More info on 9/11 Qui Tam Cases

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2008-03-27 09:55:06

This was posted a couple of weeks ago, so please circulate:…   March 12, 2008 9/11 Qui Tam Jurisdictional Challenges Filed – 2/29/08 By RuGBYZHG FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Two Qui Tam cases – U.S. District Court, SDNY — 9/11 related One alleges Twin Towers destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons Other alleges No Planes hit the towers Directed energy weapons toxic effects continue at Ground Zero Contact: Jerry V. Leaphart, Attorney for Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds p — 203-825-6265 f — 203-825-6256 e — See also: Website of Dr. Judy Wood: Website of Dr. Morgan Reynolds Date: March 3, 2008 Danbury CT Cases entitled: Wood v ARA 1:07cv3314 (GBD) Reynolds v SAIC 1:07cv4612 (GBD) Claims: Qui Tam plaintiffs claim 9/11 fraud by several companies, led by Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA) and Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in the preparation of the “Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (NCSTAR 1)” under contracts with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Key issue: The first step in Qui Tam cases involves determining whether court has proper jurisdiction over the claims, not their validity. One case claims that No Planes hit the Twin Towers. The other case claims that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) destroyed the Twin Towers and that some of the effects are ongoing. How cases came about: ARA, SAIC and other defendants were contracted by NIST to investigate what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. NIST issued “Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (NCSTAR 1)” in September, 2005, at a cost of some $16 million, much of it paid to the defendants in the cases. Plaintiffs seek recoupment of that money, plus statutory damages on behalf of the United States. If successful, a portion of money recovered would be paid to plaintiffs, per the provisions of the False Claims Act that has been in use since the Civil War to combat governmental fraud. Qui Tam relators, Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds, claim NCSTAR 1 was fraudulent and challenged NCSTAR 1 in March, 2007, by submitting detailed, written Requests for Correction (RFC) under the Information Quality Act. NIST responses to those RFCs did not overtly admit fraud, but did explicitly admit NIST did not investigate actual collapses of the Twin Towers and also admitted NIST relied on ‘computer models’ regarding the challenge to the jetliner crash claims. Several defendants have appeared in the cases and some have filed motions claiming the cases are frivolous, but those claims will not be heard or dealt with until the jurisdictional questions are resolved, per Judge Daniels’ order. Then and only then would there be a basis for determining whether the motions involving claims of frivolity will have to be addressed, according to plaintiff’s counsel. Legal Steps Taken by Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs have responded to the jurisdictional challenges to their Qui Tam Lawsuits pending in NYC Federal Court. Jurisdictional challenges are now all but fully briefed and await court decision. BODY: On February 29, 2008, a nearly complete set of opposition briefs and affidavits were filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, by the attorney for Dr. Judy Wood in the case entitled Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al. 1:07cv3314 (Hon. George B. Daniels, Judge). That filing comes one month after the filing of opposition briefs and affidavits involving a very similar jurisdictional challenge in the case entitled Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al. 1:07cv4612, also pending before Judge Daniels and involving the same defendants. A complete list of defendants is contained in the docket report maintained by the court. Some defendants have been released from the case based on their not having received compensation for their part in NCSTAR 1. In Wood v ARA, evidence confirming that the annihilation and pulverization in approximately 10 seconds for each of the Twin Towers could not possibly have been caused by supposed jetliner impacts and kerosene (jet fuel is kerosene) is being put forth and demonstrated in detail by Dr. Judy Wood, plaintiff-relator in Wood v ARA. Reynolds v SAIC presents and relies on evidence that 767 wide-body jetliners could not have done what video images depict. Evidence of false imagery includes: 767 jetliners appearing to attain the velocity of 540 mph at 1000ft or less above sea level; 767 jetliners, made of aluminum, seeming to penetrate solid structural steel from nose to tail, wing-tip to wing-tip, without exploding, without slowing, without degrading or crumpling, leaving plane silhouette imprints and without the overwhelmingly, deafening sound of a jetliner at full throttle being present. Moreover, the explosion is seen in the wrong place at the wrong time. Few of the depicted characteristics, as seen in the videos of the event, are physically possible, according to claims made in documents filed in the Reynolds case. ARA and SAIC and other defendants, including, by way of example, Ramon Gilsanz, who as mentioned in the NY Times article published February 23, 2008, seek dismissal of the cases on jurisdictional and other grounds. Some defendants also challenge the cases as being frivolous and seek attorneys’ fees for that reason. The plaintiffs in the cases, Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds, have submitted opposition papers to the motions to dismiss arguing that the court has jurisdiction and that the cases are otherwise valid and should be allowed to proceed to the next stage. If the court rules that it has jurisdiction, then normally the next stage would require the defendants to file answers to the cases and to allow the cases to proceed to the “discovery” phase, meaning the exchange of information and evidence. If the court rules it does not have jurisdiction and does so in a way that dismisses the complaints peremptorily, then, in that event, the motions claiming the cases are frivolous might have to be addressed. No prediction of outcomes of litigation is made, but media are invited to view the public court filings made by both sides in these cases. They are available at the court’s website. ecf.nysd.uscourts.go… The brief and affidavits filed by Dr. Wood point to an ongoing danger in that Ground Zero is still contaminated with the aftereffects of the use of directed energy weaponry. According to the documents filed by Dr. Wood, the weapons used to destroy the Twin Towers are a new technology and affect the destruction of materials at the molecular level, which accounts for the near instantaneous disappearance of the towers. The results of 9/11 appear to be a non-self-quenching reaction. The long-lasting appearance of spontaneous puffs of what were billed as smoke at GZ, but which is not smoke, is consistent with that reaction. The puffs are not smoke according to Dr. Wood but are, instead, a form of fuming associated with molecular dissociation. Evidence of molecular dissociation includes toxicity, excessive rusting, materials instability and other physical anomalies that Dr. Wood has demonstrated to be present at GZ up to, and including, this year, 2008. Dr. Wood, a materials-engineering scientist whose expertise is experimental mechanics, has called upon the scientific community in America to take heed of the evidence and to treat the matter scientifically. The scientific community is not being called upon to rubber stamp Dr. Wood’s claims, but they are being called upon to examine the obvious deviations from scientific methodology evident in the official findings. The basis of both the Wood and the Reynolds cases is the release of the so-called “Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (NCSTAR 1)” by NIST in September of 2005. In March of 2007, Reynolds and Wood both challenged NCSTAR 1 as fraudulent in separately filed “Requests for Correction,” which were processed by NIST and largely rejected. The 298-page NIST report is backed by 10,000 pages of technical data prepared with the assistance of ARA and SAIC and the other defendants in the Wood and Reynolds cases. NCSTAR 1 is fraudulent because of the evidence that it ignored, as per the challenges submitted by Reynolds and Wood, its mandate to determine the cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers. The pending lawsuits are brought under the False Claims Act and are designated as “Qui Tam” cases. In such cases, the persons bringing them cannot be found to have relied on publicly disclosed information as the basis of their claims of fraud unless they are the ‘original sources’ of that information. If they relied on publicly disclosed information of which they are not the original source, then, in that event, the court lacks jurisdiction. The “original source” issue gives rise to recurring and complex legal questions that make it difficult to predict who is and who is not an original source and whether or not the doctrine applies in a given case. The only way to find out whether a case can pass muster under the False Claims Act is to put it before the court to decide. The briefs filed in the Wood and the Reynolds cases contain discussion, by both sides, of the impact of a recent Supreme Court case where the meaning of “original source” was clarified. The Supreme Court case mentioned in the court filings is Rockwell vs. USA, decided in March of 2007. Now it is up to the judge to rule on the jurisdictional challenges. Dr. Wood’s and Dr. Reynolds’ filings assert that they either did not rely on ‘publicly disclosed’ information; or, if they did, then they are the original source of that information. The lawsuits allege that ARA and SAIC and other defendants are manufacturers of directed energy weapons and are known participants in military psychological operations (psyops). The allegations that the destruction in New York was caused by directed energy weapons and the allegations that 9/11 relied on false video images — a form of psychological warfare — results in Wood and Reynolds claiming that it is inappropriate for NIST to have relied on military-industrial-complex companies that have as their primary function the very things that caused 9/11. The cases do not make any claims about ‘who’ perpetrated 9/11. Wood does not challenge every aspect of the official version of 9/11, but according to her filed papers and the brief submitted in the Wood case, the Twin Towers were destroyed by directed energy, not “19 Arabs with box cutters.” The report (NCSTAR 1) is rarely cited and has had almost no public impact, according to Wood and Reynolds. Media sources all but ignored it when it was released in late 2005, despite its cost and seeming thoroughness. One of the contentions set forth in briefs filed on February 29th is that excessive detail, resulting in obfuscation, is a part of the design or scheme of fraud. In addition, what was not known until Dr. Wood got NIST to admit it (aside from a footnote), is that NCSTAR 1 includes no analysis about the actual collapses of the Twin Towers. The reason for that is that NIST admitted in writing to Dr. Wood that it “did not investigate the actual collapses.” NIST’s mandate was to investigate the “collapses” of the Twin Towers and it admitted it did not. The court filings by Dr. Wood maintain that that is fraud. Dr. Reynolds’ case refers to witnesses who did not see or hear any aircraft, let alone wide-body 767 jetliners, hit the Twin Towers, despite being well positioned to have seen and heard jetliners, had any actually been involved. By way of example, one witness is the then Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory who, despite being at the Command Post at Vesey and West Avenue, did not see any jetliner and did not hear sounds that were consistent with one, according to his testimony given to the World Trade Center Task Force on October 3, 2001, as related in Dr. Reynolds’ court submittals. The NY Times has made the transcripts of all 503 Task Force Witness Statements available online. Those statements are a source of information confirming that the witnesses were aware of the unusual energy dynamics of the event, frequently using words like “wave” and “force” to describe the event. According to Dr. Wood’s affidavit, one such witness, Firefighter Goldfarb, referenced the fact that the destruction taking place in front of him, with the building literally disintegrating, did not make much sound.… Wood contends there are multiple witness statements consistent with observation of the effects of directed energy weaponry. Dr. Reynolds has analyzed the available evidence and the claim “thousands of people saw the planes” simply cannot be verified; and, on the contrary, among those who were verifiably present and in a position to see and hear a plane, few make any such report, according to Reynolds. Dr. Wood also sought confirmation of her findings with the U.S. Directed Energy Directorate (DED), located at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, NM. According to her court papers, the DED neither confirmed nor denied her claim. ARA’s headquarters are also in Albuquerque, according to Dr. Wood’s filings. One of the defendants in the two cases, SAIC, is thought to be in charge of security, and thus may control access to the site, to this very day. Dr. Reynolds, has presented ample evidence, including reliance on expert analysis provided to Reynolds by retired pilot John Lear, son of LearJet founder Bill Lear, confirming that no planes hit the WTC on 9/11. Instead, the actual event is an example, on a much more sophisticated scale, of what Orson Welles did in 1938 in convincing many of a Martian invasion in his radio broadcast of “The War of the Worlds.” John Lear focuses on the impossibility of the depicted speed of the aircraft, derived from fake video footage, the lack of training among the alleged hijackers, and the complete lack of any confirmed airplane parts as factors in his written analysis, filed with the court. Dr. Reynolds’ filings make reference to the frequently raised query “what about the passengers?” by noting, in part, that that query presupposes facts not shown to exist. In short, NCSTAR 1 is a fraud and the defendants who participated in its preparation and lent their prestige to it are participants in a cover-up of what happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11. The evidence substantiates the claim that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons. The cleanup of the aftereffects is still ongoing and may pose a significant danger to the public. Because of that contamination, Dr. Wood asserts that it is unwise to construct any skyscrapers on the site, let alone a 1776ft tower. END Note: Because the cases are ongoing, the clients, Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds are instructed not to comment further than that contained above. Queries can be directed to Attorney Leaphart. Authors Bio: DEW does exist and we have paid dearly for that existence. Back Are you interested in what’s really going on in the world, behind the facade? Then…www.checktheevidence… happened on 9/11?    

Related articles...

Comments are closed.