On March 12th the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry (the Committee) filed – with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York – a new Petition Supplement regarding persons who may have material information to the 9/11-related crimes at the World Trade Center.
The Lawyers’ Committee’s original Petition presented extensive expert scientific and eyewitness evidence that pre-placed explosives were used to destroy World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7. This latest filing builds on the previously-filed evidence of “what” crimes were committed focusing on the “who,” “why,” and “how” with detailed information regarding persons who may have material information to the Special Grand Jury’s investigation. Both Petitions and a names-redacted version of the just-filed Petition Supplement are available at www.lcfor911.org.
Last July, the Committee filed an Amended Petition demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction – by pre-placed explosives – of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. On November 7, 2018, the U.S. Attorney replied in writing agreeing to comply with federal law 18 U.S.C. § 3332 which requires the U.S. Attorney to relay citizen reports of federal crimes to a Special Grand Jury. The U.S. Attorney did not state what actions would be taken to comply.
The Lawyers’ Committee requested that the new supplement and exhibits be presented to the same Special Grand Jury to which the Petition and Amended Petition (with exhibits) were submitted, or will be submitted – whether the Special Grand Jury has been empaneled or will be empaneled. The Lawyers’ Committee also offers to present the information in the new Unredacted Petition Supplement directly to the Special Grand Jury in accordance with with established protocols via testimony of the Lawyers’ Committee’s attorneys who prepared the Petition with support by expert scientists whose testimony was included.
According to the Lawyers' Committee, this Petition Supplement (including unredacted exhibits) contains specific information regarding persons who may have material information relevant to the federal crimes reported in the First Amended Petition.
Attorney David Meiswinkle, President of the Lawyers’ Committee’s Board, stated: “This filing is intended to provide a roadmap for a meaningful investigation by the Special Grand Jury into the yet-to-be-prosecuted 9/11 WTC crimes.”
Ed Asner, LC Executive Director, stated: “This important Supplement to the Lawyers’ Committee’s historic Grand Jury Petition represents another step towards greater transparency and accountability for the tragic events of 9/11.”
Need for Secrecy Relating to Grand Juries
An unredacted version of this Petition Supplement includes names and identifying information of persons and corporations which the Lawyers' Committee requested be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law.
Attorney and Litigation Director Mick Harrison, stated: “We understand the need for secrecy relating to grand juries. However, the law does not preclude the U.S. Attorney from communicating with the Lawyers’ Committee regarding whether our Petition has been provided to the Special Grand Jury. We have advised the U.S. Attorney that we are considering a federal Mandamus lawsuit to compel the U.S. Attorney to report our Petition to the Special Grand Jury. We of course would prefer to collaborate, but the U.S. Attorney will need to timely communicate with us.”
The Committee empasized that the law does not preclude the U.S. Attorney from providing information to the citizens who have reported the crimes at issue regarding whether their information has been provided to the grand jury and whether they may be called to testify or present evidence to the grand jury. If the Committee hears nothing regarding the status of their First Amended Petition (and its supplements), then they are left to assume the worst, that the U.S. Attorney has not and will not submit our information to the Special Grand Jury.
Persons and Entities Identified in the New Petition Supplement
The types and groups of persons and entities that are described in the New Petition Supplement are:
Fact (Non-Expert) Witnesses Who May Have Material Information Relevant to the Federal Crimes Reported by the Lawyers' Committee
- WTC First Responders Who Reported Seeing and Hearing Explosions on 9/11
- WTC Tenants and Visitors Who Reported Seeing and Hearing Explosions on 9/11
- WTC Contracted Service Providers Who Accessed the WTC Buildings Before 9/11 and Tenants Who Saw or Heard Contractor Work Being Performed Pre-9/11
- WTC Security Companies and Their Officers and Staff
- Persons and Entities with Pre-9/11 Access to High Tech Explosives and Incendiaries
- Person and Entities Who Financially Benefited from the WTC Demolitions
- Entities Who Benefited Financially or Politically from the War on Terror
- Persons Arrested after Being Observed Celebrating WTC Attacks on 9/11
- Persons with Foreknowledge Motivating First Responder Evacuations
- Persons with Foreknowledge Acting with a Profit Motive Via Stock Trades
- Persons with Motives to Promote a War on Terror
- Persons Who Controlled the Premature Destruction of 9/11 Evidence
- The FBI's PENTTBOM Code Name for Its 9/11 Investigation
- Interconnected Persons Who May Have 9/11 Related Material Information
Scientific and Technical Experts Who Have Material Information Relevant to the Federal Crimes Reported by the Lawyers' Committee
Response to Previous Communications Has Not Been Received
The Committee reported that they have not yet received a reply to their email (dated November 24, 2018) to the U.S. Attorney's office in which they thanked the U.S. Attorney for the November 7, 2018 letter that acknowledged receipt of the Petition and First Amended Petition and stated that the Office would comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3332. In the Committee's November 24, 2018 email, and a more recent correspondence of February 14, 2019, the Committee requested answers to several important questions:
- Will the U.S. Attorney’s Office provide, or has the U.S. Attorney’s Office already provided, to the (same) Special Grand Jury the complete text of the Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10, 2018 original Petition and July 30, 2018 Amended Petition (now including the accompanying Unredacted Petition Supplement)? Given that 18 U.S.C. § 3332 provides that: “(a) It shall be the duty of each such [special] grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district”, and because the Special Grand Jury’s performance of this statutory duty in regard to the federal crimes reported by the Lawyers’ Committee would be greatly facilitated by being provided the fact and evidentiary details in our petitions and supplements thereto (and greatly hampered without access to those details, which took the Lawyers’ Committee some time to compile), we assume the answer to this question is “yes” but would appreciate confirmation from your office in this regard.
- Will the U.S. Attorney’s Office provide, or has the U.S. Attorney’s Office already provided, to the (same) Special Grand Jury all of the exhibits referenced in the Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10, 2018 original Petition and July 30, 2018 Amended Petition, and in the accompanying Unredacted Petition Supplement, which were submitted (and are now being submitted) to your office by the Lawyers’ Committee? Again, for the reasons stated above, we assume the answer to this question is “yes” but would appreciate confirmation from your office in this regard.
- Does your office currently expect that the Lawyers’ Committee will be invited or requested to present testimony and/or other evidence directly to the Special Grand Jury? Is it possible that the Special Grand Jury may invite such a presentation from the Lawyers’ Committee? The Lawyers’ Committee is willing to do so but would request a reasonable amount of advance notice to allow our attorneys and experts to properly prepare.
- The Lawyers’ Committee’s investigations into this matter are on-going, and further relevant and material information may be discovered by the Lawyers’ Committee that we believe may be helpful to your office and the Special Grand Jury in conducting a full inquiry into the federal crimes reported. We do contemplate, as one example, submitting formal declarations of several experts whose prior work and testimony we summarized, quoted, and cited in our First Amended Petition. Is there a particular official within your office to whom you would prefer that any additional submissions on this matter by the Lawyers’ Committee be addressed?
- Will you inform the Lawyers’ Committee specifically of when the Special Grand Jury’s inquiry into the crimes reported by the Lawyers’ Committee is completed, and if not will there be a general public announcement and how would that be made?
Possible Next Steps
The Committee is considering how to proceed on this matter, including the civil litigation option of filing a federal court petition under the federal mandamus statute and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706. The federal mandamus statute 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provides that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Previous litigation based on the mandamus statute by citizens who sought to compel the U.S. Attorney to comply with the duty imposed on U.S. Attorneys by 28 U.S.C. § 3332(a) to report information about federal crimes provided by the citizens to a special grand jury. Additionally, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has noted:
18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) creates a duty on the part of the United States Attorney that runs to the plaintiffs, and the breach of that duty gives the plaintiffs standing to seek its enforcement. …
To argue, as the government does … that the prosecutor has total discretion in deciding what information to present to the grand jury flies in the face of the Act’s legislative history. …
Thus both the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) and its legislative history indicate that Congress intended to remove the prosecutor’s discretion in deciding whether to present information to the grand jury. He retains discretion with respect to how he acts and what he recommends concerning that information.
The Committee is hoping to avoid the necessity of a mandamus litigation. In order to do so, they will need to hear from the U.S. Attorney (re Grand Jury Application, 617 F.Supp. 199, 201, 205-06 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
So, stay tuned for the next steps.