino authorities how he and a Pakistani friend crisscrossed the United States, attending flight schools in New York, Texas, California and North Carolina on his way to earning a commercial pilot's license." (cited in Gomez and Solomon 3-5-2002; see also Baker et al. 10-23-2001; Fainaru and Grimaldi 9-23-2001; Ressa 9-18-2001; Martin 1-16-2002; Grigg 3-11-2002; Shelon 5-18-2002; Hersh and Isikoff 5-27-2002; Public Information Center 5-2002)
(b) Some time during 1995, a suspect in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, revealed information about the same plan. (Public Information Center 5-2002; Martin 1-16-2002; Grigg 3-11-2002)
(c) After the above revelation, "FBI agents descended upon the flying schools in 1995, and returned to some of those locations immediately after Sept. 11." (Gomez and Solomon 3-5-2002)
(7) 1996. U.S. officials considered possibility of terrorists hijacking a commercial airliner and slamming it into the Olympic games in Atlanta
In 1996, U.S. officials considered the possibility of terrorists using hijacked airliners or crop dusters to stage an attack on the Olympic games in Atlanta a realistic threat. In order to prevent such a scenario, the authorities patrolled the skies with Black Hawk Helicopters and US Customs service jets. (Feinman and Pasternak 11-17-2001; Martin 1-16-2002)
(8) September 1999. A report commissioned by government mentioned possibility that terrorists could hijack commercial jets, load them with explosives and crash them into the Pentagon, CIA or White House
In September of 1999, the author of a report prepared by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress surmised that "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency or the White House." (Hudson 2-1999; cited in Solomon 5-17-2002; ABC News 5-17-2002; Eggen and Woodward 5-19-2002)
(9) Security officials for 2000 Olympic games in Sydney considered possibility of terrorists crashing a hijacked jet into the opening ceremony
Officials in charge of security at the 2000 Olympic games in Sydney had considered the possibility of a terrorist attack involving "a fully loaded, fuelled airliner crashing into the opening ceremony before a worldwide television audience." (cited in Magnay 9-20-2001; Martin 1-16-2002)
(10) October 24-26, 2000 Pentagon officials carry out a "detailed" emergency drill based upon the crashing of a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon
"You get to see the people that we'll be dealing with and to think about the scenarios and what you would do," Sgt. Kelly Brown said. "It's a real good scenario and one that could happen easily." (Military District of Washington News Service, 11/03/00) The Pentagon is such an obvious target that, "For years, staff at the Pentagon joked that they worked at "Ground Zero", the spot at which an incoming nuclear missile aimed at America's defenses would explode. There is even a snack bar of that name in the central courtyard of the five-sided building, America's most obvious military bulls eye." (Telegraph, 9/16/01)
(11) Summer 2001. U.S. officials were concerned that terrorists might crash a commercial airliner into Genoa Summit
In the summer of 2001, U.S. officials were warned of a planned attack using an airplane to assassinate Bush during the Genoa Summits. The Los Angeles Times (9-27-2001) reported, "U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday. Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport."
(12) Dates unknown "Prior to 9-11" NORAD had considered the possibility that hijackers might crash a jet into a target on American soil
General Ed Eberhart of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) admitted that NORAD had practiced responding to such a scenario where terrorists hijack a plane and attempt to crash it into a target in the U.S. (Shuger 2-16-2002)
(13) Dates unknown
Buried within some 350,000 pages of documents handed over by the CIA to the Congressional 9-11 investigation, were "Reports discussing the possibility of suicide bombings, plots to fly planes into buildings and strikes against the Pentagon, World Trade Center and other high-profile targets." (cited in Diamond 6-3-2002).
62. Plaintiff asserts the above documented facts which will be confirmed through discovery and upon testimony at trial, has established a prima facie case that Defendant GWB was fully knowledgeable the events of "911" were going to happen, failed to act and prevent and is accountable under the RICO Act for his wrongful acts and omissions.
Count V
Defendant GWB's Administration's failure to act and warn the American People caused
Plaintiff unimaginable mental, emotional, physical and financial injury as a result
of the Wrongful Death of her husband
63. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length.
64. Defendant GWB, et al., as early as August 2001, was warned by Israelis and will be proven by GWB's intelligence briefings and other credible information prior to "911"which could have prevented the attacks which lead to the death of her husband and thousands of other innocent lives. If the Defendants acted in the best interests of the national security of the United States of America, her husband and thousands of other innocent lives would have been saved.
65. During the period of time in which the terrorists seized control of the aircraft, the passengers suffered physical personal injuries, pain and suffering, extreme emotional distress, terror, property damage, and other damage, including Louis Neil Mariani, during the seizure and subsequently while the aircraft was violently controlled by the terrorists in unexpected directions, subjecting the passengers to unusual G-forces.
66. Thereafter, the aircraft crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, as a result of the deliberate acts of the terrorists who seized physical control of the aircraft, resulting in further damages and injuries to Louis Neil Mariani, and damage to the personal property of Louis Neil Mariani, which ultimately resulted in the untimely death of Louis Neil Mariani.
67. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants herein, and each of them, a measurable and significant period of time from the first trauma causing injury to decedent and/or the time Louis Neil Mariani was otherwise first injured before Louis Neil Mariani's death such that Louis Neil Mariani consciously suffered injuries and damages for a measurable period of time before death.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of Defendants, Louis Neil Mariani's death, Louis Neil Mariani's personal property, and the use thereof, were damaged, destroyed, and tortuously interfered with, all to the damage of Louis Neil Mariani, according to proof.
69. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of Defendants, Louis Neil Mariani died and his wrongful death beneficiaries have been, and continue to be, deprived of Louis Neil Mariani's future services, support, and other economic losses, according to proof.
70. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of Defendants, Louis Neil Mariani died and his wrongful death beneficiaries have suffered, and continue to suffer, non-economic damages which include, among other things, loss of comfort, care, society, love, affection, guidance, presence, attention, companionship, and protection, according to proof.
71. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Louis Neil Mariani died, and Louis Neil Mariani's wrongful death beneficiaries have incurred funeral, burial, travel, and related expenses and property damage, according to proof.
Count VI
Defendants' Intentional, Deliberate, Willful Wrongful Acts and Omissions
constitute an "on-going pattern of criminal activity and obstruction of justice" for
Plaintiff to support a Civil Claim under the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)[28]
72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein at length.
73. Plaintiff asserts and will produce at trial, bona fide evidence showing Defendants have engaged in a long "pattern of criminal activity" and on-going pattern of "criminal obstruction of justice" constituting continual, long-term criminal modus operandi that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, and victims and the threat of continuing activity, interrelated by distinguishing characteristics. Plaintiff believes the attacks of "911" that resulted in the murder of her husband and the magnitude of the crisis is readily apparent by noting that "911" serves as a pretext for a never-ending war against the world, including preemptive strikes against defenseless, but resource rich countries. It also serves as a pretext for draconian measures of repression at home, including the cabinet level Department of Homeland Security and Patriot Act I and its sequel and once the truth is exposed in this matter, the primary beneficiaries of "failing to act and prevent" the "911" attacks on America include Defendant GWB, his family, "political supporters" and Defendant friends who have made hundreds of millions off the "IWOT" as of this date.
74. Plaintiff will establish a prima facie case under the RICO Act and due to her "standing" and the courage to put a halt to this destructive course Defendant GWB's has set our Nation on by his illegal IWOT, deserves this Court's attention for the good of the American People and for Plaintiff to seek personal justice for the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani.
75. The following "patterns of criminal activity" and "obstruction of justice" based upon Defendant GWB and his Administrations and family's complicity in "911," namely Defendant GHB will set the foundation for this RICO claim and historical reforms to restore America's honor and integrity once again and to show the people of the world, not only have they been betrayed, but, so have the majority of Americans who fear even speaking their minds due to the Patriot Act and other tactics of the GWB Administration, to include engaging America in an illegal war with Iraq[29].
76. Plaintiff will establish beyond any doubt that Defendant GWB and his father Defendant GHB have long held ties with alleged mastermind of the "911" attacks "OBL" and his family and these ties remain on-going "behind the scenes" to date. And that the history of these ties deserve extreme scrutiny to understand the Defendants' inexplicable behavior before, during, and after the events of "911" [30]
77. Plaintiff, through the assistance of former federal employees as with the attached sworn affidavit of Tim McNiven will establish through discovery and trial testimony the critical ties between the OBL and Bush families to provide the foundation to support this cause of action and specifically this RICO Act claim. The bottom line sinister fact to support Plaintiff's Complaint and assertions in her "open letter" to Defendant GWB is the fact that members of Defendant GWB's administration to include Defendant GHB profiting financially and/or politically from the evil events of "911." Due to the nature and serious charges made herein, Plaintiff reasonably believes upon the ability to obtain this Honorable Court's subpoena power the fact that Defendants GHB, Cheney and their associates and supporters are making billions of dollars from the illegal "IWOT;" the truth of "911" will finally be told and it will be up to this Court to ensure justice for Plaintiff and all victims of "911" is administered for the good of the Nation. The nexus with Defendant GHB and the 'Carlyle Group" and Defendant Cheney's Halliburton and Bin Laden family connections go to the heart of this RICO Act claim.[31]
78. Plaintiff will prove to a jury of her peers and for the good of her Nation, the events of "911" could have and should have been prevented by Defendant GWB and his top cabinet members. However, the truth of the matter is that Defendants long before they obtained control of the White House, planned the takeover of Iraq and to achieve their personal goals and agendas allowed "911" to happen to create an "IWOT."
79. Plaintiff will prove Defendants have engaged in both intentional and deliberate violations of the RICO Act and the following are several examples of a long train of abuses directly by Defendant United States of America and specifically the Bush Family:
a. Plaintiff will show, the plans for global domination developed by those of Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank formed in the Spring of 1997, are also a matter of public record. These plans included specifics for taking military control of Central Asia, including regime change in Iraq. The primary architects of these plans include Defendants Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, all part of the first Bush administration ousted by Bill Clinton and now back in power with Defendant George W. Bush.
b. Plaintiff will prove, the "911" attacks came at an extremely fortuitous time for the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the weapons industry, and the oil industry, all of which have benefited immensely from this tragedy.
c. Plaintiff will demonstrate as Hitler was able to play the anti-communist card to win over skeptical German industrialists, the Bush family is not a newcomer to melding political and business interests. As history and evidence proves, the Bushes got their start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott Bush, father of George Bush Sr., was Hitler's banker and propaganda manager in New York, until FDR confiscated his holdings. Defendant George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega as a scapegoat, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians in the process of re-establishing U.S. control over Panama. It is also widely believed that Defendant George W. Bush administration knowingly misled the people about the war in Iraq.
d. Plaintiff will prove there are precedents for these kinds of acts of complicity and fabrications to support the RICO Act basis of this Complaint such as; (1), the contemplation of terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record by release of previously classified "Operation Northwoods" documents. These documents reveal that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but were given approval signatures by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan included several options, including killing Cuban defectors or U.S. soldiers, sinking ships, and staging simulations of planes being shot down done to blame on Castro as a pretext for launching a war against Cuba. The plan specifically stated, "Casualty lists in US newspapers would create a helpful wave of national indignation." Other factual matters of democracies being hoaxed include the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor bombardment, which President Roosevelt is believed to have known about beforehand, and the hoax of the Gulf of Tonkin provocation. Furthermore, as of recent history, namely, Gulf War I, the very Defendants who make up Defendant George W. Bush's administration were the key players, minus Defendant George H. Bush, Sr. who supplied Iraq with its Weapons of Mass Destruction (MWD) and then went to war to destroy the evidence while still, hundreds of thousand of Gulf War I veterans and their families suffer from known toxic exposures yet to be addressed by the very Defendants in this lawsuit.
80. Plaintiff understands the claims and assertions made herein might prove to be extremely shocking to most Americans who could not imagine that their government officials could have any complicity in the "911" attacks but all available evidence indicates this appears to be truth and the truth must finally be conclusively investigated and disclosed in this Honorable Court. Plaintiff further asserts, the wanton acts of Defendants to allow the "911" attacks to profit personally and politically from the ensuing emergency and war is hardly a new phenomenon in history. Similar pretexts have been exploited since the Roman era and in more recent times have been used to launch the US-Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, Hitler's invasion of Poland, the Tonkin Gulf resolution, the Argentinean Falkland War, etc. The Defendants have merely revived this proven stratagem for their own ends and benefit at the cost of American lives including Plaintiff's husband Louis Neil Mariani.
81. Plaintiff believes it is noteworthy to close this RICO Act Count with the observations of Canadian social philosopher John McMurtry:
"To begin with, the forensic principle of 'who most benefits from the crime?' clearly points in the direction of the Bush administration. . .The more you review the connections and the sweeping lapse of security across so many coordinates, the more the lines point backwards [to the White House]."
Count VII
Wrongful Death - Negligence, Negligence Per Se; Reckless Conduct,
Conscious Disregard for the Rights and Safety of the American Public
Warrant Punitive Damages
82. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
83. At all times pertinent to the highjacking of United Airlines Flight 175, Defendants owed a duty to Louis Neil Mariani, to at least make an attempt to prevent his untimely and wrongful death. Defendants' failure to do so, was a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff Louis Neil Mariani's wrongful death and compensatory and punitive damages against all Defendants officially and in their individual capacities is warranted in this matter and falls within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
84. Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani, deceased, is entitled to bring this cause of action for such damages, which survive his death outside the unconstitutional jurisdiction of the "Stabilization Act" and possesses standing for all other declaratory and injunctive relief the Court deems appropriate in the search of truth as to how and why the attacks of September 11, 2001, occurred.
85. Plaintiff asserts all Defendants, acting both officially and individually are exempted from "immunity" and the RICO Act, minus any arguments of the Defendants is the exclusive jurisdiction due to the grave national security and public trust matters presented herein.86. Plaintiff asserts, her tax money and that of her fellow citizens should not be used to silence the truth by the Department of Justice (DOJ), but to find the truth and responsible "terrorists" and Defendant Ashcroft's failure to prosecute any alleged terrorist(s) to date provides even more merit for this matter to be judicially reviewed.
REQUESTED RELIEF
87. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ELLEN M. MARIANI, Individually,
and as Administratrix of the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani, prays this Honorable
Court will grant judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
a. For general damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
b. For economic damages according to proof at trial;
c. For property damage and loss of use of property according to proof at trial;
d. For funeral, burial, transportation, and related expenses according to proof;
e. For damages for the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani for survival damages;
f. For punitive damage and all treble damages based on compensatory damages per RICO statute as allowed by law according to proof;
g. For prejudgment interest as allowed by law;
h. For all compensatory damages for pain and suffering, etc;
i. For all costs of suit, including attorney fees, investigators and other related fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or/and the Private Attorney General Act according to proof incurred herein;
j. For all special damages in the amount of $911 million according to proof; and
k. For such other and further extraordinary declaratory and injunctive relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated and to preserve the United States Constitution and national security of the United States of America .
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Ellen Mariani's Complaint under the RICO Act is unique wherein the facts and circumstances giving rise to this action are daily being played out and the "obstruction of justice" by Defendant GWB is an ongoing pattern of misconduct to silence the truth of "911." In the wake of the murder of her husband and the mountain of evidence that shows Defendant GWB, et al., have lied and betrayed the American People as a whole and the truth of "911" must be found in this Honorable Court.
Plaintiff asserts and concludes, for far too long in our Nation's history federal employees such as Defendants in this case have lied, betrayed and abused their constitutional oaths and the public's trust for personal gain and/or political motives. Defendants must be held to account for their actions prior to and after "911" for the good of our Nation and our security. Anything less, will render the United States Constitution and our leaders' ritual vows "to preserve and protect our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" meaningless. this matter for historical reasons must be venued in the City of Philadelphia,Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where the United States Constitution was written and signed and specifically attacked in of itself on "911." [32]
Plaintiff asserts, on "911" Defendants engaged her nation in a "preventable" war on international terrorism for self-gain and personal agendas. In the interests of justice and to preserve our constitutional freedoms and democratic way of life, Defendants must be held to defend this Amended Complaint so the "truth" is presented to all Americans and to show behind the cloak of "national security" and "executive privilege" Defendant USA et al., specifically the Bush Family and cronies have abused their public powers with little regard for life, liberty and what is best for her nation. Defendants have betrayed us all and this Amended Complaint rises above any defenses based upon immunity as the murder of her husband and thousands of other innocent victims on "911" must not and cannot be silenced in the only constitutional venue to find the truth in this matter, this Honorable Court.
Plaintiff's Complaint rises above and crosses all political party lines and is a direct call upon the federal courts to uphold the "separations of powers" clause under the United States Constitution. It must be emphasized that no one in the Federal Government has ever been held accountable, civilly, criminally or through military dereliction of duty, for the events of "911." It is simply hard to imagine on "911" thousands of innocent people were murdered and to date, not even one terrorist or federal employee has been brought to justice for the worst attacks against the United States of America in our history.
Accountability, disclosure of the truth as to how and why "911" occurred and responsibility to preserve our constitutional system of government now rests with this Honorable Court. For these historic purposes, no other case, past, present or future will matter if Plaintiff Ellen Mariani is not afforded her inalienable constitutional right to be heard and compel Defendant George W. Bush to answer why he failed to act and prevent the murder of her husband, Louis Neil Mariani. Plaintiff asserts, it is quite obvious now that even the most outspoken of critics such as former "911 Commissioner" Senator Max Cleland who once called the "911" White House deal with the Commission to provide limited access to Defendant "PDB's" [Presidential Daily Briefings] "a national scandal," has now accepted a position by Defendant George W. Bush to serve on the Import-Export Bank thus removing him from the "911" Commission's search for the truth, which will only be found through litigation of this matter. Plaintiff's success in uncovering the truth surrounding the "911" attacks will be a victory for all Americans who cherish their freedom and our Constitutional system of government. No more can so few control so many for self gain and personal agendas as will be proven at trial in this historic case which will ultimately ensure "checks and balances" on power in our federal government.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: 11-26-03 /s/
______________________________
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
706 Ridge Pike
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-1711
Attorney for Plaintiff
(610) 825-3134; Fax (610) 834-7659
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Plaintiff has reasons to believe once her cause of action is set for trial the facts, circumstances and substantial evidence will meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, "Class Actions" as this matter is representative of a numerous class of Americans wherein its claims, questions of law and fact are common and Plaintiff will represent all parties fairly and adequately who are compelled to join this civil action and are similarly situated.
[2]Defendant Bush, (hereinafter "Defendant GWB"), as President of the United States of American and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces under the provisions of the United States Constitution and National Security Act of 1947, entered into force on September 19, 1947, has exclusive oversight of the official and individual willful and ill-intentioned misconduct of all named and unnamed federal employees Defendants in this cause of action.
[3] Defendant "CFR" et. al, associated with this organization at all times relevant to the claims giving rise to this cause of action are believed to have provided Defendant GWB, et al., while acting under color of federal law with critical national security advice not believed to be in the best interests of the Plaintiff and the American Public. Defendant "CFR" and its members have long held positions of power in the United States Government and their involvement and knowledge of the pre-"911" national security matters are very much relevant for Plaintiff to obtain judicial vindication in this matter.
[4] Defendant George H. Bush's long involvement in the United States Government and his known business relations with the Bin Laden family and presence with Defendant Dick Cheney on "911" at the White House provides solid justification to support Plaintiff's basis and nexus to support her bona fide and provable Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1964(a)(c) claims against "The Bush Family."
[5] Defendants as cited by name in the caption of this lawsuit are also responsible for various agencies; agents and relevant individuals believed to be liable to Plaintiff and will be cited in appropriate areas as necessary in the body of this amended complaint and further identified during discovery. Specifically, NORAD under DOD and FAA under DOT jurisdiction respectively, are key Defendants in this matter to support Plaintiff's claim Defendants "failed to act and prevent" the pre-known potential attacks on her country leading to the murder of her husband.
[6] Plaintiff commenced this civil action on September 12, 2003, by filing of complaint with this Honorable Court. Since Plaintiff's initial filing and the 'firestorm" surrounding Defendant GWB's refusal to comply with the "911 Commission," and other relevant additional facts and evidence arose requiring the Complaint to be amended before serving Summons and Complaint as initially filed. Plaintiff still satisfies the Rule 4(m) to serve Defendants within the 120-day requirement. At the time of filing of this Amended Complaint Defendants have yet to file and serve any responsive pleadings in this matter.
[7] The Commission is tasked with "providing an authoritative account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and [making] recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future." More specifically, the commission is mandated to investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks," including those relating to intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration, nonimmigrant visas and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation and other areas determined relevant by the commission.
[8] Under Civil RICO Plaintiff is afforded a four (4) year statute of limitation to bring this cause of action. Plaintiff's Complaint is timely filed as the events giving rise to this action occurred on September 11, 2001, therefore filed well in advance of the September 11, 2005, expiration of statute of limitations. Plaintiff further requests of this Honorable Court that Defendants be compelled to provide a responsive pleading to this Amended Complaint and that Plaintiff be afforded an evidentiary hearing prior to any decision to dismiss or in the alternative, summary judgment being granted in this matter.
[9] There are significant business ties that will be proven between Defendants and OBL's family which raise serious conflict of interest and other matters wherein "failing to act and prevent" the "911" attacks have benefited Defendants. Reports have emerged and will confirmed through discovery that the Carlyle Group, the giant U.S. defense contractor until recently employed Defendant and former President GHB. Hence, the "Bush Family" and other Defendants financial profiting by war goes to the heart of Plaintiff's RICO Act claim. Defendant GHB ironically resigned from the Carlyle Group after the War in Iraq commenced. For the record, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), submitted in the Congressional record specific financial profiting with regard to Defendant Cheney's stock in Halliburton and these matter are serious public trust questions as to "intent and motive" to go to war in Iraq and to declare an never ending "IWOT."
[10]Plaintiff will prove these serious "RICO Act" based claims are bona fide and genuine as provided for under Count II which will provide specific timelines Defendants knew, or should have known, the attacks of "911" were imminent.
[11] It is obvious from American and international media sources and investigations, Plaintiff's claims herein carry great merit and justice demands Plaintiff be afforded her day in court to redress the wrongful death of her husband. Further facts at the time of this amended complaint show the "911 Commission" is bowing down to Defendant GWB's stonewalling and refusing to turn over critical intelligence reports to show what he knew prior to the attacks of "911." The statute mandating the "911 Commission" full and unfettered access to the full body of Defendant Bush's daily intelligence briefings is being resisted by Defendant GWB and Plaintiff through discovery will obtain the truth as to the reasons "911" occurred to find who is responsible for her husband's murder.
[12]There was sufficient evidence that the "911" attacks were known well in advance...hence the unprecedented volume of put options sold on both American and United Airlines during the week preceding "911" raises serious public trust questions whether "cash for lives" and another RICO Act basis.
[13] Plaintiff argues there is a serious conflict of interest and public trust factor with Defendant DOJ being a primary Defendant in this case. Due to this fact, Plaintiff's RICO Act basis is the exclusive appropriate jurisdiction, as Plaintiff would further pursue justice at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Defendant GWB et al., if the United States was subject to its jurisdiction.
[14] Defendant GWB's private consultants, Plaintiff believes these Defendants are directly connected, specifically, Defendant GHB with critical intelligence and national security advice that warrants discovery in this cause of action.
[15]Plaintiff intends to call at trial, former federal employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise to support her bona fide RICO Act challenge against Defendant GWB et al. Plaintiff having the courage to bring this "unique" cause of action will support its Counts with Amicus Briefs and other Declarations of private American Citizens and former federal employees in support of this Amended Complaint. For example, Exhibit "C" is the sworn affidavit of Tim McNiven, former federal employee who has established Defendant USA and Defendant GHB for 25 years prior to "911," knew or should have known "terrorists" could use commercial airliners as weapons to kill innocent people and destroy property. This affidavit, at the very least, establishes a prima facie case of "gross or criminal negligence" in this cause of action.
[16] Defendant USA, pursuant to the United States Constitution Article I, II and III, establishes the legislative powers, executive power and the judicial power of the United States respectively. Plaintiff alleges under the Constitution, the Legislative Branch establishes various departments of the Federal Government including the Department of Defense ("DOD"), Department of Justice ("DOJ"), and the various sub-entities therewith and acting in concert therewith. On information and belief, Defendant GWB as an individual, (and sometimes referred to as the "Bush Family"), or under color of authority and office under the powers of Article II of the Constitution, utilized the aforesaid departments, agencies and entities to shield his personal negligent acts and omissions in concert with all named and unnamed Defendants who owed Plaintiff' a duty to act and prevent the "911" attacks.
[17] Plaintiff cites the NS Act to provide the foundational argument Defendants prior to "911" and afterwards have not acted in "good faith" with regard to the facts and circumstances leading to the "911" attacks. Moreover, the NS Act is being invoked to silence Defendants' connections with alleged terrorists, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, based upon claims of "national security" and "executive privilege."
[18] The "Summary of Facts" will set the foundation to support Plaintiff Counts as set forth herein. However, a complete highly researched timelines of "911" by American Citizen Mark R. Elsis who has agreed to testify to his research on behalf of Plaintiff, and believed to be one of the "most comprehensive minute by minute accounts of the events of "911"" is also attached hereto as Exhibit "C."
[19] If proper procedures were followed by the Defendants FAA and NORAD, the horrific events of "911" could have been very well avoided. Defendant NORAD had approximately twenty-two (22) minutes from the first notification of Flight 11's highjacking, until it crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. to intercept, thus raising serious questions of "dereliction of duty" at a minimum, for which no federal employee has been held accountable to date.
[20] At this very moment, Defendant NORAD was grossly negligent in failing to inform their boss, Defendant GWB that a national emergency just developed. To date, no NORAD member has been official charged with dereliction of duty, a court martial offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ). Even more astonishing, Defendant Rumsfeld and his subordinates NORAD and NEADS were several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian." Senior officers involved in Vigilant Guardian were manning NORAD command centers throughout the United States and Canada, available to make immediate decisions to respond and intercept the hijacked airplanes that could have prevented the absolute destruction of lives and property on "911."
[21] On July 24, 2002, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued an Order that all actions for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage or business loss currently pending or to be filed pursuant to the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub.L. No. 107-42 Section 408(b)(3), 49 U.S.C. Section 40101 (2002) against any airline and/or airline security company, be consolidated for purposes of pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff's Complaint is exempted as the RICO Act is the foundational basis of her pursuit of justice and to hold Defendants accountable for allowing the "911" attacks against her nation to occur to profit personally and politically from an illegal war on international terror. This assertion in of itself is very easily provable and probably well known to this Honorable Court at this time.
[22] Plaintiff further believes upon successful prosecution of this cause of action, the evidence gathered during discovery and trial will lead to substantial evidence to warrant criminal indictments against Defendants. Plaintiff will seek extraordinary relief by the Court to compel the United States Congress to appoint "special counsel" to investigate Defendants for criminal violations under the provisions of the RICO Act.
[23]As facts do show at the time of this civil action, the only alleged "terrorist" in the custody of the United States Government being tried is Zacarias Moussaoui and from all indications Defendant Ashcroft will not prosecute this individual on claims of "national security" concerns. It is this specific type of questionable government act or in-action based upon invocation of the "NS Act" which Plaintiff intends to pursue in this Complaint. Moreover, to prove and support the claims in this cause of action, Plaintiff intends to subpoena Mr. Moussaoui as a favorable witness on her behalf.
[24] Further provided at Exhibit "C" is a certified "polygraph examination" of Affiant McNiven, including his military DD-214 honorable discharge separation papers. The polygraph exam was conducted by John R. Weller, President of Pacific Polygraph Services (PPS) Ltd., and retired Canadian Army Officer who was trained by the U.S. Army as a Military Polygraph examiner.
[25] Plaintiff herein is challenging the honesty and forthrightness of Defendant GWB due to his present refusal to cooperate with the "911 Commission" and believes Defendant GHB's long term involvement in her government as CIA director from (1976-1977), his terms as Vice President (1980-1988) and President (1989-1992) and his subsequent business relationships hold the answers and will provide additional basis for her RICO Act claim against Defendants.
[26] At Exhibit "D" see Attorney of Record Berg's confirmation letter with "PPS" President John L.R. Weller that the information of sworn affidavit and contents of Mr. McNiven's have been verified to be genuine.
[27] Defendant CIA Director George Tenet will be called upon to divulge who in the GWB White House was provided the July 2001 PIB. According to Newsweek, a source said one of the recipients of the still-unpublicized July briefing that foretold the 9/11 attacks was Bush himself. Moreover, Senate Intelligence Committee Staff Director, Eleanor Hill, a former federal prosecutor and Pentagon Inspector General will be called to testify as to who blocked her at the last minute from divulging precisely who in the White House received the classified July 2001 briefing of Defendant CIA Director George Tenet. Plaintiff has reason to believe, once the congressional intelligence report is obtained through discovery, the names, dates, and substantial new information about the handling of many other crucial intelligence briefings -- including one in early August 2001, provided to National Security Advisor, Defendant Condoleezza Rice discussed Al Qaeda operations within the United States and the possibility that the group's members might seek to hijack airplanes.
[28] Plaintiff upon successfully proving Defendant GWB, et al., were responsible for failing to prevent the attacks of "911" in conspiracy to benefit from an "IWOT" as will be proven during discovery and trial, extraordinary injunctive and declaratory relief deemed appropriate by the Court is therefore requested to hold Defendants criminal responsible and accountable to the American People for their crimes against Plaintiff and the nation as a whole.
[29] On November 19, 2003, Mr. Perle, a key member of the Defendants Bush and Rumsfeld's "Defense Policy Board", which advises Defendant Rumsfeld, stated in part: "international law...would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone" and this would have been morally unacceptable." (The Guardian 10/23/03). Plaintiff asserts and supports in her "open letter" to Defendant GWB that more "morally" unaccepted and a nexus to this RICO Act claim is countless American service members will continue to lose their lives for the personal agendas and financial motives of Defendants. Under Title 18, U.S.C. Chapter 91, "Racketeering activity" includes but not limited to; any act or threat involving murder. When Plaintiff prevails in this cause of action, the facts will show Defendants are both liable under criminal and civil RICO for the murders of all "911" victims and the honorable men and women of the United States Armed Forces who yet fully understand they are being used not to make a world a safer place by removing Saddam Hussein, but for the ill-willed conspiracy of Defendant GWB et al., to engage American in a never ended "IWOT" for which Defendants are already benefiting financially. (18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (d).
[30] It is well known to many in the World that Defendant USA, namely, Defendant GHB as CIA Director and Vice-President had close working relationship with OBL during the Iran-Iraq War and further with Saddam Hussein when Defendant GHB was a critical player in providing Iraq with the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) through and leading up to the 1991 Gulf War for which he was President of the United States. What really occurred on "911" can be compared to a RICO nexus with the so-called Italian Mafia family wars. However, the entire American People have been pawns in this deadly and evil mixture of the Bush and Bin Laden Regimes.
[31] Defendant Cheney, for example, is still "holding 433,333 Halliburton stock options…. The total value of these shares right now is over $26,674,990." (Source: Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Congressional Record, October 29, 2003) Halliburton has outperformed the Standard & Poor's Index by nearly 40% over the last year; largely on the strength of hundreds of millions in unbid DOD contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the consequent appreciation of his stock options over the same period, Defendant Cheney has personally netted millions from IWOT and the aftermath of "911". Defendant GHB's share in the Carlyle Group's defense related profits will show similar margins of appreciation since his son launched IWOT "in response" to "911."
[32] On Friday, November 21, 2003, just days prior to the filing of this Amended Complaint, Retired Army General Tommy Franks the former commander of the military's Central Command warned, that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the United States or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government. Frank further stated; if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. (NewsMax). On "911" Plaintiff and her nation were hit by weapons of mass destruction and to date no one based upon "hard evidence" has been held responsible and Plaintiff holds standing to find and bring to account those responsible parties and through discovery and trial testimony Defendant GWB, et al., will provide Plaintiff and the People of the United States of America the who, what, why and how "911" occurred. Plaintiff asserts her willingness to find the truth will in the end, preserve our constitutional system of government if only afforded the right to be heard in this matter and to call credible and other concerned American Citizens to prove this Amended Complaint, its basis and claims are bona fide and will prevent destruction of our way of life through accountability by this Honorable Court.
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
706 Ridge Pike, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-1711
Cell (610) 662-3005, (610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL, Fax (610) 834-7659
PJBLAW@aol.com
Philip Jay Berg (born April 13, 1944), previously an American attorney, brought a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit charging president George W. Bush and 154 others with complicity in the September 11 attacks, and another suit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become President of the United States.
Berg, whose office was in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, is a former chairman of the Democratic Party of Montgomery County, in suburban Philadelphia and a former member of the Democratic State Committee. He is a paid life member of the NAACP.
He is a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania.
On June 19, 2013, Berg's license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was suspended for two years. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced on June 16, 2015, that Berg was disbarred on consent after submitting a letter of resignation that the court kept under seal.[1] After being disbarred, he worked as an Uber driver in Philadelphia.[2]
https://www.scribd.com/doc/5051668/Al-Gore-and-the-boys
https://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/21/9_11_widow_sues_the_bush
9-11 Widow Sues the Bush Administration for Intelligence Failures
May 21, 2004Ellen Mariani’s husband Neil died in flight 175 on September 11. Mariani refused a compensation package from the government of up to $1.8 million. Instead, she sued President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other administration officials under RICO-the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations act. [includes rush transcript]
This week, the 9/11 Commission wrapped up its latest round of public hearings. Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani were among the officials who testified at the hearings which took place in New York.
There were many protests outside the hearings this week and inside as well, with protesters disrupting the proceedings several times. Among those who were in town for the hearings were a number of family members who lost loved ones on September 11. Tomorrow night at Riverside Church in New York, there will be a forum on what organizers are calling the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. Among the speakers will be former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, as well as Ellen Mariani who lost her husband Louis on September 11. He was onboard United Airlines flight 175.
Ellen Mariani has refused to accept any money from the US government’s compensation fund—which could be as much as $1.8 million. Instead she has filed a lawsuit against President Bush, Vice president Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other administration officials. The suit is filed under RICO-the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations act.
- Ellen Mariani, the wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when United Air Lines flight 175 was flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11. She has filed a RICO lawsuit against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
- Philip Berg, Ellen Mariani’s lawyer. He is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and a former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate.
Transcript
AMY GOODMAN: We welcome you both to Democracy Now!.
ELLEN MARIANI and PHILLIP BERG: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Ellen, why have you chosen this route? And can you start off by just sharing your reaction to the hearing this week?
ELLEN MARIANI: I was very disappointed. I had not attended any of the others. I felt that they were an insult to the families’ intelligence, number one. They are saying, we’re not here to blame. We’re here to learn a lesson. Do we have to learn a lesson on 3,000 deaths? No, we do not. We feel that they are guilty. We want to get to the bottom of this. That is the only way any of us in this country will heal. Other than that, we’re told it is going to happen again. What’s going to happen? How do they know? Why is this going to happen? What have we learned?
AMY GOODMAN: Could you tell us why you chose this particular path? What made you decide honestly to reject the compensation offers of the government and what led you to decide that there were these unanswered questions?
ELLEN MARIANI: Within a month after Neil’s death, my husband, I went to an attorney in Boston, and he gave me the whole outline of the Victim’s Compensation Fund, but Mr. Kenneth Feinberg decided to wait until September 21st to come out with this most highly complicated procedure on a chart of everybody’s worth that had been killed. I couldn’t put together the real reasons or the dots of why we would have to shut up for money. We can’t heal. You will never heal without the truth. It’s the truth that sets us free.
When I saw that I wasn’t getting any answers from the media, from anything I had heard on television, and the most important thing is when I had attended the second hearing in New York, I had already put a lawsuit in on December 20, 2001, against United. You know, Neil and I, we paid for safe destinations. He did not get it. He was abandoned. God knows what they did to them or who did it to them in those planes. I feel sorry for — if they’re going through the pain that I’m going through, it is hell. I decided to put the lawsuit in. I want the truth. You cannot sleep at night, knowing that you are paid off to keep your mouth shut. No, money, as you get older, is not going it take the place of your loved one. I put a lawsuit in against United. What did they do? The government came in and blocked all my evidence to have a lawsuit. I waited two-and-a-half years for them to show me that they’re sincere, they’re going to get to the bottom of this, like the president has said, “So help me god, we will hunt them down and they will be punished.” That is not what they were doing. They blocked everything. Two-and-a-half years of nothing, I put the lawsuit in. No one is above the law.
AMY GOODMAN: Phillip Berg, you can describe the legal principles of this lawsuit, taking on President Bush and his senior Cabinet?
PHILLIB BERG: Sure. Thank you very much, Amy, for having us on. It’s a real honor, first off, to be able to represent Ellen Mariani, who has the stamina and guts to proceed. Roughly, we’re two-and-a-half years after 9/11, and not one person has been accused of a crime. Not one person in the military has been brought up for court-martial. Where is the investigation? This is the — one of the biggest disasters that ever happened to the United States, going along with the lines of Pearl Harbor or some people raised the issue of slavery and to that effect, but this is the biggest attack on American Soil. What’s going on? Where’s the investigation? The evidence has disappeared. All the Ground Zero has been cleaned out, but the steel has been taken away. It has been sent off to China.
Just the facts of it, the legitimate facts are unanswered. So, we have filed a RICO action which is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act it was an act created by Congress in the 1960’s to go after the Mafia, in other words, the mob, and it’s our position that there’s a mob in the White House. To be successful with the RICO Action, you have to have a before, during and after, and we believe that we have the facts, and we will be able to get the evidence that there was plans before for this to occur. The facts are that the Administration definitely had foreknowledge of 9/11. They failed to warn. They failed to prevent, and since then, there’s been a massive cover-up. So, you need certain predicate acts. You need certain things that you have to do. Right now, we’re dealing with some procedural issues. Hopefully in the next couple of weeks, we’re going to clean some of those issues up and come forth more in the public, and that’s why we appreciate being on your show and other shows.
The mass media is not handling 9/11. What we’re looking for is the direct answers to legitimate questions. And we feel we can get those, and we feel the answers are there. We just don’t understand the media not wanting to cover it. It’s a very difficult issue, we know. I think the biggest problem is that the American public doesn’t want to accept that their government — that their government was involved in something as detrimental as this. And if I may, very briefly, if we can go back to “Operation Northwood.” it was 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that’s our military branch in this country, had a plan which is now declassified. I’m not sure if it’s on our website yet, but I’ll make sure it is up there, but Operation Northwood dealt with the fact that they planned — our government planned to cause destruction to American property, cause death and injury to American citizens, and to blame it on Cuba, to go to war with Cuba. I said the documents are now declassified. President John F. Kennedy stopped that. John F. Kennedy stopped that, and because of that, that did not occur. If you would change the facts of Cuba with Iraq, the situation is just about the same. If people look at the facts of 9/11. 9/11 could not have happened, could not have happened without the complicity of the Federal Government. It’s going back, and I try to identify things that people can identify with, and this is how we’ll put it forth in our suit.
In 1999, the golfer, Payne Stewart, his plane went off course. I’m sure many of your listeners will remember that, I’m switching phones here, maybe that’s a little better. His plane went off course, and after it was off course three-and-a-half minutes, it was picked up by the F.A.A and NORAD or whoever else. Within 8-and-a-half minutes, fighter jets were alongside his plane while it went off course. It was supposed to fly from Florida to Texas. Instead, it flew from Florida to the Northern United States. The jets escorted that plane the entire way. They didn’t have to deal with the issue, but it’s reported that if that plane was going to crash into a populated area, they would have shot it down. So, where were the fighter jets on 9/11? We know from Betty Ang and others that at 8:20 AM on 9/11, that the first plane was hijacked, two people had been stabbed, they didn’t have control of that plane. She stayed on the phone, a stewardess, from 8:20 to 8:46 and lost contact when her plane crashed into the World Trade Center. When it was flashed on the news that a plane accidentally hit the World Trade Center, that’s what we were told, the government knew that it was not an accident. So, even for a minute, if you would say, well, the fighter jets should — why weren’t they scrambled during that time? Why weren’t they scrambled at 8:46? If they were, Ellen’s husband, Neil, would probably not be alive today, but that second plane didn’t hit the second World Trade Center until 17 minutes later. So, where were the fighter jets? That plane should never have been allowed into the airspace of New York, or if it did, it should have ended up in the Hudson River or someplace else. That plane was the second plane that hit. That was the first tower that came down. These questions have not been asked by the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission is a joke because it’s going to be like the Warren Commission, smoothing over something without asking the legitimate, honest, direct questions that have to be asked.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Phillip Berg, the families and Ellen as well have asked a variety of questions that have not been answered. One of the interesting ones is the issue of Governor Jeb Bush in Florida going to the offices of Hoffman Aviation School and ordering that flight records and files be removed. Could you talk a little bit about that?
PHILLIP BERG: Sure. The stories which have been confirmed that Jeb Bush went to the flight school. All of the records from there were taken and loaded onto an Air Force plane. I believe it was a C-130, and they were flown out of the country. I mean, why? Talk about flying them out of the country when everyone — when all of your listeners, and Ellen Mariani was stuck in Chicago. When people after 9/11 were grounded for three or four days, President Bush allowed planes to go around the United States and pick up members of the Bin Laden family, and other Saudis and fly them out of the country without being investigated by the FBI or the CIA.
Jeb Bush raises questions. The other thing I believe — I have to get the transcript. I was listening the other day when Major Giuliani was speaking, I believe he said when he was speaking with the White House, and I need the transcript, so, if you have it, please make it available to me, that there were seven planes missing at a certain period of time. If there were, the next question I have, when they grounded all of the planes in the United States, why were those seven planes, which they knew were off course, why weren’t they earmarked, and why weren’t they held at a certain location at the airports where they were grounded to be searched and investigated? Just the — if you just think of all of the things that have occurred here. Building 7 in New York — Planes did not hit it. 47-story building in the World Trade Center complex made of concrete and steel and what happens at 5:30 in the afternoon on 9/11? The building implodes. Why? So, these are legitimate questions, and Ellen has raised many more. They’re on our website if I can mention it, www.911forthetruth.com. They’re legitimate questions that have to be answered, which the government refuses to answer.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And I’d like to ask Ellen now in terms of the families, how are the families of — moving forward now, especially after these last commission hearings?
ELLEN MARIANI: Well, that’s a good question. They’re very sad. They feel devastated. They want answers. I want answers. A lot of them have confessed to me, and I don’t condemn it, they’re on medication. They have been on it for a long time — Since 9/11. I want to tell you people, I am of sound mind. I would not take any medication. I was tricked into trying to be medicated, and no, thank you. I wanted to take this on head-on in respect of my husband and those precious young people that died in the buildings and those other victims from 80 other countries, my sympathy goes to them.
AMY GOODMAN: And what kind of access do you have to the 9/11 Commission Members? Are these questions going to be answered for us?
ELLEN MARIANI: They’re not answering any of our questions. To me, it’s just a format. It’s like a practice run. They wouldn’t stay on for the second day for the questions and answers. Time, they just decided, they just omitted it. We need answers from them. They said we’re not here to blame, but to learn lessons. We don’t need to learn lessons. These people that died, my husband, precious little children on the planes. They’re heroes — well, did they choose to be heroes? What have they done to become heroes. Don’t soften this error by saying “heroes.” I would like my husband back, and I’ll never see him again.
AMY GOODMAN: The questions, again, on your open letter to President Bush, why were 29 pages of the 9/11 Committee Report personally censored at your request? Where are the black boxes from Flight 11 and Flight 175? Where are the voice recorders from Flight 11 and 175? Why can’t we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175? Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the doomed flights? When will complete passenger lists for all the flights be released? Why did your brother Jeb Bush, as Juan read, go to Hoffman Aviation School and order the flight records be removed?
ELLEN MARIANI: There’s a last one on there that I’m very troubled over. I’d like the remains of our loved ones brought to a resting place here that we can all go and visit to try to heal, instead of being over in this landfill over on one of the islands. I am — I understand there are quite a few refrigerated tractor-trailer trucks where they say they can’t identify. We need a resting place. I have nothing of my husband. So do thousands of others have anything of their loved ones. We need that. It’s two-and-a-half years. You know, yes, there is blame, and they’re skirting around the truth. We know the only way we’re going to get it is through my lawsuit.
AMY GOODMAN: Ellen Mariani and Phillip Berg, I want to thank you very much for being with us. When we come back —
ELLEN MARIANI and PHILLIP BERG: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Gore Vidal. Stay with us.
News release of:
Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund
c/o Vincent Gillespie, Secretary-Treasurer
P. O. Box 1284
Greenfield, MA 01302
Contact: (413) 512-0634
www.marianilawsuit.com
E-mail: explodingbee@gmail.com
URGENT & TIME-SENSITIVE! Thanks for your support.
Please use entire release for full context and disclaimers.
Date: August 30, 2012 (revised September 17, 2012)
9/11 WIDOW HOPING FOR
SUPREME COURT REVIEW
Backers Now Trying to Raise $11K by 11/1/12
Embattled widow Ellen Mariani wants to tell the U.S. Supreme Court that the $3.75
million settlement of her late husband’s 9/11 claims was tainted, and she has authorized a legal
defense fund to allow her to carry on her decade-long fight, announced Mariani backers August
30 from Massachusetts.
Mariani was the first person to sue airlines and airports for a 9/11 death--in Chicago
federal court in early 2002. She was also one of the earliest family members to speak publicly
about her doubts about the official 9/11 story. None of the remains of her husband Louis Neil
Mariani, booked as a passenger on United Air Lines Flight 175, were ever returned to her.
According to the official 9/11 story, Arab hijackers flew her husband’s plane into the South
Tower of the World Trade Center after slipping past airport security with box cutters--but
Mariani doesn’t buy it.
At one time Mariani was persuaded to sue George W. Bush and other government
officials for complicity in the events of 9/11, but that case was promptly dismissed.
What remained to her--at least until late June 2012--was the chance to get evidence and
accountability inside the official 9/11 wrongful death litigation that was assigned by Congress
to a single federal court, the Southern District of New York, and a single judge, Alvin K.
Hellerstein. No claim in that case ever reached trial, and Mariani’s is the last to be paid.
Judge Hellerstein has presided over hundreds of cases involving 9/11 victims in
Manhattan, and all have resulted in settlements for undisclosed amounts. Hellerstein took an
active role in urging settlement, stating at one point, "Money is the universal lubricant."
Meanwhile, Mariani and her attorney Bruce Leichty have been repeatedly rebuffed by
Hellerstein, say Mariani’s backers, and have now been rebuked by a two-judge panel of the 2nd
Circuit Court of Appeals. They were "ordered to show cause" why they should not pay money
sanctions to their adversaries after they submitted extensive documentation of Hellerstein’s connections with three key defendants in the 9/11 litigation, Boeing Corporation and security companies ICTS and its U.S. subsidiary Huntleigh. In an April 2012 motion, submitted on the eve of appellate argument, Mariani showed that Hellerstein’s son Joseph, a lawyer in Israel, had client relationships with affiliates and joint venturers of these same three defendants.
That was on top of her earlier showing to Hellerstein that the plaintiff who took over her
New York federal court claims in 2004, John Ransmeier, was then representing United Air Lines at the same time he was purporting to settle the Mariani 9/11 claims with United and Huntleigh and their insurers, notes James Phillips, a retired attorney and a former Marine Corps officer. Phillips is a long-time 9/11 truth advocate who is not involved in the case.
"These filings were controversial but quite relevant and well-presented," said Phillips.
"One of Ellen’s main interests has been about getting beyond the stage-managing of the 9/11
proceedings, about getting behind the superficial appearance that the 9/11 legal process is
working in the public interest, but that’s obviously not possible when a court is turning a blind
eye to conflicts of interest."
The Supreme Court is now her only hope for 9/11 truth, he says, but "she and her
litigation team have exhausted their resources and can’t go to the Supreme Court without help."
Phillips says he has long been interested in the case based on his acquaintance with some
of Mariani’s backers, who have followed proceedings in her probate court case in New
Hampshire where the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani was opened after 9/11, and subsequently
hearings in New York, where Mariani’s case was transferred from federal court in Chicago.
Ellen Mariani was the first administrator of her deceased husband’s estate, but was essentially
forced out in favor of a supposedly neutral successor based on complaints of attorneys for her step daughter and based on dubious counsel of prior New Hampshire counsel after Ellen began her quest for 9/11 truth.
Mariani argued in her latest filing that she should be permitted to re-enter her case as an
intervenor based on the divided loyalties of her fiduciary, and also to challenge Ransmeier’s settlement since it directly affected her. Her court papers reveal that she didn’t discover that John Ransmeier was not a neutral fiduciary until after a previous attempt to intervene in 2007.
The papers reveal that Ransmeier was proposing to settle the case without any accountability, and without honoring her personal spousal loss claim, even though Ransmeier’s law firm had been representing United Air Lines and other interested parties without disclosure during the same time he was litigating against them and then settling with them.
Hellerstein and the 2nd Circuit both rejected Mariani’s first attempt at intervention,
although the 2nd Circuit also confirmed that she could object to any settlement presented to
Hellerstein; however, in June 2012 a different two-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit ruled that
Mariani should have known she could no longer intervene to challenge the settlement, and
threatened to impose money sanctions on her and attorney Leichty (the outcome of that threat
is pending at the time of this news release).
"Bruce Leichty is a very responsible litigator and has shown great courage in taking on
this case and in filing the motion regarding Hellerstein," said Phillips. "Since another panel of
this court had already rejected Ransmeier’s motion to dismiss Ellen’s appeal on the same grounds cited by these two judges, this inexcusably harsh ruling is obviously designed to intimidate. He and Ellen need our support more than ever."
If Mariani can’t get the Supreme Court to accept a petition for review of the outcome of
her claims against United Airlines, Boeing and airport security companies, says Phillips, then the
possibility for accountability regarding the actual events of 9/11 through litigation is officially ended, and Mariani will be left with a potentially hollow remedy in New Hampshire probate court about fiduciary misconduct. Phillips further notes that she might also get only a fraction of the settlement money pledged by 9/11 defendant insurers, since there is a real danger that most of it could be awarded to her stepdaughter and to various lawyers for probate administrator Ransmeier who have been ruthlessly fighting her for more than five years.
A person who is affected adversely by a federal court settlement is supposed to at least
have standing to seek intervention in federal court and that is particularly true where there is disclosure of conflicts of interest on the part of a fiduciary, says Phillips. Yet Judge Hellerstein
denied her a voice on the ground that Mariani had no basis to even ask to participate, and the
2nd Circuit in its unpublished decision upheld him, without reaching any of Mariani’s arguments
about the effect of conflicts of interest or other claims of unlawful and unfair features of the
settlement.
Among other things, Mariani has alleged in her latest federal court filing that:
--Probate administrator Ransmeier never intended to and was not prepared to go to trial
on the claims made in the 9/11 action, and had no attorney lined up to try the case;
--Probate administrator Ransmeier failed to account to Mariani for evidence taken during
the case from Boeing as to the ability of the plane manufacturer to install hardware and software
on its planes that would allow remote electronic commandeering of the planes, ostensibly in the
event of a hijacking;
--Ransmeier discounted Mariani’s individual claims for loss of spousal companionship and consortium, pled separate from the Estate’s claims, and failed to use any argument to maximize what he had at one time said had very significant value.
--An attorney for Ransmeier, Charles Capace, was awarded almost $800,000 by
Hellerstein despite never having formally entered an appearance for Ransmeier in Hellerstein’s
court and despite not being admitted in New York federal court. Capace got a bigger fee award than any other 9/11 plaintiff attorney, as a reward for fighting Mariani’s intervention efforts;
--Probate Administrator Ransmeier was unlawfully authorized by Hellerstein to effect a
waiver of Mariani’s own claims, different from those of the probate estate, in the context of the
settlement agreement with unnamed insurers for United and Huntleigh.
--Only the New Hampshire probate court had the authority in the first place to allocate any attorney fees from the $3.75 million settlement, or to approve an offset of $25,000 to United Air Lines for money that was paid by United shortly after the 9/11 tragedy not to Ransmeier, but to Mariani.
There is considerable irony in that latter point, says Phillips. Despite essentially usurping
the role of the New Hampshire probate court, he observes, Judge Hellerstein in denying Mariani’s intervention motion stated that only the probate court could rule on whether she had bargained away all of her rights to intervene when she let a successor step into the role of probate administrator, and on whether that successor remained fit to carry out by himself the duties of a plaintiff in the federal 9/11 litigation--and this despite the fact that Rockingham County probate judge Peter Hurd in New Hampshire had already refused to decide that issue by deferring to
Hellerstein’s court.
Until the Mariani Estate settlement was presented to the court in 2010 over Ellen Mariani’s strong objection, none of the amounts of any settlement in a 9/11 action had been publicly disclosed, and yet no major media have chosen to cover the disclosure of the size of the settlement or Mariani’s objection to it, or to comment on its size as compared to recoveries in other high profile wrongful death litigation. Phillips says Ransmeier and attorneys for the probate estate have brazenly stonewalled Mariani in her attempts to find out how much of the settlement they intend to take for themselves, but Phillips believes it will be massive, unless the tide can be turned by the Supreme Court.
"This case involves the biggest terrorist event in the nation’s history, without any trial to show what actually happened, and it is a case that raises many issues of national importance. Not just Ellen Mariani but the whole country needs to know what happened on 9/11," says Phillips. "This is in addition to the fact that widows have a special place of protection in our legal heritage based on biblical admonition."
Ellen Mariani needs to raise $11,000 by 11/1/12 in order to proceed with her appeal to the US Supreme Court. The Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund was unable to raise the money by our previous deadline to collect the funds, which was 9/11/12. However, Ellen’s attorney, Bruce Leichty, filed an application for an extension of time to file with the US Supreme Court and an extension was granted, with a new filing date of 11/23/12. This means that we can continue our fundraising efforts up until 11/1/12 (which would leave Bruce Leichty three weeks and one day to prepare and file the brief). Phillips stated that if the fund succeeds in raising the $11,000 by 11/1/12 Ellen Mariani’s case will be appealed to the US Supreme Court. He also said that if the money cannot be raised in time she will not be able to do so; however, any funds collected regardless of the outcome will be used to protect Mariani and defray whatever legal expenses are incurred by Mariani in protecting her remaining rights and/or legal fees and expenses already incurred. Added Phillips: "All of the contributions received will be for the legal expenses of Ellen Mariani who has dedicated her last decade to 9/11 truth. Not one cent will go for the administrative costs of the group which has organized the Legal Defense Fund. We are working on a volunteer basis." A website has been put up where online donations can be made at www.marianilawsuit.com. Alternatively, checks or money orders can be sent by November 1, 2012 to: Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund, c/o Vincent Gillespie, Secretary-Treasurer, P. O. Box 1284, Greenfield, Mass. 01302. (Checks or money orders should be made payable to “Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund.”)
A GROUP OF 9/11 RELATED CIVIL CASES ARE PENDING AND THEY REPRESENT
AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11
January 25, 2015
By Vincent Gillespie, Secretary Treasurer of the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund 1
Background
Ellen Mariani is a widow who lost her husband, Louis Neil Mariani, due to the terrorist
attacks of 9/11/2001 and who sued in court to try to find justice and the truth regarding his death.
The Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund raised money so that she could appeal her case2 to the US
Supreme Court. She sought that appeal after the courts took many improper steps to shut down
her case and prevent it from ever coming to trial. We succeeded in raising the necessary money
and the appeal was filed on 11/21/12. However, unfortunately the US Supreme Court refused to
hear it. Ellen finally settled her case in September of 2013. (The September 7, 2014 update for
the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund, which is posted at marianilawsuit.com, contains much
more background information about this fund.)
The Burnett case and a related group of 9/11 cases
In about March of 2014 I learned that there was actually another 9/11 case involving
Wrongful Death claims pursued by plaintiffs who had lost relatives on 9/11/01 (besides Ellen
Mariani’s case, which was settled in September of 2013) which was active, Burnett v. Al Baraka
Investment & Development Corp (filed in US District Court for the Southern District of New
York; case # 1:03-cv-09849-GBD). That case is still active at the time of this writing. (A copy
of the very large docket for that case dated 8/9/14 from the Federal District Court for the
Southern District Of New York can be reviewed by clicking here. The case was originally filed on 8/15/2002 in US District Court for the District of Columbia. The docket for the case when it
was there in Washington, D.C. is here.)
On further investigation I found that actually the Burnett case, which is very large in and
of itself, is only one of a number of interrelated, large 9/11 cases (apparently all involving
wrongful death claims filed by plaintiffs who lost relatives on 9/11). The lead case of this group
of cases is titled In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, case # 1:03-md-01570-GBDFM,
which is pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.3 That case
is really huge. A PDF file of the docket for that case runs to about 1,700 pages. (Click here to
see the docket for that case, dated 8/4/14.) Furthermore, if you look at the first page of the
docket for that case (In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001) you can see that there are
numerous other associated cases.4 There are 21 “member cases” and 11 “related cases.” I
believe that the total number of parties involved in this massive group of 9/11 cases (the “In Re:
Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases”) runs easily into the thousands.5 These
cases are still active as of the time of this writing.
Note that the plaintiffs in the In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases apparently include many of the 9/11 families who accepted the payouts, the “hush money” from the Victims’ Compensation Fund.7 As previously stated (in prior posts), such families were required to sign away their rights to sue in court.8 However, apparently the agreements they were required to sign stipulated that they would not sue certain defendants in exchange for that money, but those defendants apparently did not include the Arabs and Muslims, the entities who the mainstream media has told us were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Thus, those plaintiffs were able to proceed with the In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases – which (apparently) name only or mostly Muslim and Arab individuals and entities as defendants – despite having received that money from the Victims’ Compensation Fund and despite having signed an agreement not to litigate (against certain defendants only).
There appears at first glance to be a great discrepancy between the way in which the courts treated on the one hand Ellen Mariani’s case and the other 100 or so cases (involving wrongful death claims pursued by plaintiffs who lost a family member on 9/11) which refused (at least at first) to accept the “hush money” from the Victims’ Compensation Fund and demanded a trial instead (and which I have previously mentioned in my posts) (the “Mariani group of 9/11 cases”); and on the other hand the In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases. Regarding the former group of cases the courts did everything in their power, including taking very improper and illegal steps and dirty tricks, to thwart them and to force each and every one of them to settle out of court. (There is a long list of improper actions taken by the courts to kill Ellen’s case.9) Regarding the latter group of cases the courts appear to have allowed them to
proceed. Why is there this difference in the treatment by the courts of these two groups of cases?
It turns out that there appears to be a specific reason for this difference. The In Re:
Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases fits within the official “party line” in that
the defendants are (all or mostly) Arab and Muslim entities, those who the powers that be have
told us were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The powers that be apparently don't mind if 9/11
plaintiffs go after the Arabs and Muslims, as that does not disturb the official party line.
(Furthermore, those defendants, even if they were forced to testify or if evidence was
subpoenaed from them, would probably not be able to divulge information incriminating the
powers that be, who are not Muslim nor Arab, because these defendants [who are mostly
foreigners from foreign cultures] probably don’t know much about what really happened on 9/11
nor about the real culprits. [But there may be an opportunity to change that, as discussed
below.]) It appears to be only cases which go after or get too close to the real culprits (or entities
associated with them) – like Ellen Mariani’s case and the Mariani group of 9/11 cases which
named defendants such as ICTS, Boeing, Huntliegh USA and/or others who might have had
some actual involvement in 9/11 or information about those involved or about what actually
happened on 9/11 – that the powers that be felt they needed to stop. So that appears to be why
the In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases, unlike the Mariani group of
9/11 cases, was allowed to move forward.
What I think is happening here is that the powers that be have chosen to “channel” or
redirect all the anger, pain, frustration and determination to find justice (through the courts) in
the minds of the 9/11 plaintiffs from being aimed at the correct defendants to being directed
against straw men, the scapegoats, the patsies, the people who the pathological liars in the media
keep telling us were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Arabs and Muslims. Thus they
have completely shut down all the 100 or so cases like Ellen Mariani’s, the Mariani group of
9/11 cases, and (effectively) redirected the remaining 9/11 related cases (which involved wrongful death claims pursued by plaintiffs who lost a relative on 9/11/01) to go against (to
name as defendants) the “evil” Arabs and Muslims; they allowed those cases to go forward.
Notice that this vast conglomeration of 9/11 litigation, the In Re: Terrorist Attacks of
September 11, 2001 group of cases, seems to be proceeding in silence, with no or almost no
media coverage so that the entire community of 9/11 truth activists is apparently unaware of this
large group of large 9/11 cases. Why is that? The incredible media silence regarding these very
large 9/11 cases is being maintained, I believe, because the owners of the media know that if too
many Americans knew about this litigation they might start calling for these cases to be steered
towards the truth, as I am doing in this article. That is why the mainstream media has not
covered these cases (or not covered them very much), in my opinion.
The In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases represent an opportunity
for 9/11 truth:
The In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases represent a major
opportunity for those interested in exposing 9/11 truth. Generally speaking, a lawsuit includes
great power to discover the truth. If some of the defendants in these cases could become
sufficiently informed about the reality of what happened on 9/11 (as opposed to the fairy tale
pushed by the mainstream media about 19 Arab hijackers and Osama Bin Laden), there would in
theory be nothing barring them from bringing all kinds of crucial 9/11 truth information into the
case, into the formal record of the case (as part of their defenses), and from subpoenaing all
kinds of important documents and from deposing – under oath and with a transcript recorded as a
public record – many of the criminals involved in 9/11. (Why not start with Larry Silverstein
[the owner of WTC7 and the Comptroller of the entire WTC complex], who infamously publicly
admitted to having demolished WTC7 with a controlled demolition?10) Also, note that while
many people are closed to the idea of the official story of 9/11 being false, these defendants (or
some of them) might be relatively open minded about hearing new perspectives on 9/11 due to the heavy pressure of the litigation against them. (Some of the plaintiffs might also be able to
take these kinds of actions as well, if any of them have not accepted the “hush money” and have
not signed an agreement not to sue the real culprits. [See fn 7, above.])
(By the way, if you, the reader, still do not know what happened on 9/11, do not know who was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks and how it was done, I implore you to get a copy of a book titled Solving 911: The Deception That Changed The World, by Christopher Bollyn, which details the story. [Christopher Bollyn’s website is www.bollyn.com.] Reviews of his book can be read on this webpage: http://www.bollyn.com/bookstore/)
I did start to try to contact some of the defendants in the Burnett case a number of months ago. I contacted the lawyer for one of the Defendants and a representative for another Defendant and I sent them each copies of Bollyn’s book. However, I did not feel I had the time to properly pursue and follow up with this matter due to many commitments in my life. Thus, in the end nothing came of that effort.11
A call for members of the public to help
This project – contacting the parties (particularly the defendants) in the In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases to try to inform them about the facts and the lies of 9/11 so that they can steer these cases towards 9/11 truth – is a project which could bring the truth about 9/11 to light. However, while I (Vincent Gillespie) may take some action to try to work on this project I have only very limited time available at this point in my life to pursue this. So, perhaps one or some concerned people out there could take up the task. Ideally, if someone (or a group of people) could do some detective work and find the contact info for most or many of the defendants and plaintiffs in these cases he could then just call these parties and talk to them about 9/11 truth (assuming they speak English) and/or one could provide them with information about the truth of 9/11, such as copies of Christopher Bollyn’s book (and/or the Thermite Report by Dr. Stephen Jones, et al12). If many of those then parties read the materials and learned more about what really happened on 9/11 and how we have all been lied to and if they were willing to they could then steer these cases towards revealing the truth about 9/11 to the public and uncovering many new details about the truth of 9/11 beyond what we presently know.13 (For a purpose such as this Christopher Bollyn has informed me that he would be willing to offer a discounted price for copies of his books.)
If this information (about the truth regarding 9/11) were directly given to these defendants then this path (of steering these cases towards 9/11 truth) should be readily open to them. (If the information were given to plaintiffs, on the other hand, it might be a bit more complicated.14) If many of the parties in this massive conglomeration of litigation began endeavoring to steer their lawsuits towards discovering and exposing the truth about 9/11 I think it could play havoc with – and possibly end – the ability of the powers that be to continue to keep a lid on the truth about 9/11 in these cases.
So perhaps there is (are) one or more readers out there who would be willing to work on this project. I invite and urge people to do so. It would take some time and effort and perhaps some money and probably no one is going to pay you (but you might be able to start a new fundraising effort) but you would be fulfilling a useful and potentially very important role for 9/11 truth. The In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases have been pending for a long time and one should not delay too long, as all these cases will eventually be closed.
One key point to convey to the defendants (as well as the plaintiffs), if someone or some people do take up this project, is that their own lawyers may be working against their interests. Based on my own experience with lawyers generally and my limited observations of lawyers involved in 9/11 litigation, I think one should be wary that these lawyers may be part of the entire scam and cover up, working with the courts and the powers that be to keep these cases within the official narrative of 9/11. (Remember that Ellen Mariani had to go through at least about eight lawyers before she finally got one, Bruce Leichty, who was actually willing to oppose the system and fight to get to the truth of 9/11.) These defendants should be advised that these lawyers should be tested and their willingness to properly deal with these issues, to go after the real culprits and to steer these cases towards the truth (and with zest and determination) should be carefully evaluated, and if they are unwilling to do these things they must be quickly fired and replaced. (And the replacement lawyers must also be carefully scrutinized and replaced if necessary.)
Furthermore, (it is my experience that) one must continually monitor the work of one’s lawyer(s) (both lawyers involved in 9/11 litigation and also lawyers in general) and not just sit back and trust them to take care of everything.
So members of the public are urged to help with this project by contacting defendants, giving them information about the truth regarding 9/11, and then urging them to make a decision to steer these 9/11 cases towards 9/11 truth.
************************************************
1 Ellen Mariani settled her (deceased husband’s estate’s) case in September of 2013 and so she is no longer involved with the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund and the marianilawsuit.com website. Any writings or actions by me, Vincent Gillespie, since that date are not endorsed by her. I presently have no mandate from her nor any legal responsibility to her.
2 Technically the case which Ellen was involved with (John Ransmier vs. United Airlines Corporation, et al. vs. Ellen Mariani, proposed intervener, Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals case # 11-175) was not her case but rather that of the estate of her deceased husband, Louis Neil Mariani. Ellen was a beneficiary of the estate (aswas her step daughter, Lauren Peters) and attorney John Ransmeier (who was not Ellen’s nor Lauren’s attorney) was (since 2007) the administrator of the estate and he, technically, was the plaintiff and it was he, and not Ellen, who was managing the lawsuit. However, for simplicity in this article that lawsuit will be referred to as Ellen’s case.
3 The case of In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 seems to have been formed when a number of cases from several courts were transferred in and combined into that case in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The original court order transferring in and combining several cases to form that case is here. One of those several cases which were combined into the case of In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 was Fiona Havlish vs. Bin Laden, et al., which was pending in US District Court for the District of Columbia [case # 1:02-cv-00305-JR]. The docket for that case is here.
4 More information about all of these cases is available through pacer.gov, a website which holds data on federal cases. To use that website you will need to create an account and they charge ten cents for each page you view (to a maximum of $3.00 per document view). However, if your bill is less than $15.00 per quarter then your charges are waived and you don’t have to pay anything for that quarter.
5 Note: the In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases is very large and I do not purport to be very familiar with any of those cases. There might be important information that I am not providing here because I simply don’t know about it. Also, there might be information in these cases which contradicts some of what I have written about them. I have not spent the time to become very familiar with them and I only know a limited amount about them.
6 In some of my earlier posts and other statements I previously stated that Ellen Mariani's case was the last case of its type (involving Wrongful Death claims by plaintiffs who lost family members on 9/11/01 due to the terrorist attacks). In light of the In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases it seems that those statements of mine were incorrect. However, I did not know about these other cases previously and Christopher Bollyn (President of the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund) informed me that he also did not know about them. (As noted above, I first learned of the Burnett case in about March of 2014. I learned about the other, related 9/11 cases, the In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 group of cases, several months later, to the best of my recollection.) There does not seem to have been much media coverage at all about them. I can unequivocally state that I did not knowingly make false assertions about Ellen’s case being the last one of its type (in which wrongful
death claims were pursued by plaintiffs who lost one or more relatives on 9/11).
7 Apparently most or many of the plaintiffs in these cases accepted the money from the Victims’
Compensation Fund. However, there are a variety of types of plaintiffs in these cases, including but not limited to financial institutions which were impacted by the events of 9/11. Thus, probably not all of these plaintiffs accepted such money.
8 These people who accepted the Victims’ Compensation Fund money were required to sign non-disclosure agreements which prevented them from talking about many issues relating to their cases (and/or their potential cases if they never filed a case) and/or their agreement with the Victims’ Compensation Fund and/or other 9/11 related issues. (I have never read one of these non-disclosure agreements so I don’t know exactly what they prevented these people from saying.)
9 I have been meaning for many months to prepare a written list of all the irregularities and improprieties (that I know of) that Ellen and her case endured during the course of that case. I have started writing it up but have not yet finished it. I intend that if and when I do finish writing up that list I will revise this article to include a hyperlink connecting to it (probably at this point in the article, in this footnote). If and when that list does get done the revised version of this article, with a new date included just below the title lines, should be posted at marianilawsuit.com. I do not feel I can make any promises about when I will get that done.
10 In a PBS documentary titled America Rebuilds Larry Silverstein was interviewed and he stated the
following:
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not
sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We've had such terrible loss of life,
maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the
building collapse.”
(To “pull” a building is demolition industry lingo for destroying a building through controlled demolition.)
Thus, Larry Silverstein admitted to being involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7.
11 Note that a number of months ago, prior to the above mentioned effort of mine and prior to my learning of the Burnett case but after Ellen had settled her case, I anticipated that there might be additional work for the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund to do (i.e., raising money for the limited appeal that Bruce Leichty was considering for a while after the settlement). But I did not feel I had the time to devote to such work. Therefore, I interviewed two people as possible replacement candidates for me, to carry on the pro bono work I was doing as Secretary-Treasurer of the Fund. However, neither of those candidates panned out.
12 The “Thermite Report” is a technical report prepared by a team of nine scientists which was peer
reviewed and published in a technical publication (Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, 2009). (The correct and proper title of this report is: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.) It proves by establishing in four different scientific ways that nano-thermite, a very powerful explosive, was found in the World Trade Center dust, which strongly implies that the three (not two) towers which each collapsed in a few seconds on 9/11 were brought down with controlled demolitions (and not due to heat from fires caused by the two airplanes which crashed into two of the three towers on 9/11/01).
13 Christopher Bollyn’s book, Solving 911: The Deception That Changed The World, reveals important
information about what really happened on 9/11 and who was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is a seminal work regarding the truth about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, there is much additional information that we do not presently know that could be discovered and brought to light through a properly managed court case. Additionally, a lawsuit presents the opportunity to place important information about 9/11 truth into the official record of the case where it can be reviewed by the public and brought to the public’s attention.
14 As discussed above, probably most or many of the plaintiffs have signed agreements not to sue the real defendants so they might be barred from directly bringing some or much of this info into the case but I think that if they wanted to they could nonetheless instruct their lawyers to provide the material to the defendants who could then bring the information into the case as part of their defenses. Or these plaintiffs might be able find ways themselves to put certain revealing information into the official record. Also, some of the hundreds (or thousands) of plaintiffs probably have not accepted the hush money and thus have not signed away their rights to litigate freely regarding 9/11. So these plaintiffs could, if they chose to, readily proceed to reveal the truth about 9/11 through their cases.
https://www.masslive.com/opinion/2012/08/7_years_in_vincent_gillespie_i.html
7 years in, Vincent Gillespie is willing to take time to fight parking ticket
Ever hear the one about the guy who took a parking ticket all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Probably never happened, but Vincent Gillespie has come close.
How close?
Try the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. When that didn't work, Gillespie brought his parking ticket case to the state Legislature, which crafted a bill that didn't quite make it to the House floor by the end of its session this week.
Now, it's wait until next year. That's OK. Vincent Gillespie can wait. He's nothing if not persistent.
I ran into Gillespie a few weeks ago in a local cafe. He was online, researching his various legal causes. The time before that, I saw him in the law library of the Franklin County Courthouse. I was writing a story for The Republican and MassLive.com, and he was researching the parking ticket thing.
Vincent Gillespie is a striking man of 50 with a handsome salt-and-pepper beard and piercing eyes. In researching this column, I realized he looks a lot like his father. Gregory Gillespie, judging from his self portraits, was an intense man who figured out how to turn that intensity into art.
Way back when Vincent was a little boy, Gregory Gillespie won a Fulbright to hone his art in Rome, much to the excitement of him and his wife.
"I remember my parents dancing on the tables," Vincent Gillespie recalled.
In Italy, young Vincent got dragged around to a lot of museums but, all in all, he enjoyed the experience. When the family returned to the U.S., Vincent moved around a bit, living in San Francisco for a while but always returning to the Pioneer Valley, where his parents were.
In 2000, Gregory Gillespie hanged himself in his Belchertown home. Vincent promptly sued his father's second wife over his estate. That suit has not prevailed in court, but Vincent is still working on it.
His main focus, however, is the parking ticket crusade.
On July 19, 2005, Vincent Gillespie parked his car in a small municipal lot on Conz Street in Northampton. As he was walking away, he noticed a parking officer writing him out a ticket. Vincent argued that there were no signs prohibiting parking and that his car was not blocking anything. The officer handed him the $15 ticket.
Related stories
Gillespie promptly walked over to the parking office, only to be told to fill out a form. When he went back to his car, there was a second ticket on the windshield. He retraced his steps to the parking office.
Vincent Gillespie learned it was up to a clerk to review his complaints, and that this would be done without his consultation. The clerk dismissed the second ticket but not the first. Gillespie was not mollified. In fact, he was downright outraged when he learned what his recourse was.
Gillespie's only course of appeal was to go to Superior Court, where he had to pay some $300 in filing fees, an amount that was nonrefundable whether or not he prevailed in his argument about the $15 parking ticket.
With the American Civil Liberties Union now on board, Vincent plunged ahead. He filed a case in that same Hampshire Superior Court, maintaining that the system was depriving him of his constitutional right to pursue his case. Judge Bertha D. Josephson ordered Northampton to institute a new system in which complainants can argue their parking tickets in person before a clerk. However, she disagreed that the appeals process in Superior Court was unconstitutional.
Vincent took it the next step. He appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. Last July, the high court sided with Josephson, saying a municipality could be swamped with frivolous appeals if Massachusetts changed its system.
Vincent has written a detailed analysis and rebuttal of that ruling. It's posted on his website, www.massdriversrights.com.
Several state representatives were sympathetic enough to Gillespie's cause to co-author a bill that would relegate parking ticket appeals to small claims court. It got hung up in the Joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee, however, and has yet to come to a vote.
Attorney
William Newman, the local ACLU representative, has been supporting
Gillespie in court and credits him with making it possible for people to
argue their tickets in person.
"He's accomplished something that should not go unnoticed," Newman said.
According to Newman, Massachusetts is the only state in the country that makes the cost of appealing a parking ticket prohibitive. "Massachusetts makes it impossible to have an independent judicial officer hear your case," Newman said.
Meanwhile, Vincent Gillespie is preparing for the next legislative session. Although he long ago earned an engineering degree, Gillespie, a Greenfield resident, lives on his inheritance and folds all his energy into his causes.
He has interesting theories about the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and about the world's hidden power structure. He will be glad to share them with you if you ask. You can also get his thoughts on his website.
Fred Contrada is a staff writer for The Republican; he may be reached at fcontrada@repub.com.
I called about this and was told that Fred is dead
Letters to the Editor
1860 Main St.
Springfield, MA 01101
News Tipline
Call 413-788-1200 or email newsdesk@repub.com
PRINT PUBLICATION
Executive Editor
Cynthia Simison, 413-788-1214, csimison@repub.com
CONTENT / ONLINE PUBLICATION
Associate Editor
Ray Kelly, 413-788-1331, rkelly@repub.com
Editorial Page Editor
Robert Genest, 413-788-1290, rgenest@repub.com
Business News
Call 413-788-1307 or email jkinney@repub.com
Gillespie, et al. v. City of Northhampton
Annotate this CaseThis case was brought pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, section 14, and G.L.c. 231A, where the court was asked to decide whether the the imposition of $275 in filing fees to obtain judicial review of a final decision of a municipal parking clerk regarding a parking citation offended the Massachusetts Constitution. Plaintiffs each appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court that the statutory scheme that imposed such fees for review of a municipal parking clerk's adjudication of the citation, following an in-person administrative hearings, was consonant with the principles of due process, equal protection, and separation of powers. The court held that the statutory scheme did not violate substantive or procedural due process; did not violate the equal protection clause; and afforded the opportunity for judicial review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Vincent GILLESPIE & another [FN1] vs. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON. [FN2]
SJC-10791.
March 10, 2011. - July 14, 2011.
Municipal Corporations, Parking place. Motor Vehicle, Citation for
violation of motor vehicle law. Practice, Civil, Traffic violation,
Costs. Administrative Law, Judicial review. Constitutional Law, Access
to court proceedings, Equal protection of laws, Separation of powers.
Due Process of Law, Adjudicatory proceeding. Statute, Validity.
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 22, 2005.
The case was heard by Bertha D. Josephson, J., on a motion for summary judgment.
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
William C. Newman for the plaintiffs.
William W. Porter, Assistant Attorney General, for the interveners.
John Holevoet, of Wisconsin, for National Motorists Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, & Duffly, JJ.
CORDY, J.
In this case, brought pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14, and G.L. c. 231A,
we are
asked to decide whether the imposition of $275 in filing fees to obtain
judicial review of a final decision of a municipal parking clerk
regarding a parking citation offends the Massachusetts Constitution.
Vincent Gillespie and Edward Hamel, the plaintiffs, each dispute the
validity of parking citations received in the city of Northampton. They
appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court that the statutory scheme
that imposes such fees for review of a municipal parking clerk's
adjudication of the citation, following an in-person administrative
hearing, is consonant with the principles of due process, equal
protection, and separation of powers. We transferred the case to this
court on our own motion. We affirm.
1. Background. On July 19, 2005, Gillespie received two citations for
parking in a prohibited zone in Northampton. He received the second
citation after removing the first from his windshield and walking to the
Northampton parking office to protest. Each citation carried a maximum
penalty of fifteen dollars. That same day, Gillespie filed a written
challenge to both citations. A hearing officer designated by the
Northampton parking clerk sent him a letter upholding the validity of
the first citation because his "vehicle was parked in violation of the
prohibited zone ordinance." The second citation was dismissed as
duplicative because it was issued less than one hour after the first.
On October 29, 2005, Hamel stopped his vehicle in front of a bakery on
Main Street in Northampton and waited for his wife who was inside. A
parking officer issued him a citation, with a fine of one hundred
dollars, for parking illegally in a handicapped parking space. Like
Gillespie, he filed a written challenge. A hearing officer sent him a
letter rejecting the challenge. At the time, Northampton did not afford
persons challenging a citation the right to an in-person hearing before
the parking clerk or a designated hearing officer.
2. Statutory framework. Municipalities may choose to enforce any "rule,
regulation, order, ordinance or by-law regulating the parking of motor
vehicles" according to two similar administrative frameworks as set
forth in G.L. c. 90, §§ 20A [FN3] and 20A 1/2 . Northampton has
elected to establish the procedures in G.L. c. 90, § 20A 1/2 (§ 20A 1/2
). [FN4] The provision begins with a familiar protocol: "It shall be
the duty of every police officer who takes cognizance of a [parking]
violation ... forthwith to give the offender a notice, which shall be in
tag form ... to appear before the parking clerk of the city or town
wherein the violation occurred...." Each "tag form" notice, or as it is
commonly called, a parking ticket or parking citation, must state the
specific violation charged, as well as the established
fine, and must provide an explanation of the procedures for both paying
the fine and challenging the citation's validity. G.L. c. 90, § 20A 1/2
. The statute prescribes a maximum fine of one hundred dollars for
certain enumerated parking violations, such as parking within a bus
stop. Fines for all other violations "shall not exceed $50." Id.
The alleged offender may then appear to pay the fine in person, or may
mail payment of the fine to the municipality's parking clerk. Id.
Payment of the fine shall "operate as a final disposition of the case."
Id. An alleged parking offender may contest the citation in two ways.
First, he may send to the parking clerk "a signed statement explaining
his objections" and any supporting evidentiary material. G.L. c. 90, §
20A 1/2 . The parking clerk, or a designee of the clerk, referred to as
a "hearing officer," reviews the written challenge and notifies the
alleged offender of the disposition of that review by mail. Id. Second,
after denial of a written challenge, or without first lodging a written
challenge, an alleged offender is entitled to a live, in-person
administrative hearing. [FN5] Id. "Said hearing shall be informal [and]
the rules of evidence shall not apply." Id. The citation is admissible
in the hearing, and is "deemed prima facie evidence ... as to the facts
contained therein." Id.
Either a written denial or the denial of challenge following a hearing
is considered an appealable final decision of the parking clerk, and
subject to judicial review under the Massachusetts Administrative
Procedure Act, G.L. c. 30A, § 14. Proceedings for judicial review
pursuant G.L. c. 30A, § 14, are instituted in the Superior Court. [FN6]
By statute, litigants must pay a minimum of $275 in filing fees to
institute a civil action in the Superior Court. See G.L. c. 262, §§ 4A,
4C. These fees form the heart of Gillespie's challenge to § 20A 1/2 .
[FN7] Plaintiffs who submit an "affidavit of indigency and request for
waiver" are relieved from payment of the fees after an adjudication of
indigency by a clerk of the court under G.L. c. 261, §§ 27B, 27C. [FN8]
On July 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
Superior Court seeking declaratory judgment that (1) Northampton
violated § 20A 1/2 by not affording a live hearing before a parking
clerk or designated hearing officer; and (2) the procedural framework
of § 20A 1/2 , namely the imposition of $275 in filing fees and the
designation of the Superior Court as the forum for judicial review, is
so cost prohibitive that it effectively denies aggrieved parking
offenders access to the courts. [FN9] This, the plaintiffs argue, is
violative of the guarantees of due process, equal protection, and
separation of powers found in arts. 1, 10, 11, and 30 the
Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution, as well as the
access to justice principles protected by art. 11, which includes the
right to be free from having to "purchase" justice. [FN10] The
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. The judge ruled that
Northampton contravened § 20A 1/2 by failing to grant in-person
hearings. Northampton does not appeal from that judgment. [FN11] On
the constitutional challenge, the judge granted summary judgment in
favor of Northampton. The plaintiffs appealed, and we transferred the
case to this court on our own motion.
3. Discussion. The plaintiffs launch a broad facial challenge to the
constitutionality of § 20A 1/2 and the attendant filing fees it imposes
for judicial review. We note at the outset that it is well settled that
a "statute is presumed to be constitutional and every rational
presumption in favor of the statute's validity is made." Pielech v.
Massasoit Greyhound, Inc., 441 Mass. 188, 193 (2004), citing St.
Germaine v. Pendergast, 416 Mass. 698, 702-704 (1993). The challenging
party bears the burden of demonstrating "beyond a reasonable doubt that
there are no 'conceivable grounds' which could support its validity."
Leibovich v. Antonellis, 410 Mass. 568, 576 (1991), quoting Zeller v.
Cantu, 395 Mass. 76, 84 (1985). While there is a considerable measure
of conceptual overlap in the due process, equal protection, and access
to justice principles the plaintiffs invoke, we are
obliged to treat each constitutional claim as analytically distinct.
See Paro v. Longwood Hosp., 373 Mass. 645, 648-654 (1977). We address
each in turn.
a. Due process. The plaintiffs raise both procedural and substantive due process challenges to § 20A 1/2.
i. Substantive due process. Where a statute unjustifiably burdens the
exercise of a fundamental right protected by art. 10 of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the standard of review we apply is
strict judicial scrutiny. [FN12] See Goodridge v. Department of Pub.
Health, 440 Mass. 309, 330 (2003). A fundamental right is one that is "
'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' [Moore v. East
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494,
503 (1977) ] (plurality opinion) ... and 'implicit in the concept of
ordered liberty,' such that 'neither liberty nor justice would exist if
they were sacrificed.' " Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-721 (1997), quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319,
325, 326 (1937). Under strict scrutiny review, a challenged statute
may only survive when it is "narrowly tailored to further a legitimate
and compelling governmental interest." Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass.
667, 673 (1993). See Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 660-661, cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 1189 (2003). All other statutes that do not collide
with a
fundamental right are subject to a "rational basis" standard of judicial
review. See Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, supra. Under the
rational basis standard, a statute is constitutionally sound if it is
reasonably related to the furtherance of a valid State interest. See
id.
The plaintiffs argue that judicial review of an adjudicatory decision
made by an administrative body is a "venerable right" grounded in the
Massachusetts Constitution and rendered "illusory" by the imposition in §
20A 1/2 of filing fees far in excess of the challenged fine. Without
conceding that the statutory scheme does not implicate a fundamental
right to court access, the plaintiffs argue that even under a rational
basis standard of review, § 20A 1/2 bears no cognizable relationship to a
valid State interest.
While the plaintiffs are well within reason to classify the role of
judicial review of administrative agency decisions as "venerable," no
court has concluded that it is a fundamental right under our
Constitution, or that the right to bring a judicial challenge, once
provided by statute, is of such a fundamental character that it may
never be fettered by the payment of a filing fee. See Longval v.
Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 434 Mass. 718, 723 (2001),
citing Cacicio v. Secretary of Pub. Safety, 422 Mass. 764, 773 (1996)
(statute that requires nonindigent prisoners to pay for court filings
does not abridge any fundamental right). See Nicholas v. Tucker, 114
F.3d 17, 21 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied sub nom. Nicholas v. Miller,
523 U.S. 1126 (1998), quoting Roller v. Gunn, 107 F.3d 227, 233 (4th
Cir.1997) ( "Requiring [litigants] to make economic decisions about
filing lawsuits does not deny access to the courts").
Nor does the statutory scheme in § 20A 1/2 impair the exercise of any
other right that we have proclaimed to be paradigmatically fundamental.
See, e.g, Commonwealth v. Weston W., 455 Mass. 24, 33 (2009) (right to
travel freely); Commonwealth v. Knapp, 441 Mass. 157, 164 (2004)
(freedom from physical restraint); Blixt v. Blixt, supra at 656
(parental rights of care, custody, and control of children). We have
said, "it is clear that there is no fundamental right to operate a motor
vehicle," Rushworth v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 413 Mass. 265, 269
n. 5 (1992), citing Raper v. Lucey, 488 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir.1973)
("we may take it as settled that such a right, federal or state, does
not exist"), and as such, there is no fundamental right to park a
vehicle on public property.
There being no fundamental right at stake, the statute survives
constitutional review if it is rationally related to a valid government
interest. See Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, supra. Among
others, two legitimate
interests are advanced by § 20A 1/2 . The Superior Court is vested with
original jurisdiction to hear most appeals from administrative agency
adjudications, see G.L. c. 30A, § 14(1), and it is entirely rational for
the Legislature to aim to establish a consistent procedure and forum
for such appeals without weighing the individual economic interest at
stake against the cost of Superior Court filing fees in each instance.
[FN13] See Nicholas v. Tucker, supra. More important, especially in
light of the fact that municipalities annually issue several million
parking citations, § 20A 1/2 conserves scarce judicial resources and
discourages the filing of nonmeritorious appeals. See Paro v. Longwood
Hosp., 373 Mass. 645, 648-654 (1977).
ii. Procedural due process. The plaintiffs further argue that the
designation of Superior Court as the chosen forum for judicial review of
parking citations is irrational. The Superior Court, which inter alia,
has exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal charges punishable by
imprisonment in the State prison for more than five years, see G.L. c.
212, § 6; G.L. c. 218, § 27, and all civil matters where the amount in
controversy exceeds $25,000, G.L. c. 212, § 3, requires compliance with
rigorous discovery and other rules. To vest it with jurisdiction over
routine parking disputes, the plaintiffs argue, "defies common sense."
The plaintiffs further argue that by imposing
disproportionately high filing fees, § 20A 1/2 functionally gives
ultimate authority over challenged citations to the same executive
agency that issued the citation, thus denying aggrieved parking
offenders an impartial appeal forum. The tenor of this broad argument
sounds in procedural due process, and we review such challenge under the
familiar balancing formula announced by the United States Supreme Court
in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
" 'Procedural due process' requires that a statute or governmental
action that has survived substantive due process scrutiny be implemented
in a fair manner." Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667, 674 (1993).
See Mathews v. Eldridge, supra. "The fundamental requirement of due
process is notice and the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time
and in a meaningful manner.' " Matter of Angela, 445 Mass. 55, 62
(2005), quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545,
552 (1965). We define the aggrieved party's interest, whether liberty
or property, and abide by the general maxim that "[t]he more precious
the right, the greater the protection...." Commonwealth v. Barboza, 387
Mass. 105, 111, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1020 (1982). Balancing under
Mathews v. Eldridge, supra at 335, requires us to weigh: "First, the
private interest that will be affected by the official action; second,
the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the
procedure used,
and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural
safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the
function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the
additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." See
Duarte v. Commissioner of Revenue, 451 Mass. 399, 412 (2008). In this
case, the balance weighs against the plaintiffs.
First, as to the private interest at stake, alleged parking offenders
stand to lose personal property, in an amount as high as one hundred
dollars for serious parking offenses, but in most cases between fifteen
and fifty dollars. See G.L. c. 90, § 20A 1/2 . This is not an entirely
insubstantial interest, but, given the small sums involved, hardly one
that society would regard as "precious." See Commonwealth v. Barboza,
supra. Cf. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254,
265, 270-271 (1970) (public assistance payments used by beneficiaries
to procure basic life necessities is substantial interest). More to the
point, for indigent persons, to whom a fine of one hundred dollars for
an erroneous parking violation represents a true financial hardship, the
statutory scheme waives the filing fees. See G.L. c. 262, §§ 4A, 4C;
G.L. c. 261, §§ 27B, 27C.
Second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest is rather
low.
Where the citation of illegally parked vehicles is susceptible to human
error (i.e., a marked sign fell down or a meter was misread), § 20A 1/2
provides ample procedural rights to minimize the risk. Alleged parking
offenders may challenge the propriety of a citation in writing, without
fee, and may offer supporting evidentiary materials, such as photographs
or affidavits. G.L. c. 90, § 20A 1/2 . They are also entitled to a
live hearing and formal adjudication by the parking clerk or a
designated hearing officer, as a matter of right, at no cost, and with
no restrictions imposed by formal rules of evidence or discovery. Id.
The plaintiffs raise alarm that hearing officers appointed by the
parking clerk are not neutral adjudicators. However, they point to no
evidence, beyond speculation, of systemic impartiality. [FN14] These two
meaningful tiers of administrative review adequately ensure that the
pecuniary interest at stake is well protected against human error.
Moreover, § 20A 1/2 affords alleged parking offenders an opportunity for
judicial review, if they determine that vindication of a true error or
some other reason [FN15] justifies payment of the ordinary,
nondiscriminatory fees statutorily imposed on all civil litigants in the
Superior Court. G.L. c. 262, §§ 4A, 4C. See G.L. c. 30A, § 14.
As a final matter, the government interest in judicial economy and
deterrence of frivolous appeals is substantial. Municipalities issue
millions of parking
citations annually, and the "fiscal and administrative burdens [of]
additional or substitute procedural requirements" would be overwhelming.
Mathews v. Eldridge, supra at 335. Section 20A 1/2 provides
procedural mechanisms to root out human error, while the filing fees
imposed for formal judicial review are legitimately calculated to
conserve court resources and to defray the cost of the proceedings.
Especially in light of the degree of significance of the interest at
stake, and the unique numerosity of parking citations, we discern no
procedural due process violation. See id.
b. Equal protection. Where a statute discriminates on the basis of a
suspect classification, the statute is subject to strict judicial
scrutiny. Commonwealth v. Weston W., 455 Mass. 24, 30 (2009). All other
equal protection claims proceed under a rational basis analysis. [FN16]
"The general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will
be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally
related to a legitimate state interest." Murphy v. Commissioner of the
Dep't of Indus. Accs., 415 Mass. 218, 226-227 (1993) (Murphy ), quoting
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432,
440 (1985). The plaintiffs do not contend that alleged parking
offenders are a suspect class. Therefore, we review for a rational
basis.
First, the plaintiffs argue that no legitimate public purpose is served
by the legislative classification distinguishing alleged parking
offenders from several other classes of civil litigants that are not
required to press appeals in the Superior Court, and pay its attendant
filing fees. To highlight this differential, they point to the
procedures afforded alleged violators of other, nonparking municipal
ordinances, G.L. c. 40, § 21D (providing "notice to appear" hearing
before "district court judge, clerk, or assistant clerk" [without fee]
), and alleged violators of all other civil motor vehicle infractions,
G.L. c. 90C, § 3(A)(4), as amended through St.2010, c. 131, § 57
(requiring fee of twenty-five dollars for hearing before District Court
clerk-magistrate and fee of fifty dollars for further appeal to District
Court judge).
Here, there are significant qualitative differences between alleged
parking offenders and the other classes of litigants that justify the
difference in treatment. Where equal protection "mandates that 'all
persons similarly situated should be treated alike,' " Murphy, supra at
226, quoting Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., supra at 439, the
Legislature may rationally impose additional procedural burdens on a
particular class of civil litigants where the groups do not
substantially stand in the same shoes. The only restriction is that
equal protection "limits legislative discretion in
delineating classifications only to the extent of forbidding 'arbitrary
or irrational' classifications, or discrimination which is 'invidious.' "
Pinnick v. Cleary, 360 Mass. 1, 28 (1971). In Murphy, supra at 230, we
invalidated a legislative classification imposing a medical examination
fee only on those workers' compensation claimants represented by
counsel at evidentiary hearings, but not on those who appeared pro se.
We concluded that the relationship of the classification to the
statute's goal of reducing costs and deterring frivolous appeals was "so
attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational."
Murphy, supra, quoting Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., supra at
446. There, the legislative classification burdened identically
situated claimants vindicating the same right and operating under the
same statutory framework. Here, unlike in Murphy, supra, the plaintiffs
would require us to engage in an apples-to-oranges comparison between
alleged parking offenders and traffic or municipal code violators. See
Barrington Cove Ltd. Partnership v. Rhode Island Hous. & Mtge. Fin.
Corp., 246 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.2001), quoting Darmouth Review v.
Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir.1989) (in equal protection
analysis, "apples should be compared to apples"). Enforcement of
different municipal offenses involves varying degrees of discretion, and
in those cases the differences may justify more rigorous procedural
rights due to the likelihood of error. See G.L. c. 40, § 21D. By
contrast, the preliminary
adjudicatory process is sufficient to catch errors in parking citations.
Second, there are legitimate government interests supporting the
Legislature's choice to permit formal judicial review of challenges to
traffic and municipal infractions in the first instance, while providing
a preliminary cost-free administrative forum for civil parking citation
challenges. The penalties imposed are different. Some traffic
infractions may be the subject of a criminal action, unlike § 20A 1/2 ,
where alleged offenders face only civil penalty. Cf. G.L. c. 90C, §
3(B)(2). Moreover, the corresponding burdens placed on judicial
resources militate in favor of different appeals procedures for separate
classes of infractions. It is not irrational or arbitrary for the
Legislature to establish an administrative process at the local level to
adjudicate efficiently and effectively the millions of routine parking
citation disputes while affording less numerous and more consequential
appeals, in more serious matters such as traffic violations, direct
review by a clerk or judge in the District Court. See Pinnick v.
Cleary, supra at 17.
Next, the plaintiffs argue that Superior Court is an irrationally
designated forum, where other statutes establishing administrative
regimes vest jurisdiction in the District Court, with its lower filing
fees, to hear certain appeals of agency adjudications. [FN17] See note
13, supra. Where no
suspect classification is drawn, the Legislature is permitted to
distinguish among civil litigants in providing greater or lesser
procedural rights and to exercise this prerogative based on its
perception of the significance of the interests involved. See Murphy,
supra at 226-227. Once again, the deterrence of frivolous appeals and
the conservation of judicial resources are legitimate legislative
purposes, and the classification drawn between alleged parking offenders
and those other administrative appellants routed to District Court is
anchored within the boundaries of the Constitution. See id.
The plaintiffs further contend that the statutory scheme produces
irrational results that do not advance the purpose of the legislation,
where indigent offenders may press frivolous appeals without fee but
nonindigent persons are deterred from filing even meritorious appeals
because of the cost. As a preliminary matter, we note that we have
emphasized in the past that a "statute or ordinance is not rendered
unconstitutional merely because ... the means stated in the statute is
not perfectly consistent with the desired result." Marshfield Family
Skateland, Inc. v. Marshfield, 389 Mass. 436, 447, appeal dismissed, 464
U.S. 987 (1983), quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Revere, 383 Mass. 682, 687
(1981). The inclusion of an indigency waiver in § 20A 1/2 rationally
balances the Legislature's competing goals of deterring frivolous
appeals while not entirely frustrating all citizens, whether capable or
incapable of paying the requisite filing fees, from bringing a
meritorious appeal. See G.L. c. 90A, § 20A 1/2.
As a final matter, we are not unmindful of the fact that Massachusetts
imposes filing fees for judicial review of parking citations in excess
of those imposed in most other States. See, e.g., Cal. Gov't Code §
70615 (West 2009) and Cal. Veh.Code § 40230 (West 2000) (filing fee of
twenty-five dollars for court review of administrative adjudication);
Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 7-152b(g) and § 52-259 (2009) (Superior Court has
jurisdiction over appeals from administrative adjudication with reduced
filing fee of thirty-five dollars); Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 316.1967(2),
(4) (West 2006) (civil violation contest allowed in county court or
traffic violations bureau). However, our duty is to ensure that the
filing fees are not enacted arbitrarily or in violation of other
safeguards provided by our Constitution. It is the sole province of the
Legislature to set the amount of those fees. St. Germaine v.
Pendergast, 416 Mass. 698, 703 (1993) ("A court is only to inquire into
whether the Legislature had the power to enact the statute and not
whether the statute is wise or efficient"). Whether wise or unwise, we
may not calibrate such fees in precise proportionality to the interest
involved. Our lens focuses only on the constitutional question. See
id. In sum, for all the reasons discussed, the plaintiffs have failed
to establish that there is no rational basis for the
filing fees and designation of the Superior Court as the forum for
judicial review. Contrast Murphy, supra at 232-233. Therefore, § 20A
1/2 does not violate equal protection principles.
c. Purchase of justice. In this case, where § 20A 1/2 does not reach a
fundamental right or contravene the equal protection clause, we do not
consider it violative of art. 11's purchase of justice clause, where the
statutory scheme is supported by a rational basis. Longval v. Superior
Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 434 Mass. 718, 723 (2001) ("Where, as
here, the statute does not pertain to a suspect class, ... involves a
right, i.e., free access to the courts, that is not fundamental, ... and
is rationally related to achieving its purpose, it passes
constitutional muster" [citations omitted] ).
d. Separation of powers. The plaintiffs argue that § 20A 1/2 , by dint
of the filing fees, renders illusory the right to judicial review. As
such, they contend, the statute imbues the executive branch with
unreviewable authority over parking citations, in violation of the
principle of separation of powers found in art. 30 of the Massachusetts
Declaration of Rights. [FN18] The argument is without merit. [FN19]
"[T]he exact lines between what constitutes legislative, executive, and
judicial powers have never been precisely drawn." Paro v. Longwood
Hosp., 373 Mass. 645, 656 (1977). "[W]e
recognize that an absolute division of the three general types of
functions is neither possible nor always desirable." Opinion of the
Justices, 365 Mass. 639, 641 (1974). The parking clerk or the
designated hearing officers, although formally municipal executive
officers, are the preliminary adjudicators in a process that shares
enough in common with the judiciary to pass constitutional muster. In
any event, the statutory scheme that the plaintiffs challenge does, in
fact, afford the opportunity for judicial review. See G.L. c. 90A, §
20A 1/2 . See also Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17, 21 (2d Cir.1997).
There is no separation of powers violation.
4. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that
the plaintiffs have failed to establish that § 20A 1/2 is discordant
with the Massachusetts Constitution, and we uphold the grant of summary
judgment in favor of Northampton.
Judgment affirmed.
FN1. Edward Hamel.
FN2. The city of Northampton, the original defendant, declined to
respond to
the plaintiffs' appellate arguments, and the Appeals Court granted a
motion to intervene filed by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice
for Administration and Management of the Trial Court.
FN3. Under G.L. c. 90, § 20A, fifth par., the first parking citation
received in any year is automatically dismissed. Subsequent citations
may be challenged in writing and in person before the parking clerk.
FN4. The cities of Boston and Cambridge are required to follow G.L. c. 90, § 20A 1/2 .
FN5. A written challenge does not constitute a waiver of the alleged
offender's "right to a hearing before the parking clerk or hearing
officer." G.L. c. 90, § 20A 1/2 (§ 20A 1/2 ).
FN6. "The court may affirm the decision of the agency, or remand the
matter for further proceedings before the agency; or the court may set
aside or modify the decision, or compel any action unlawfully withheld
or unreasonably delayed, if it determines that the substantial rights of
any party may have been prejudiced because the agency decision is, [i]n
violation of constitutional provisions; ... [i]n excess of the
statutory authority or
jurisdiction of the agency; ... [u]nsupported by substantial evidence;
or ... [a]rbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law." G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7) (a ), (b ), (e ), and
(g ).
FN7. The fee for the entry of a complaint for judicial review in the
Superior Court is $240 in addition to a twenty-dollar security fee.
G.L. c. 262, § 4A. Plaintiffs must also pay a fifteen-dollar surcharge,
G.L. c. 262, § 4C, and service of process costs. In this case,
Gillespie paid $44.90 for service of process. The total cost of filing
the complaint for judicial review in the Superior Court was $319.90.
FN8. An indigent person, eligible for waiver of fees, is defined as "a
person who receives public assistance under [various Federal programs]
or ... a person who is unable to pay the fees and costs of the
proceeding in which he is involved or is unable to do so without
depriving himself or his dependents of the necessities of life,
including food, shelter and clothing." G.L. c. 261, § 27A.
FN9. The plaintiffs assert that so few parking citations are appealed
to the Superior Court that in the past twenty-eight years, there are
only four reported cases of further appeals to the Appeals Court. The
assistant clerk
for the Superior Court in Hampshire County averred that, from January
1, 2000, to September 12, 2005, there were no parking citation appeals
to the Superior Court in that county.
FN10. Article 11 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts
Constitution provides, "Every subject of the Commonwealth ... ought to
obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase
it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay;
conformably to the laws."
FN11. Prior to the Superior Court judgment, Northampton had already
revised its parking citation appeals procedures to provide in-person
hearings as required by § 20A 1/2 .
FN12. "Although art. 10 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights]
may afford greater protection of rights than the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment [to the United States Constitution], our
treatment of due process challenges adheres to the same standards
followed in Federal due process analysis." Goodridge v. Department of
Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309, 353 (2003) (Spina, J., dissenting), citing
Commonwealth v. Ellis, 429 Mass. 362, 371 (1999).
FN13. The Legislature has vested the District Court, rather than the
Superior Court, with jurisdiction over, inter alia, appeals from
unemployment compensation decisions made by the division of unemployment
assistance within the Department of Workforce Development, G.L. c.
151A, § 42; denials or revocations of firearm licenses, G.L. c. 140, §
131 (f ); and driver's license suspensions by the registry of motor
vehicles, G.L. c. 90, § 24. Because the Legislature has elected to
remove certain administrative appeals from the general scheme provided
by G.L. c. 30A, § 14, it does not follow that in every instance it must
consider whether the Superior Court is the proper forum in light of the
economic interests typically involved in an appeal.
FN14. The record does not contain Statewide statistics on parking
citation appeals. As a guidepost, the plaintiffs cite to a newspaper
article reporting that in 2004, the city of Boston alone issued 1.7
million parking citations. The article also suggests that while
challenges are rare, there is no bias at the adjudicatory hearings. See
Violation: Parking Ticket?! Get Out! You've Got to Fight It!, Boston
Globe, Feb 6, 2005 (reporting in 2004, of 17,000 hearings in Boston,
sixty per cent, or 10,200, resulted in dismissal of citations).
FN15. While § 20A 1/2 is silent in this regard, if an alleged parking
offender were subject to systematic injustice or animus, such as
repeated unlawful and unwarranted citation where no violative conduct
occurred, consolidation of appeals may be permitted. Mass. R. Civ. P.
42(a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996) ("When actions involving a
common question of law or fact are pending before the [Superior] court
... it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in
issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and
it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to
avoid unnecessary costs or delay").
FN16. The standard for equal protection analysis under our Declaration
of Rights is the same as under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Dickerson
v. Attorney Gen., 396 Mass. 740, 743 (1986).
FN17. Unless otherwise set by statute, entry of a civil appeal in the
appellate division of the District Court, though sixty dollars lower
than in the Superior Court, still requires a $180 filing fee. G.L. c.
262, § 2.
FN18. Article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides,
"In the government of this Commonwealth ... the executive shall never
exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them...."
FN19. The interveners argue that the issue is waived because the
plaintiffs did not raise the issue in their complaint or in support of
their motion for summary judgment. Because the challenge is unavailing,
we need not decide the waiver question.
END OF DOCUMENT
16-P-354
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Gillespie v. Staub
81 N.E.3d 825 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017)
Decided Mar 23, 2017
16-P-354
03-23-2017
Vincent GILLESPIE v. Sandra STAUB & others.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
In April, 2003, Vincent Gillespie filed a complaint in Superior Court against Peggy Roggenbuck
Gillespie alleging that she wrongfully brought about Vincent's father's death and interfered with
Vincent's inheritance. We affirmed the summary judgment entered in favor of Peggy in a
memorandum and order issued pursuant to our rule 1:28. Gillespie v. Gillespie , 78 Mass. App.
Ct. 1125 (2011).
In April, 2014, Vincent filed
another complaint in Superior Court against Peggy
and included her attorneys as defendants, alleging
misconduct in the handling of his first complaint.
The 2014 complaint alleged that the misconduct
extended from about 2004 until 2008. A judge
dismissed the complaint on the pleadings after
concluding that the claims were barred by the
three-year limitations period set forth in G. L. c.
260, § 2A, because Vincent's claims accrued no
later than 2008. Vincent concedes that the threeyear
statute of limitations applies but argues that his claims did not accrue until April, 2011, when
the Supreme Judicial Court denied his petition for
further appellate review.
We conclude, for substantially the reasons set
forth by the motion judge, that Vincent's claims
are time barred. The law is well established that an
appeal from an adverse judgment does not render
a plaintiff's injuries, occasioned during the course
of the action, unknowable or otherwise extend the
limitations period. Cantu v. St. Paul Cos ., 401
Mass. 53, 57-58 (1987).
We also conclude that the three defendants are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and double costs under Mass.R.A.P. 25, as appearing in 376 Mass. 949 (1979). Within fourteen days of the date of this memorandum and order, the defendants shall file with the clerk of this court, with service to Vincent, statements of their appellate attorney's fees and costs, with appropriate supporting materials. See Fabre v. Walton , 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004). Any opposition by Vincent to the amounts claimed in the statements of fees and costs shall be filed and served within fourteen days thereafter. Ibid .
Judgment affirmed . Individually and on behalf of the estate of Gregory Gillespie.
Gregory Gillespie
Portrait of Peg
Oil on panel
96 x 48 inches
Biography
Gregory Gillespie (1936-2000) was one of the leading American figurative painters of the past 50 years, long admired for his immaculate technique and idiosyncratic tendencies. In the catalog for his first retrospective exhibition at the Hirshhorn Museum in 1977, curator Abram Lerner wrote, ”[Gillespie’s] work abounds in disturbing variations of reality which mirror our normal experiences but transform what is hauntingly familiar into an alarming blend of hallucinations and sharp observation.” Born and raised in New Jersey to a strict catholic family, Gillespie went on to attend Cooper Union, where he received his BFA. Rather than stay in New York, he joined the MFA program at the California School of Fine Arts, in the midst of the burgeoning Beat movement.
After graduating in 1963, Gillespie traveled to Italy where he lived and worked with the support of various grants for several years. That experience proved formative and the influence of classical Italian painting is evident throughout his work, with painters such as Masaccio and Carlo Crivelli often mentioned among the artist’s favorites. In contrast to his looser student work, he developed a meticulously rendered style, layering a combination of materials to give his paintings an eerie realism. To build on this effect, he also began incorporating photographs into his paintings, often magazine cut-outs or family snapshots, as the underpinnings of his tableau. Though in the broadest terms these are ostensibly quotidian - kitchen tables, bedrooms, street scenes and landscapes - his paintings abound with bizarre details and symbols, bordering on allegory.
Following his return to the States in 1971, Gillespie settled in the Northampton, Massachusetts area, eventually becoming affiliated with the loose group of realist painters in the region. With a burgeoning career and gallery representation, his work became more ambitious in scale and subject. It was around this time he began painting portraits and self-portraits, subjects he would return to continually and would define his career. Gillespie has been grouped at various times with realists, surrealists and magical realists, though his output continues to defy easy categorization. Yet he was also a virtuosic painter who transcended his Realist contemporaries by painting in a manner that was almost hyper-real. In 1992, speaking about the development of his technique, he describes: “At one time, I was fascinated by microscopic detail, by painting the pores of skin... suggesting the undercurrent of molecular energy running through everything... [Now] I’m struggling less with just the mechanics of getting something to look convincing, which frees me up to explore more complex psychological issues.”
A word most often used by Gillespie to describe his more esoteric work was “weird” but he also frequently alluded to the urge to create beauty, that in its completed form, a painting would be beautiful, transformed from whatever chaotic source it began from. His process of painting involved heavy re-working of the surfaces as he scraped and sanded away layers of paint, over and over again until the paint took on a life of its own and strange figures emerged. His organic process - in some cases it would be years until a painting was considered finished - plays into the constructed nature of many of the works, literally pieced together in some cases, but using a simple structure to contain a series of vignettes. Gillespie’s self-portraits in particular are evidence of this: though many are direct and contemplative, the most powerful show him in his studio, surrounded by props, tools and other paintings-in-progress. By the early 1990s, spirituality, sexuality and psychology were the primary drivers of his work. While he had long ago renounced the Catholicism of his childhood, the forms and rituals of the religion continued to fascinate and preoccupy him. Many of his later works are in the manner of shrines or altars - a format he had experimented with while in Italy, based on the small, niche shrines found around the cities he lived. A growing interest in Buddhism, Hinduism and other principles of eastern thought were a major influence as well, with mandalas and concepts such as the third eye appearing in his later work.
Gillespie showed extensively throughout his career, including two lifetime retrospectives, in 1977 at the Hirschhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden and in 1999, organized by the Georgia Museum of Art, Athens, which traveled to the Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, the List Visual Arts Center at MIT and the Butler Institute of American Art, Youngstown. He was in residence at the American Academy in Rome from 1964-1970 as well as a recipient of a Fulbright Grant and a Louis Comfort Tiffany Foundation Grant, among other awards. His work can be found in the collections of major institutions across the country, including the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington DC; Whitney Museum of American Art, New York; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Virginia Museum of Fine Art, Richmond and the San Diego Museum of Contemporary Art, La Jolla, among others.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NOS. 18, 33)
MARK G. MASTROIANNI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 30, 2021, Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson recommended that this court dismiss this action with prejudice filed, pro se, by Vincent Gillespie (“Plaintiff”). In short, Judge Robertson explained that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Plaintiff's claims, which assert injury in relation to a final judgment issued by a state court and affirmed on appeal before Plaintiff brought this federal action; judicial immunity bars the claims against the Associate Justices of the Massachusetts Appeals Court; and Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Hampshire Superior Court or its Clerk under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Report and Recommendation notified Plaintiff that he had fourteen days to file any objections. No objections were filed.
Based upon the thorough analysis presented in the Report and Recommendation, and noting there are no objections, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 33.) Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 18) is hereby ALLOWED, and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This case shall be closed.
It is So Ordered.
20-30050 - Gillespie v. Staub et al
Judicial Publications
United States Courts Opinions
JU 4.15
District
United States District Court District of Massachusetts
1st
Springfield
civil
Other Civil Rights
28:1983 Civil Rights
David Angier, Defendant
Elspeth Cypher, Defendant
Kenneth Desmond Jr, Defendant
Hampshire Superior Court, Defendant
John Does 1-10, Defendant
Gregory Massing, Defendant
Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie, Defendant
Sandra Staub, Defendant
Joseph Trainor, Defendant
Vincent Gillespie, Plaintiff
July 23, 2021
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered as follows: For the reasons stated, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 33.) Accordingly, Defendants motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 18) is hereby ALLOWED, and Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This case shall be closed. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33121087/Gillespie_v_Staub_et_al
Gillespie v. Staub et al
| Massachusetts District Court | |
| Judge: | Mark G Mastroianni |
| Case #: | 3:20-cv-30050 |
| Nature of Suit | 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights |
| Cause | 28:1983 Civil Rights |
| Case Filed: | Mar 24, 2020 |
| Terminated: | Jul 23, 2021 |
| Docket last updated: 09/09/2021 11:59 PM EDT |
| Wednesday, August 25, 2021 | |||
| 48 |
|
misc
Copy Mailed
Wed 08/25 12:04 PM
Copy re 47 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,,, mailed to Vincent Gillespie on 8/25/21. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 47 |
|
order
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Wed 08/25 12:01 PM
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting44 Assented to Motion for Extension of Time to 8/24/21 to file Objection; and denying38 Amended Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal. Despite Plaintiff's arguments on the merits, the court agrees with Judge Robertson's Report and Recommendation that this action was subject to dismissal with prejudice. As Judge Robertson explained: "The Rooker-Feldman doctrine reflects the principle that federal trial courts do not sit as appellate courts to review state court decisions. Instead, the proper and only forum for challenging a final state court ruling that allegedly violates a party's federal constitutional rights is the United States Supreme Court." (Dkt. No. 33 at 17.) Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claims of injuries allegedly caused by a final judgment in state court. See Davison v. Gov't of Puerto Rico-Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps., 471 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir. 2006) ("RookerFeldman squarely applies when a plaintiff insists that we must review and reject a final state court judgment."). (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| Tuesday, August 24, 2021 | |||
| 46 |
|
service
Certificate of Service pursuant to LR 5.2
Tue 08/24 4:23 PM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE pursuant to LR 5.2 by Vincent Gillespie re44 MOTION for Extension of Time to 8/24/2021 to To file Objection,45 Objection to Report and Recommendations. (Zamorski, Michael) |
|
| 45 |
|
respoth
Objection to Report and Recommendations
Tue 08/24 4:22 PM
OBJECTION to33 Report and Recommendations filed by Vincent Gillespie. (Zamorski, Michael) |
|
| 44 |
|
motion
Extension of Time
Tue 08/24 4:22 PM
Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 8/24/2021 to To file Objection by Vincent Gillespie.(Zamorski, Michael) |
|
| Monday, August 09, 2021 | |||
| 43 |
|
misc
Copy Mailed
Mon 08/09 1:59 PM
Copy re 40 Order on Motion to Vacate,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, and 42 Order finding as moot on Motion to Vacate mailed to Vincent Gillespie on 8/9/21. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 42 |
|
order
Order on Motion to Vacate
Mon 08/09 1:52 PM
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered finding as moot41 Motion to Vacate and for Extension of time in light of the court's 40 Order. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 41 |
|
motion
Vacate
Mon 08/09 1:49 PM
MOTION to Vacate Order and for Extention of Time Re:36 Order Dismissing Case,35 Order on Report and Recommendations,, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, by Vincent Gillespie.(Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
|
Att: 1
Affidavit in Support
|
|||
| 40 |
|
order
Order on Motion to Vacate Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Mon 08/09 1:42 PM
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting in part38 Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Vacate and Motion for Extension of Time to File an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff shall file any objection to Judge Robertson's Report and Recommendation no later than August 23, 2021. The court will consider Plaintiff's arguments on the merits in an objection, in conjunction with his assertion of lack of notice of the Report and Recommendation, in considering whether to vacate the order of dismissal. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| Friday, August 06, 2021 | |||
| 39 |
|
respm
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Fri 08/06 2:37 PM
Amended AFFIDAVIT of Vincent Gillespie in Support re38 MOTION to Vacate MOTION for Extension of Time to File an Objection to the Report and Recommendation to File Response/Reply filed by Vincent Gillespie. (Zamorski, Michael) |
|
| 38 |
|
motion
Vacate Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Fri 08/06 2:36 PM
Plaintiffs' Amended MOTION to Vacate Order of Dismissal and MOTION for Extension of Time to File an Objection to the Report and Recommendation by Vincent Gillespie.(Zamorski, Michael) |
|
| Friday, July 23, 2021 | |||
| 37 |
|
misc
Copy Mailed
Fri 07/23 2:29 PM
Copy re36 Order Dismissing Case,35 Order on Report and Recommendations,, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, mailed to Vincent Gillespie on 7/23/21. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 36 |
|
1
pgs
order
Order Dismissing Case
Fri 07/23 2:24 PM
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. Order of Dismissal. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 35 |
|
2
pgs
order
Order On Report and Recommendations
Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Order on Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Fri 07/23 10:32 AM
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered as follows: For the reasons stated, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No.33 .) Accordingly, Defendants motion to dismiss (Dkt. No.18 ) is hereby ALLOWED, and Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This case shall be closed. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| Wednesday, June 30, 2021 | |||
| 34 |
|
misc
Copy Mailed
Wed 06/30 3:13 PM
Copy re33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Elspeth Cypher, Hampshire Superior Court, Kenneth Desmond, Jr, Gregory Massing, Joseph Tra mailed to Vincent Gillespie, P.O. Box 34, Orange, MA 01364 on 6/30/2021.. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| 33 |
|
motion
Report and Recommendations
Wed 06/30 3:11 PM
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Elspeth Cypher, Hampshire Superior Court, Kenneth Desmond, Jr, Gregory Massing, Joseph Trainor Recommendation: The Court RECOMMENDS that the Case be DISMISSED with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 7/14/2021;cc/Pltf.(Finn, Mary) |
|
| Friday, April 16, 2021 | |||
| 32 |
|
order
Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge
Fri 04/16 12:16 PM
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson Referred for: Report and Recommendations (rr). Motions referred:7 MOTION to Dismiss and18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . (Rivera, Christina) |
|
| Monday, November 23, 2020 | |||
| 31 |
|
notice
Notice of Case Assignment
Mon 11/23 2:20 PM
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case RE-Assignment. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| 30 |
|
misc
Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge
Mon 11/23 2:01 PM
Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge. . (Batchelor, Andrew) |
|
| Monday, November 09, 2020 | |||
| 29 |
|
misc
Copy Mailed
Mon 11/09 9:48 AM
Copy re28 Order mailed to Vincent Gillespie on 11/9/2020. (Rivera, Melissa) |
|
| 28 |
|
1
pgs
order
Order
Mon 11/09 9:44 AM
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. ORDER re Consent/Declination. In view of the Notice of Case Assignment entered ( See Dkt. No. 4), the Court requests that the parties confer and notify the Court in writing, on or before the close of business on November 23, 2020 , whether or not the parties consent to the assignment of this case for all proceedings, including the entry of final judgment, to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. See attached Order for complete details. (Rivera, Melissa) |
|
|
Att: 1
Instructions,
|
|||
|
Att: 2
Consent/Declination Form
|
|||
| Wednesday, October 28, 2020 | |||
| 27 |
|
6
pgs
respm
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Wed 10/28 11:11 AM
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Vincent Gillespie. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| 26 |
|
misc
Copy Mailed
Wed 10/28 11:06 AM
Copy re 25 Order on Motion for Leave to File, mailed to Vincent Gillespie, P.O. Box 34, Orange, MA 01364 on 10/28/2020. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| 25 |
|
order
Order on Motion for Leave to File Document
Wed 10/28 11:05 AM
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting the Plaintiff's24 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief re: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk's Office is to docket the attached Supplemental Brief that is attached to this Motion, leave having been granted this day. The Plaintiff need not send the Supplemental Brief to the Court again due to it having been docketed by the Court; cc/Pltf. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| Friday, October 23, 2020 | |||
| 24 |
|
motion
Leave to File Document
Wed 10/28 10:45 AM
Plaintiff's Assented-to MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Vincent Gillespie.(Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
|
Att: 1
Affidavit in Support,
|
|||
|
Att: 2
Proposed Brief
|
|||
| Tuesday, September 29, 2020 | |||
| 23 |
|
respm
Opposition to Motion
Wed 09/30 9:09 AM
Opposition re18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Vincent Gillespie.(Zamorski, Michael) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit 1
|
|||
| Tuesday, September 22, 2020 | |||
| 22 |
|
misc
Copy Mailed
Tue 09/22 10:39 AM
Copy re 21 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, mailed to Vincent Gillespie, P.O. Box 34, Orange, MA 01364 on 9/22/2020.. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| 21 |
|
order
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Tue 09/22 10:38 AM
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . Plaintiff's response due by 9/29/2020; cc/Pltf. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| 20 |
|
motion
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Tue 09/22 10:23 AM
Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 9/28/2020 to File Response/Reply as to18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Vincent Gillespie.(Zamorski, Michael) |
|
| Monday, September 07, 2020 | |||
| 19 |
|
23
pgs
respm
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Mon 09/07 3:42 PM
MEMORANDUM in Support re18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Elspeth Cypher, Kenneth Desmond, Jr, Hampshire Superior Court, Gregory Massing, Joseph Trainor.(Batchelor, Andrew) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit A,
|
|||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit B,
|
|||
|
Att: 3
Exhibit C,
|
|||
|
Att: 4
Exhibit D,
|
|||
|
Att: 5
Exhibit E,
|
|||
|
Att: 6
Exhibit F,
|
|||
|
Att: 7
Exhibit G
|
|||
| 18 |
|
motion
Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Mon 09/07 3:39 PM
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ( Responses due by 9/21/2020) by Elspeth Cypher, Kenneth Desmond, Jr, Hampshire Superior Court, Gregory Massing, Joseph Trainor.(Batchelor, Andrew) |
|
| 17 |
|
notice
Notice of Appearance
Mon 09/07 3:34 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew M. Batchelor on behalf of Elspeth Cypher, Kenneth Desmond, Jr, Hampshire Superior Court, Gregory Massing, Joseph Trainor (Batchelor, Andrew) |
|
| Thursday, August 27, 2020 | |||
| 16 |
|
cmp
Amended Complaint
Thu 08/27 4:53 PM
Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against Hampshire Superior Court, Kenneth Desmond, Jr, Joseph Trainor, Elspeth Cypher, Gregory Massing, filed by Vincent Gillespie. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibits
|
|||
| Friday, August 21, 2020 | |||
| 15 |
|
service
Summons Returned Executed
Thu 08/27 12:41 PM
SUMMONS Returned Executed Elspeth Cypher served on 8/17/2020, answer due 9/8/2020. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 14 |
|
service
Summons Returned Executed
Thu 08/27 12:40 PM
SUMMONS Returned Executed Gregory Massing served on 8/17/2020, answer due 9/8/2020. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 13 |
|
service
Summons Returned Executed
Thu 08/27 12:38 PM
SUMMONS Returned Executed Hampshire Superior Court served on 8/17/2020, answer due 9/8/2020. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 12 |
|
service
Summons Returned Executed
Thu 08/27 12:36 PM
SUMMONS Returned Executed Joseph Trainor served on 8/17/2020, answer due 9/8/2020. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 11 |
|
service
Summons Returned Executed
Thu 08/27 12:31 PM
SUMMONS Returned Executed Kenneth Desmond, Jr served on 8/17/2020, answer due 9/8/2020. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| Friday, July 17, 2020 | |||
| 10 |
|
misc
Copy Mailed
Fri 07/17 1:00 PM
Copy re 9 Order on Motion for Extension of Time and8 Summons Reissued, mailed to Vincent Gillespie on 7/17/2020. (Rivera, Melissa) |
|
| 9 |
|
order
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Fri 07/17 12:59 PM
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting7 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants with Amended Complaint. Time to effect proper service shall be extended to August 14, 2020 . The plaintiff should not anticipate further extensions of this deadline. (Rivera, Melissa) |
|
| Tuesday, July 14, 2020 | |||
| 8 |
|
service
Summons Reissued
Tue 07/14 10:55 AM
Summons Reissued as to Elspeth Cypher, Kenneth Desmond, Jr, Hampshire Superior Court, Gregory Massing, Joseph Trainer. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| Friday, July 10, 2020 | |||
| 7 |
|
motion
Extension of Time
Tue 07/14 10:53 AM
MOTION for Extension of Time to 30 days to serve Defendant's with Amended Complaint by Vincent Gillespie. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 6 |
|
cmp
Amended Complaint
Tue 07/14 10:31 AM
First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Elspeth Cypher, Kenneth Desmond, Jr, Hampshire Superior Court, Joseph Trainer, Gregory Massing, filed by Vincent Gillespie. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibits,
|
|||
|
Att: 2
Cover Letter
|
|||
| Tuesday, March 24, 2020 | |||
| 5 |
|
service
Summons Issued
Tue 03/24 11:53 AM
Summons Issued as to David Angier, John Does 1-10, Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie, Sandra Staub. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
|
| 4 |
|
notice
Notice of Case Assignment to a Magistrate Judge
Tue 03/24 11:22 AM
NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded [LINK:here] . These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| 3 |
|
misc
Filing Fee/Payment Received
Tue 03/24 11:11 AM
Filing fee/payment: $ 400.00, receipt number WOR001945 for1 Complaint.(Burgos, Sandra) |
|
| 2 |
|
service
Summons Issued
Tue 03/24 11:10 AM
Summons Issued over the counter as to David Angier, Peggy Roggenbuck Gillespie, Sandra Staub. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Burgos, Sandra) |
|
| Monday, March 23, 2020 | |||
| 1 |
|
cmp
Complaint
Tue 03/24 11:07 AM
COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Vincent Gillespie.(Burgos, Sandra) |
|
|
Att: 1
Civil Cover Sheet,
|
|||
|
Att: 2
Local Category Sheet | |||
Gregory Gillespie | |
|---|---|
 Gillespie with self-portrait in his Rome studio c. 1969 | |
| Born | November 29, 1936 |
| Died | April 26, 2000 (aged 63) |
| Nationality | American |
| Education | San Francisco Art Institute |
| Known for | Painting |
Gregory Joseph Gillespie (November 29, 1936 – April 26, 2000) was an American magic realist painter.
Life and career
He was born in Roselle Park, New Jersey. After graduating from high school, he became a nondegree student at Cooper Union in New York. In 1959 he married Frances Cohen (1939–1998), who was also an artist, and the following year they moved to San Francisco where Gillespie studied at the San Francisco Art Institute.[1]
In 1962 he received the first of two Fulbright-Hays grants, for travel to Italy to study the work of Masaccio. He lived and worked in Florence for two years, and in Rome for six years, studying the works of such Renaissance masters as Carpaccio, Mantegna, and Carlo Crivelli, who was a particular favorite of Gillespie.[2] During this time he was awarded three Chester Dale Fellowships and a Louis Comfort Tiffany grant. In 1971 he was elected into the National Academy of Design as an Associate member, and became a full Academician in 1994.
He had his first solo show in 1966, at the Forum Gallery in New York. In 1970 he returned to the United States, where he settled in Williamsburg, Massachusetts. He exhibited in several Whitney Biennials, and in 1977 the Hirshhorn Museum organized a touring retrospective of his work.
Gillespie became known for meticulously painted figurative paintings, landscapes, and self portraits, often with a fantastical element. Many of his early works were made by painting over photographs cut from newspapers or magazines, transforming the scenes through photographic collage and by adding imaginary elements. In his later work he abandoned his early fascination with creating hyper-realized realistic imagery, instead focusing on a looser and more expressive style. He often combined media in an unorthodox way to create shrine-like assemblages.
He was found dead in his studio in Belchertown, Massachusetts, apparently a suicide by hanging, on April 26, 2000.
https://www.amazon.com/Stress-Thirty-Peggy-Roggenbuck-Gillespie/dp/0452258294
No comments:
Post a Comment