Discussion in '9/11' started by ray34iyf, Dec 12, 2018.
They have to first determine if there was a crime and they have jurisdiction.
i'm not writing all that everytime. You'll just have to know that if i mean the Judge i will say the Judge. If i mean the whole thing, including background personnel, i'm gonna use "court".
They arent part of the actual proceedings when the prosecutor is directly working with the Grand Jury, from what i've read.
But whatever definitions you think i got wrong, ill stick to my original statement.
The Grand Jury jurors doesnt care what 911 Truth thinks is 'best evidence'.
The US Attorney (which apparently im not allowed to shorten to DA since that's technically incorrect) doesn't care what 911 Truth thinks is 'best evidence'.
The Judge who is available behhind the scenes for judge stuff, doesnt care what 911 Truth thinks is 'best evidence'.
The implied defendant doesn't care what 911 Truth thinks is 'best evidence'
So... if the GJ doesn't take on this investigation... and it amounts to as they say these days... a nothing burger... will anyone find out what their thinking was in deciding not to investigate. Or do they say nothinging?
Federal grand jury proceeding must be kept secret by those involved, with only a few narrow exceptions where disclosure would be helpful in connection with some other governmental function.
The applicable rules can be found here.
There is almost no chance that the grand jury proceedings arising out of the complaint in question ever become public.
I wasn't implying a transcript. I was wondering if there would be some sort of statement as to the reason they did not pursue.
The US Attorneys could not publicly comment on the reason it was not pursued because (i) that would require they read the minds of the jurors and (ii) even if they were just speculating, that would require they breach their secrecy obligations (see Rule 6(e)(B)(vi)):
What would happen if some recordings and transcripts appeared on wikileaks?
Could the jury provide an opinion with their decision?
I don't think there is an easy answer to this as there is likely little or no precedent, but I don't see how a disclosure of proceeding transcripts, whether authorized or unauthorized, would relieve a juror from such juror's confidentiality obligations with respect to the jury's deliberations (which cannot be recorded and therefore can never be directly disclosed). That said, leaks can and do occur, despite the rules (with many high profile leaks actually being made by prosecutors themselves in ostensible attempts to influence public opinion). Maybe one will happen in this case, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for someone to risk violating the rules over a fringe set of theories that can be directly rebutted by the very prosecutors who have been tasked under applicable law with presenting them to the jury (as those particular prosecutors have already completed extensive investigations in coordination with law enforcement, military and intelligence agencies when they prepared to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, all of whom were involved in the actual, well-documented 9/11 terrorist conspiracy).
Just to be clear, are you saying that a jury never gives a rationale for their decision?
Correct. Individual jurors may tell each other their respective rationales during deliberations, but there is no record made of those deliberations and certainly no official filing or other document that tries to summarize them. The jurors, whatever their rationales, simply choose to indict (acting by super majority vote) or not.
Actually, the Grand Jury is perfectly entitled to conduct an investigation on its own, regardless of the opinion of the U.S. Attorney. This would include issuing subpoenas to possible witnesses and even to persons who could in principle be indicted.
This will of course never happen, as the "Lawyers Committee" petition is pure garbage and the most that will ever happen is that it will be passed around for pure larfs.
i could see the jurors asking for more information for some of it. 3000 people died. It is important to dot your i's and cross your ts.
I'm not sure if ultimately it matters if terrorists planted additional bombs in the garage like they have done in the past, but potentially there could be more terrorists who were never caught.
We know all the debunks of the Truther's 'evidence', but the chances are that the majority of the Grand Jury jurors won't.
Unfortunately we will never know what they do, unless the court decides for some reason it is important to share the information with the public. It is a BIG event, and since there really isnt anyone being accused of anything (defamation), they might decide to let the public know they thoroughly investigated some of the claims.
If there is an additional FBI investigation, the report of that may be released.
The FBI already investigated 911. In fact, it was by far the largest criminal investigation in the FBI's history:
A public summary report of that investigation has been available for over 12 years now.
Not to go off topic too much, but it says a lot about the truther movement that this extremely pertinent and easily discoverable fact is not widely known among those who subscribe to the various inside job conspiracies. Information bubbles truly are an unfortunate thing. If people were better prepared and willing to truly research this subject, then publicity stunts like this court filing would never be funded and Ed Asner's heirs at least would be much better off.
@benthamitemetric that's why I wrote additional investigation, and why I thought that report might be published as well
Fair enough on your part, but I'll note that the AE911Truth petition filing does not even mention the fact that the FBI already completed the largest criminal investigation in history concerning the subject matter thereof, let alone take any issue with, or in any way challenge the conclusions from, such investigation, which investigation very conclusively found exactly who was involved in planning, financing and carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Such findings are entirely inconsistent with the thrust of AE911Truths claims and it is hard to imagine why the FBI would open a new investigation if the findings from its previous one (again, the largest and most involved in its entire history) are not even being disputed. The FBI followed the evidence, not conspiracy theory fantasy, while AE911Truth ignores the evidence and embraces conspiracy theory fantasy.
Also, it is worth noting that this type of petition filing is not needed in order to cause the the FBI to open an investigation into allegations of criminal activity for which there is actual evidence.
Some action, from the side of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
It appears to contain names as diverse as truthers Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Neils Harrit, Tony Szambozi (for their 9/11 research and expertise) and Rober Mueller (to ask why the FBI investigation was codename PENTTBOM if there were no bombs). Also firemen, to ask why they described loud bangs as "explosions".
It never ceases to amaze me just how staggeringly incapable of simple research the people at AE911Truth prove themselves to be with each new claim. With just five minutes of Googling, I found the following passage from a contemporaneous article at Wired that clearly answers this:
This article has been available online for over 17 years and it's not behind any paywall. This is just another prime example of how AE911Truth's claims are based on nothing more than a penchant for turning their own inexcusable ignorance into conspiratorial innuendo.
They're capable. They aren't trying to present facts, to the Grand Jury or to their followers, they are trying to eek out a paycheck until they retire.
Why else would they tell the GJ Micheal Hess has "information" about explosions. No he doesn't. Don't get me wrong, i'm fine with him telling the Grand Jury he didnt see any explosions, but still.. way to unecessarily drag out a jury investigation. I can't even fathom how long this "investigation" would take if the jury does decide to try and track down and look into everything and everyone they point to. I'll be so old i won't even remember who 911 Truth is!
@benthamitemetric speaking of ... the GJ only is like 18 months at a pop right? what happens, let's say they do decide to follow up on all the stuff presented.. obviously they cant do it all in 18 months.. does the next Grand Jury have to re interview everyone that was already interviewed the previous 18 months? or do they just read the transcripts?
I expect that's what they want. They imagine they can make the US attorney call Mueller to the stand and make him say this to the jury, because it plants the image of a bomb going off in their minds.
The Grand Jury has 36 months to complete the investigation.
I'm looking forward to finding out how much of a right to "prosecute by proxy" they're going to be able to assert in the end.
This is DOA and will go no where. The AG will do some research about the truth movement and realize this pure hooey.
This supposition fails for a number of reasons. Here are just a few of them:
AE911Truth does not allege that bombs (either carried on the planes or already in the building) were detonated simultaneously with the impact of the planes. Those allegations would in fact run counter to AE911Truth's claims that explosives or some kind were set up in the buildings to cause it to collapse after a significant amount of time had elapsed after the plane impacts (or, in the case of WTC7, after debris from the north tower collapse caused fires to rage across several floors for hours). Do you really think they were intentionally trying to plant in the juror's heads an event that is contrary to their allegations?
The FBI's explanation is not only clear and a matter of public record for over 17 years, but it is also eminently reasonable as the plane impacts did result in huge explosions and conflagrations that were already seared into the minds of most Americans by the afternoon of 9/11. In reality, the planes' fuel tanks acted no differently than rudimentary fuel bombs and the terrorists certainly intended them to be used as such. A grand jury proceeding isn't some sensationalized venue like a TV courtroom and AE911Truth's attorneys will almost certainly not be permitted to even attend the proceedings, let alone ask questions. If the US Attorneys do ask Mueller why the investigation was named PENTTBOM, he would just give the very reasonable explanation that has been public record for over 17 years. There is no "gotcha" moment to be had here.
If AE911Truth's attorneys actually knew that PENTTBOM was named as such due to the fact that plane impacts that were the heart of the crime resulted in large, deadly explosions just as bombs would, it seems to me to be highly unprofessional, and I would argue likely unethical, to withhold such explanation from the US Attorneys while posturing that the need for such an answer creates the basis for calling a witness before the grand jury.
Instead of believing that AE911Truth is hiding the truth from the US Attorneys in some ethically-dubious and elaborate plan to mislead the US Attorneys into calling Mueller before the jurors so that Mueller, when asked about the naming of the investigation, can provide a reasonable explanation that has been a matter of public record for 17 years and in no way supports AE911Truth's allegations in the slightest, I believe it is much more likely that AE911Truth was actually ignorant of the explanation. Either way, however, it's not a good look for AE911Truth.
As noted by @Mendel, grand juries can be extended for up to 36 months (and so, depending on where they are in their initial term when a case is presented, they can have a maximum period from 18 - 36 mos. to deliberate on that case). I doubt there has ever been a case where a grand jury needed a term longer than that and so I doubt that there is a set procedure for how to replace a grand jury mid-case. If a grand jury can't find probable cause for an alleged crime in 36 months, there is no way it will be prosecutable at a trial.
section 3333 says it can be extended past the 36 months for additional witnesses, but that is ONLY if they have named someone (
) ? is that what this bit is saying (the legalese is so confusing) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3333
I remember when Halbig was trying to get his followers to give him money he said he was going to sue the Sandy Hook parents because he felt that under oath they would have to admit they were crisis actors. Perhaps that is their thinking, that if Mueller is on "the stand" he would finally admit to planting bombs.
But you're right including Mueller specifically makes no sense. Mueller could also testify to all the fireman accounts that were investigated and how they concluded the fuel through elevator shafts etc. hhmm.. weird.
I totally love how they now implicitly admit they plainly LIED when they claimed formerly that a Special Grand Jury has been empaneled and that the US Attorney agreed they would present the evidence to that SGJ:
In other words: The "Lawyers" have zero information beyond the mere letter of receipt of their mail package.
On page 3 and 4 they reveal that they have emailed the US Attorney's office twice, in late November and in February, asking about what the US Attorneys have done with the petition - presented to a SGJ, or intending to do so, etc. Obviously, no reply from the US Attorney's office.
On page 2, they speak about "the Special Grand Jury that is empaneled or will next be empaneld" - indicating the "Lawyers" have as of yesterday zero information about whether a Special Grand Jury has been empaneled as a result of their petition.
This reveals as a lie their article posted last December, titled "Sea Change – 9/11 Grand Jury Empaneled"
are you paraphrasing a bit?
they received a letter from the US Attorney that said he would "comply with" section 3332 https://www.metabunk.org/posts/227130/
Read again the last paragraph of my previous post:
The claim that a "9/11 Grand Jury [has been] Empaneled" is in the very title of their December article.
The claim that "the US Attorney agreed they would present the evidence" has been made several times in their interviews, a quick example can be found here:
yea, im still not seeing what you are.
It's nit really difficult to parse. The headline is short:
"Sea Change - 9/11 Grand Jury Empaneled"
The second word, "Change" suggests that something has changed. The first word, "Sea", suggests the change is of major proportions. What has changed? The last word holds a clue: "Empaneled". It's the past tense of "to empanel". This indicates that an empaneling of great importance has taken place, and, in conjunction with "Change", we are left to believe that there is now something (a Grand Jury) empaneled where there was none before. The Grand Jury is qualified as a "9/11" Grand Jury. So the claim is, literally, that the SDNY has recentlyrecently e a Grand Jury for (and thus because of) the Lawyers' case.
I quoted this headline twice before, and used the appropriate quote marks in the appropriate places, so I am puzzled why you asked whether I paraphrased.
Note that the attorney wrote only this as to his future actions:
The committee interpreted this to imply that a special jury would be empaneled, and their evidence presented, but it appears they have now realised that this reading of the US attorney's answer may have been wishful thinking.
Their new cover letter not only reveals that they are now uncertain as to whether there's going to a Special Grand Jury (see Oystein #105 above), they now suspect the prosecutor will not even present their evidence:
https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11...-persons-supplement-cover-letter/?wpdmdl=7050 (if someone could upload this here, that would be nice):
In fact, they now threaten litigation to force the US Attorney to present their evidence, at the end of their letter:
I had a look at the cited decision earlier, it's at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/617/199/2246901/
It cites the law ("Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation."), and quotes the bar association:
The court then states their own opinion:
The ruling is then this:
In the cited case, the prosecutor did not inform the jury at all, and that's clearly illegal.
What we have discussed here earlier is a different question: does the jury have to see all of the citizen-submitted evidence, or whether does prosecutor have discretion on what to present to the jury? The cited ruling leaves some wriggle room on what "information" means, whether that requires passing the verbatim submission of submitted information to the jury, or whether it is enough to provide a summary and wait for the jury to request to see more of the evidence (or not). The lawyer committee clearly favors the former reading, but would they prevail in court? If they did, anyone could simply compile hundreds of hours of youtube videos, claim this was evidence, and tie up a dozen jurors' time with nonsense. I'm expecting a court to rule that the duty of the US attorney is to report on the nature of the alleged crimes, the identity of the informers, and to give a recommendation ("bunch of crackpots, we already did this, ignore"). The jury then decides how to proceed; to see the full submitted evidence or not. I expect the Grand Jury gets the final say on what they spend their time on, not the informers.
The prosecutor could certainly recommend using the existing reports by the FBI, NIST, and the 9/11 commission as evidence.
you'd make a great biblical literalist! I'm sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't read that title that way at all. Obviously they want to make it a bit clickbaity, but to me the basic premise is true. The US Attorney did agree to present their 9/11 information to a Special Grand Jury.
I'm with Oystein in that headline: "Sea Change – 9/11 Grand Jury Empaneled" appears to me to claim that a Grand Jury has been specifically empaneled to investigate 9/11, and that this is a major event.
However the title of the page is just a copy of the title of the SGT Report video.
So it's kind of a passive indirect way of making the claim.
hmmm.. no, i dont see that still. i think there is a grand jury in NYC all the time.. but i could be wrong, but if there wasnt a current grand jury operating then they would have to empanel a grand jury for the US attorney to comply with 3332.
I certainly wouldnt qualify that as "lying".
And them complaining that that the US Attorney isnt sending them weekly updates doesnt prove anything. They have no idea what the US Attorney is doing. Maybe the US Attorney DID have to empanel a new jury. But whether he had to empanel a new jury or use an existing one, is the same thing to me. The existing jury, if they had nothing current to investigate, would be home or at work doing nothing and then they would have to come in to the court house to hear the 911 stuff. Semantics i guess.
Either way, i don't personally consider it "lying".
Sorry, @deirdre, but I'm with @Mick West and @Oystein on this one. There are typically several active grand juries in each federal court district at a time. At any given time, one or more of these grand juries will be dealing with a variety of alleged crimes on a rolling basis, while others may be empaneled for the purpose of investigating a specific alleged crime or series of related crimes (usually in the case where the allegations are complex, as with Mueller's current grand jury, for example).
I don't see any way of reading "9/11 Grand Jury Empaneled" as other than an affirmative claim that a grand jury has been specifically empaneled to deal with the allegations made by AE911Truth. It's clear, however, that AE911Truth had no basis for claiming that a grand jury was so empaneled; in fact, AE911Truth has no basis for claiming that any of their allegations have even been presented to a regular, standing grand jury. The headline is thus a lie.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if they sue following the precedent cited by @Mendel above (which, as it happens, is the very case I cited as likely controlling in the first page of this thread). As I noted previously, while that precedent seems to deprive the US Attorneys of some level of discretion as to their obligation to pass allegations on to a grand jury, there remain many questions as to the amount of discretion the US Attorneys are allowed to exercise re how that information is passed on and, in any event, whether completely baseless allegations need to be passed on at all. As academically interesting as those questions are to this attorney, knowing the fundamentally flawed premises that underlie the allegations in this case, I can only feel sorry for Mr. Asner and his family that he got suckered into financing this whole misadventure.
well i do admit i didnt read that headline as one had literally already been empaneled. I mean it took him 3 months just to "read" the thing and send a reply. Or that the special grand jury is specifically for the 911 case, i mean when they are looking at the 911 case then they are the 911 jury.. but no i always figured whatever special jury was already empaneled would eventually get around to looking at the 911 thing.
That's how i read and am reading the headline. It's always possible i'm reading it wrong. and when you click the link under the headline it seems to agree with me
But maybe i'm reading that wrong too.
deirdre, you are reading with the sceptical eyes and mind of someone who looks at the evidence before coming to a judgement.
However, even while I can't rigorously prove such intent, it seems blatantly obvious to me that the headline was designed to invoke in all the gullible followers and potential donors of the "Lawyers' Committee" and AE911Truth (and they only have gullible followers) the idea that the mighty Lawyers have forced the hands of the Law and made the SDNY's US Attorney's empanel a Special Grand Jury for the sole and exclusive purpose of looking into all of the voluminous evidence that "9/11 Truth" has amassed over all these years. And I am only slightly exaggerating.
How can you read "9/11 Grand Jury empaneled" other than "newly and specially empaneled just for us"?
Remember that this article coincided with a fundraising campaign dedicated to bolstering the Lawyers' purses - they collected more than $100,000 from almost 2,000 alleged donors on the weight of that claim.
Separate names with a comma.