UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
|
Personal Representative
of the Estate ) of LOUIS NEIL MARIANI, deceased,
) and others similarly situated
[1]
, ) )
Plaintiff,
) ) vs.
) Case No. 03-5273 ) GEORGE W. BUSH
[2]
, ) Judge Eduardo C. Robreno and
Individually, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) and
) RICHARD CHENEY,
Vice President of ) The United States, Officially
and ) Individually, ) ) and
)
) JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General
of ) the United States (DOJ), Officially
and ) Individually, ) ) and
)
) DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary
of ) Defense (DOD), Officially and
) Individually, )
) and
)
) GEORGE J. TENET, Director, Central
) Intelligence Agency (CIA),
Officially and ) Individually, ) ) and ) ) NORMAN Y. MINETA, Secretary, ) Department of Transportation
(DOT), ) Officially and Individually, )
) and
) ) PETER G. PETERSON, Chairman
of the ) Board, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN ) RELATIONS (CFR)
[3]
, Officially and
) Individually, ) ) and )
) CONDOLEEZZA RICE, National ) Security Advisor, to Defendant
Bush, ) Officially and Individually,
) ) and
) ) GEORGE H. BUSH
[4]
, Former,
) Director, Central Intelligence
Agency, ) (CIA), Vice-President and President
of ) the and Individually,
) ) and
) ) KENNETH R. FEINBERG, Special Master, ) and
) ) Other unnamed past, present,
officials, ) representatives, agents, and
private ) consultants of THE UNITED STATES ) OF ) Defendants.
[5]
) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT [6]
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Ellen Mariani, on information, belief and established facts, by and through her counsel of record, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and for her causes of action against all named and unnamed Defendants states the following: STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiff commenced this civil action
on September 12, 2003, by filing of Complaint with this Honorable Court. Since Plaintiff's initial filing and the 'firestorm"
surrounding Defendant GWB's refusal to comply with the "911 Commission
[7]
," this Amended Complaint provides newly discovered
substantial additional facts, evidence and voluntary support from former
federal employees and other concerned American Citizens who all seek
justice and the truth as to how and why the events of
September 11, 2001, (hereinafter "911"), occurred. Plaintiff hereby asserts Defendants, officially
and individually are exclusively liable to answer the Counts
in this Complaint under the United States Constitution and provisions
of the 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) and (c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (hereinafter
"RICO Act") for "failing to act and prevent" the murder of Plaintiff's
husband, Louis Neil Mariani, for financial and political reasons and have "obstructed
justice" in the aftermath of said criminal acts and omissions.
[8]
2. On
"911," Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, an American Citizen
and paying passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, was murdered by
unidentified perpetrators, (hereinafter "terrorists") according to Defendant
GWB. 3.
At the time of the "911" attacks Defendant GWB was and continues
to be President of the United States of America and Commander-in-Chief
of the United States Armed Forces. Defendant
GWB "owed a duty" not only to Plaintiff, but the American People to
protect and defend against the preventable attacks based upon substantial
intelligence known to Defendant GWB prior to "911" which resulted
in the death of Plaintiff's husband
and thousands of other innocent victims on "911." 4. Defendant GWB has purported to the American People, this Court
and the Plaintiff that the infamous attacks of "911" were directly masterminded
by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda Network terrorists (hereinafter
"OBL"), almost immediately after the attacks.
Yet, Defendant GWB has not been forthright and honest with regard
to his administration's pre-knowledge of the potential of the "911"
attacks and Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant GWB to justify why her
husband Louis Neil Mariani died on "911.' Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB is invoking
a long standard operating procedure of invoking national security and
executive privilege claims to suppress the basis of this lawsuit that
Defendant GWB, et al., failed to act and prevent the "911" attacks. This Court must see through this and Plaintiff
argues from the onset, the reasons why "911" occurred are no longer
a national security risk, but a national security disgrace and tragedy.
Plaintiff asserts, contrary to Defendant GWB's assertion that OBL is
responsible for "911," the compelling evidence that will be presented
in this case through discovery, subpoena power by this Court and testimony
at trial will lead to one undisputed fact, Defendant GWB failed to act
and prevent "911" knowing the attacks would lead to our nation having
to engage in an "International War on Terror (IWOT)" which would benefit
Defendants both financially and for political reasons. Plaintiff asserts, her husband was murdered
on "911" and Defendant GWB and many of his cabinet members are now profiting
from the IWOT. Plaintiff will
prove, the "Bush family" has had long ties to power in the federal government
and with the OBL family which raises serious public trust questions
yet to be answered, to include, but not limited to, the fact that Defendant
Cheney is profiting immensely from his former company's exclusive contracts
to rebuild Iraq.
[9]
5. Plaintiff reasonably
believes Defendants knew or should have known the attacks on "911" would
be carried out and intentionally and deliberately failed to act and
prevent these deadly attacks leading to the untimely death of her husband. Plaintiff believes, Defendant GWB et al, allowed
the attacks to take place to compel public anger and outcry to engage
our nation and our military men and women in a preventable "IWOT" for
personal gains and agendas. The
statement of "911 Commissioner" and former United States Senator Max
Cleland reinforces Plaintiff's claims that her President and Commander-in-Chief
Defendant GWB has not been honest and forthright to her or the American
public with regard to "911": "As each day goes by, we learn
this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before
Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted."
[10]
6.
Plaintiff believes the facts, circumstances and substantial evidence
once presented to a jury will ultimately establish Defendants allowed
the "911" attacks to occur to create an "IWOT" for malicious personal
agendas, to include, but not limited to war profiteering.
A pattern of this financial war profiting and the "Bush Family"
goes back to their dealings with Nazi Germany during World War II.
Plaintiff understands this assertion will be a shock to her fellow
Americans who are not aware of this fact, however, her sentiment is
expressed in the following Paul Donovan: "Why Isn't the Truth Out
There?" Observer ( "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 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 "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy." (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)). 10. As widely reported and confirmed by
many American independent researchers of the facts and circumstances
of "911," Defendant GWB knew the attacks of "911" were probable and
failed to act. Specifically, Special Agent Robert Wright wrote
a memo on June 9, 2001, warning his superiors, Defendant DOJ/FBI of
the potential of terrorists hijacking aircraft to attack the United
States and two (2) months later, Defendant GWB's National Security Advisor,
Defendant Condoleezza Rice, acknowledged
that on August 6, 2001, (one month prior to the "911" attacks), she provided
a written brief to Defendant GWB at his Texas ranch which warned "OBL"
might try to hijack U.S. aircraft. Plaintiff,
as all Americans have a "right to know" why these reports provided Defendant
GWB were not acted upon to prevent the most deadly attacks against our
nation since Pearl Harbor which led us into War World II as "911" is
now leading us into the never ending "IWOT."
From the mountain of evidence and the ongoing "secrecy" of Defendant
GWB and his unwillingness to cooperate with the "911 Commission," Plaintiff
brings this RICO Act civil action to obtain justice for herself
and husband Louis Neil Mariani and to expose the "truth" to the American
public as to the great betrayal Defendants have inflicted upon each
and every freedom-loving American arising from the crimes prior to,
during and after "911."
[13]
11. Plaintiff asserts, Defendants acting in
their official and individual capacities were grossly and criminally
negligent in failing to act and prevent the attacks on "911" resulting
in the wrongful death of her husband and attacks against her country.
Plaintiff incorporates for the public record at Exhibit "A",
an "Open Letter" directed at Defendant GWB that provides her personal
reasons for proceeding with this cause of action.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and "open letter" will of course
be supported by substantial facts and evidence to prove Defendant GWB
and all subordinate Defendants named herein have not been "truthful"
with the American People and must be held accountable to Plaintiff and
the families of the thousands of other innocent people who lost their
lives on "911."
[14]
12. In sum, Plaintiff having "standing"
to bring forth this cause of action and its claims herein, will set
forth bona fide challenges to the "official version" of the events of
"911" version as purported by Defendant GWB.
Plaintiff will establish inconsistencies establishing a prima
facie case for this matter to proceed to a jury trial in the search
for truth and justice to redress the untimely death of her husband and
thousands of other innocent people. 13. Plaintiff
asserts, in a free society such as America, no one, including the President
of the United States of America is above the law.
This Honorable Court must afford Plaintiff her fundamental United
States Constitutional First Amendment Right to petition this Court
for redress of Defendant USA, et al., "failure to act and prevent" the
"911" attacks which led to the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani
and thousands of other innocent people to include daily, our brave men
and women of the United States Armed Forces who Plaintiff believes are
dying in Iraq because of Defendant GWB's lies. 14. For
the above stated reasons and the Counts provided hereinafter,
Plaintiff's Complaint is exclusively based upon the United States
Constitution and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO Act)(citations omitted), however, other basis for jurisdiction
and venue are based upon special factors due to the "unique" nature
of this matter. For the good
of Plaintiff and her nation this case merits judicial review, relief
and vindication to ensure another "911" never occurs again
due to the wrongful acts and omissions of federal employees as will
be proven in this matter at trial.
[15]
15.
In sum, Plaintiff will call to trial former federal employees
with firsthand knowledge and expertise with military intelligence and
other duties to support the underlying RICO Act foundational
basis to prove Defendants have engaged in a "pattern of criminal activity
and obstruction of justice" in violation of the public trust and laws
of the United States for personal and financial gains.
Plaintiff will prove, Defendants have engaged our nation in an
endless war on terror to achieve their personal goals and agendas.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. The following jurisdictional and venue claims
merit this Complaint to be afforded judicial review on behalf of Plaintiff
and other similarly situated Americans who lost loved ones in the aftermath
of the terrorists' attacks on "911." 17. Jurisdiction is based upon:
a.
28 U.S.C. 1331, in that it
is a civil action arising under the laws of the
b.
28 U.S.C. § 1346, United States
as a Defendant;
c.
28 U.S.C. § 1361, An action
to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty;
d.
28 U.S.C. § 1366, Construction
of reference to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress;
e.
28 U.S.C. § 1357, Injuries
under Federal law;
f.
28 U.S.C. § 1365, Senate actions;
g.
28 U.S.C. § 1349, Corporation
organized under federal law as party;
h.
32 U.S.C. § 102(3), Federally
recognized agencies as all Defendants, named and unnamed are all employees,
former employees, agents or consultants of the United States Federal
Government;
i.
28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(2)(3), Civil rights and elective franchise and 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, Public Health and Welfare Act
in conspiracy and or failure to act and prevent criminal violations
of civil rights; j. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), in that there is complete
diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum
of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs;
k.
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1964(a)(c),
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO
Act) civil remedies and Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), compensation for victims of "constitutional
torts" by federal actors; and l. 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaratory and injunctive
relief as deemed necessary. 18. Venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is proper due to the special factors involved in this "unprecedented" federal lawsuit and the fact the United States Constitution, the "supreme law of the land' originated at the May 25, 1787, Constitutional Convention in the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiff reasonably believes in the wake of the national tragedy giving rise to this action on "911" and its serious and controversial claims, New York City is an inappropriate venue for justice to be served in this matter. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (a) because Defendants reside, are found, operate under color of authority or office, have agents, or connected with or related to the aforesaid and transact affairs in this district. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (b) because, to the extent any Defendant may reside outside this district, the ends of justice require such Defendant(s) to be brought before the Court. Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (b) (2) or, alternatively, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (a) (2). Further, certain of the conspiratorial acts alleged herein took place and continue to take place within this judicial district. Any and all Defendants, named and unnamed who are employed with, were employed with, contracted with and connected to Defendant USA and GWB, can be compelled through order and/or subpoena power of this federal court to be subjected to discovery or otherwise appear before the court under federal law, executive order, or the Code of Federal Regulations or other process to establish venue in this Honorable Court. Venue is further proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) as Plaintiff's Counsel of Record, (agent), under the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and (b), practices law in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the ends of justice require this matter to be heard in this District, wherein the Constitution and Nation were born. PARTIES
19. Defendant, the United
States of America (hereinafter "Defendant USA
[16]
"), an international sovereign nation, empowered,
limited and controlled subject to its United States Constitution,
is the USA as set forth by its territorial boundaries description which
the Court is requested under Federal Rules of Evidence ("F.R.E."),
Rule 201, to take judicial notice of said territorial description and
boundaries commonly referred to as the USA, herein as defined and set
forth under the United States Constitution. 20. Defendant GWB,
under color
of authority and office is responsible as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America and Armed
Forces respectively, officially and individually, under the United
States Constitution and National Security Act of 1947,
(hereinafter "NS Act") was and continues to be in control of
Defendant USA and all other named and unnamed Defendants, officially
and individually. At all times
relevant to the claims herein, all Defendants present and past federal employees of
the 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 SUMMARY OF FACTS [18] 22. That on January 20, 2001, Defendant GWB
was sworn in as President of the 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
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 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 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 31. That, on or about 32. That, on or about 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'sspecific '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
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 |