www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
just noticed the original web page is down. figure it's a good time to put it
into the permanent USENET record...
---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ELLEN MARIANI, Individually, as )
Personal Representative of the Estate )
of LOUIS NEIL MARIANI, deceased, )
and others similarly situated1, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 03-5273
)
GEORGE W. BUSH2, 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. BUSH4, 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 COMPLAINT6
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
Commission7,” 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:
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);
28 U.S.C. § 1346, United States as a Defendant;
28 U.S.C. § 1361, An action to compel an officer of the United States to perform
his duty;
28 U.S.C. § 1366, Construction of reference to laws of the United States or Acts
of Congress;
28 U.S.C. § 1357, Injuries under Federal law;
28 U.S.C. § 1365, Senate actions;
28 U.S.C. § 1349, Corporation organized under federal law as party;
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;
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;
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 USA16"), 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 FACTS18
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 of
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 Exhibit “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 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.” (Los
Angeles Times 5-27-2002)
(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 Manhattan
based 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)
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)
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 Fletcher. Whereas The Washington Post’s
sources insisted that the title of the memo was “Bin Laden determined to strike
in America,” Fletcher 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:
FBI was immediately suspicious. Investigators immediately suspected that
Moussaoui was a terrorist. (Rowley 5-21-2002; Eggen 1-2-2002)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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;)
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)
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)
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)
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 Diego
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.”
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 un-imaginable 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 Iraq29.
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:
For general damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
For economic damages according to proof at trial;
For property damage and loss of use of property according to proof at trial;
For funeral, burial, transportation, and related expenses according to proof;
For damages for the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani for survival damages;
For punitive damage and all treble damages based on compensatory damages per
RICO statute as allowed by law according to proof;
For prejudgment interest as allowed by law;
For all compensatory damages for pain and suffering, etc;
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;
For all special damages in the amount of $911 million according to proof; and
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, and 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
1Plaintiff 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 wh