"Breakthrough": U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of WTC Demolition to Federal Grand Jury.

[ray34iyf]

"Breakthrough: U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of WTC Demolition to Federal Grand Jury.

Finally, after 17 long years, the 9/11 Truth Movement has opened an avenue to prosecuting those responsible for the shocking destruction of the World Trade Center and the horrible loss of life that resulted.

It started last spring when the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry — together with more than a dozen 9/11 family members and with help from AE911Truth — filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan demanding that he present evidence of unprosecuted federal crimes at the World Trade Center to a special grand jury. Then, in November, came the big news: The U.S. Attorney notified the Lawyers’ Committee in writing that he would comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 requiring him to relay their report to a special grand jury.
Now the Lawyers' Committee and AE911Truth are counting on your support so we can work to ensure a full grand jury investigation."

Content from External Source

https://www.ae911truth.org/grandjur...QsItvBXC9B72JAtK8M7H5NxD-84lTU72iZqAqySnNc7kI


mod add:

https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/US-Attorney-Letter-110718.pdf

 

[deirdre]

here is their submission/proposal (linked as a PDF). Same old same old stuff.

 

[Mick West]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3332

18 U.S. Code § 3332 - Powers and duties

(a) It shall be the duty of each such 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. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. 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.

(b) Whenever the district court determines that the volume of business of the special grand jury exceeds the capacity of the grand jury to discharge its obligations, the district court may order an additional special grand jury for that district to be impaneled.

Content from External Source

Emphasis mine. All the attorney has to do is inform the grand jury of the allegation, and given them a recommendation (like: "recommend you investigate" or "recommend you take no action")

 

[Mick West]

I've looked for comparable situations, and the only one I could find was one from Prince fans, wanting a Grand Jury investigation. This was just a few months ago.

https://www.fox47news.com/entertainment/prince-fans-file-petition-to-have-singers-death-investigated

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported Tuesday that a petition signed by more than 6,000 was delivered to local and state officials.

It seeks to have a grand jury "properly investigate his death."

Nicole Welage is one of the fans who helped to organize the petition and told the newspaper the group combed through 214 pages of investigative documents and the transcript of the 911 call made to authorities after Prince was found in his Paisley Park home.

She said more investigation is needed and whoever supplied the singer with the drug should be brought to justice.

Content from External Source

(the Start Tribune link warns of Malware, so I'm linking this secondary source)

There might be potential confusion here around the word "petition". There's

1) A list of signatures of a group of people asking for something
2) A request, which can just come from an individual or organization, without a list of signatures.


The Prince petition is accompanied by a list of public signatures. The 9/11 Lawyers' petition seems just to be from them as a group.

 

[deirdre]

given them a recommendation

i only super briefly read the amended proposition but based on Halbig's FOIA hearings that i did watch, the word "hearsay" is going to dismiss most of what they are claiming is evidence. The court doesn't accept newspaper accounts or tv shows as evidence/testimony.

Still I'm glad they finally found lawyers willing to do this for them, they might learn a thing or two about what evidence is.

 

[Oystein]

...
There might be potential confusion here around the word "petition". There's

1) A list of signatures of a group of people asking for something
2) A request, which can just come from an individual or organization, without a list of signatures.


The Prince petition is accompanied by a list of public signatures. The 9/11 Lawyers' petition seems just to be from them as a group.

The "Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry" also has a signatures-collecting petition on their website: https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/grand-jury-petition-supporters/
This was started on April 09, this year, and now stands at 3098 signatures (half of what the Prince fans accomplished).

A year ealier, March 12, 2017, they had also started a somewhat less specific petition at change.org: https://www.change.org/p/support-legal-action-on-9-11-at-last
This stands at 5456 signatures.
This one also came with a Fundraiser - in 2017, 26 donors donated a total of $1,230 ($4.15 per day), in 2018 so far, the number of donors increased by 7, and donations by $495 ($1.43 per day). That Fundraiser page originally stated a series of goals, beginning with $7,000 short term, but eventually of $800,000! Now, only the "$7,000" target is left

Monthly stats for those two petitions:

 

[Mick West]

That Fundraiser page originally stated a series of goals, beginning with $7,000 short term, but eventually of $800,000! Now, only the "$7,000" target is left

As of Oct 1 2017 it said:
http://archive.is/vDBWM

The latest donation will allow the Committee to proceed with its current FOIA litigation and plan other legal action, but additional funds will be required to fully implement its work plan. The committee has raised $125,000, or about 11% of the amount it is seeking in order to field and fully support a staff of nine. The new donation enables us to revise our staged fundraising plan. We will be seeking to raise $700,000 in six stages via crowdfunding and will seek another $325,000 through grassroots events and committed individuals, to fund the first year of operations.

STAGE 1. $7,000 to cover expenses associated with the current FOIA appeal.

STAGE 2. $28,000 for key additions to the management team.

STAGE 3: $50,000 to mobilize ongoing grassroots and independent media support worldwide for the Lawyers Committee's work.

STAGE 4: $150,000 to hire investigators, researchers, and law interns to help senior staff and the Board to map a well-grounded litigation strategy using all available data and developing new evidence where needed.

STAGE 5: $165,000 to file lawsuits, inform the public, and work with the Justice Department and members of Congress where possible.

STAGE 6: $200,000 to prosecute the lawsuits filed, while building increasing grassroots, independent media, and institutional support.

Content from External Source

So they had already raised $125,000 - presumably from a single rich individual donor like Ed Asner (They say "In June of this year, the Committee received a generous six-figure donation, ")

 

[Oystein]

Yesterday, AE911Truth announced their own fundraiser for this "Grand Jury Investigation Project", set up on their own domain:
https://www.ae911truth.org/grandjury

Today, on the second day, they already claim 240 donors for a total of $23,167. Almost $100 per donor, that is twice as much as I usually see for such fundraisers (the LC911I itself only got slightly more than $50 per donor thus far). I have for a long time suspected AE pimps their fundraisers with own money (stuffing money from left into right pocket).

 

[Oystein]

As of Oct 1 2017 it said:
http://archive.is/vDBWM

The latest donation will allow the Committee to proceed with its current FOIA litigation and plan other legal action, but additional funds will be required to fully implement its work plan. The committee has raised $125,000, or about 11% of the amount it is seeking in order to field and fully support a staff of nine. The new donation enables us to revise our staged fundraising plan. We will be seeking to raise $700,000 in six stages via crowdfunding and will seek another $325,000 through grassroots events and committed individuals, to fund the first year of operations.

...

Content from External Source

So they had already raised $125,000 - presumably from a single rich individual donors like Ed Asner (They say "In June of this year, the Committee received a generous six-figure donation, ")

Ah ok thanks, I wrote from memory - I apparently misremembered the 700,000 as 800,000, but forgot (or never knew about) the additional "$325,000 through grassroots events and committed individuals" - for a total of $1 million in the first year!?!

They are raising money through more than one channel, obviously, and the Fundraiser at change.org may be the least significant.

 

[Paradigm_shift]

https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/

A petition is a good start. If there really is no validity or legitimacy to any of the evidence presented, then might as well support it to 'officially' debunk it after having it reviewed by a federal grand jury.
The amount of support it currently has is irrelevant and it's useless to criticize or point out how 'popular' it is.
Popularity is not grounds for how valid or accurate a claim is. There is a large body of evidence and testimony presented that can't just be brushed aside and dismissed without having fully reviewed it.

[...]

If you're honestly looking for it to be settled once and for all then sign up to support:
https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/sign-the-grand-jury-petition/

 

[Mick West]

There is a large body of evidence and testimony presented that can't just be brushed aside and dismissed without having fully reviewed it.

So if I wrote a lot of things about, say, the Flat Earth conspiracy, and petitioned the New York US Attorney to ask a Grand Jury to fully review it, then do you think they should? What about the "no planes" theory? Or the "DEW" theory? Where do you draw the line?

Of course, you think that 9/11 Controlled Demolition theories are perfectly reasonable and that Flat Earth theory is just nonsense - possible even an attempt to discredit by association.

But you, and the well-meaning folk at AE911Truth and Lawyers for 9/11, miss the fact that most professional people see the 9/11 controlled demolition theory as being just as nonsensical as the Flat Earth and DEW theories. So it's very likely they will just brush it aside.

There is a large body of evidence

Why is there a large body of evidence? Did you ever stop to think why there's so many different pieces of evidence? Surely all you need is one?

There are lots of pieces of evidence because NONE of them stand up to scrutiny. This petition is a "Gish gallop". If they want to be taken seriously, they should discard things which are demonstrably wrong (like the iron microspheres, or anything referencing Newton), trim the speculation, address the existing rebuttals, and try to narrow it down into some actual good evidence.

They don't though. They prefer quantity over quality, and I think it's because there's really no quality evidence to be found.

 

[Mick West]

The question raised in this thread is really if the AE911T are correct when they say:

The U.S. Attorney notified the Lawyers’ Committee in writing that he would comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 requiring him to relay their report to a special grand jury.

Content from External Source

But according to the DOJ, a US Attorney uses their own discretion, not simply a report compiled by an advocacy group.
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging

After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information he gathers from talking with the individuals involved, he decides whether to present the case to the grand jury.

Content from External Source

i.e. the prosecutor (the US Attorney) has to think there's a case. No obviously AE911T think there is, and so they think he should present it to a Grand Jury. But that's not how it works. They have to first convince the US Attorney that there is a viable case. Then he has to collate evidence, do his own investigation, and then present that to the Grand Jury.

There's nothing compelling him to do so.

 

[Paradigm_shift]

Why is there a large body of evidence? Did you ever stop to think why there's so many different pieces of evidence? Surely all you need is one?

There are lots of pieces of evidence because NONE of them stand up to scrutiny. This petition is a "Gish gallop". If they want to be taken seriously, they should discard things which are demonstrably wrong (like the iron microspheres, or anything referencing Newton), trim the speculation, address the existing rebuttals, and try to narrow it down into some actual good evidence.

They don't though. They prefer quantity over quality, and I think it's because there's really no quality evidence to be found.

This is a very disingenuous reply. How many criminal cases that led to court were solved by just 'one piece of evidence'? As I'm aware, we rely on witness testimony, forensic evidence - which can take various forms, motive etc. I don't know why you think one piece of evidence is good enough to convict anyone of anything when it's generally not the case.
A case is not established by neither solely on the quantity or quality of evidence, but by whether it draws a definitive conclusion.
Furthermore the only 'one piece of evidence' that I actually cited was that explosives were failed to have been tested for. If you follow the NFPA guide I linked, you will find that arson is routinely tested for in fires - yet that section of my comment has been deleted and flagged for being 'off topic' - ironically when it's the only 'one' I cited.
The official story itself also has a 'large body of evidence' in the form of the 9/11 commission - that failed to mention WTC 7 and the NIST report, why aren't you calling out their multiple pieces of 'evidence' as quantity over quality?
Please refer cases that required just one piece of evidence to solve - if only investigations were that easy. You're suggesting thinking one-dimension-ally.

 

[Paradigm_shift]

But you, and the well-meaning folk at AE911Truth and Lawyers for 9/11, miss the fact that most professional people see the 9/11 controlled demolition theory as being just as nonsensical as the Flat Earth and DEW theories. So it's very likely they will just brush it aside.

Who exactly and how many are 'most professional people'?
Because the well-meaning folk at AE911TRUTH are equally as professional and number over 3000 now. How is their assessment invalid?
Professionals disagree about a large number of topics, saying they disagree is not enough to prove a point wrong.

 

[Mick West]

Furthermore the only 'one piece of evidence' that I actually cited was that explosives were failed to have been tested for. If you follow the NFPA guide I linked, you will find that arson is routinely tested for in fires - yet that section of my comment has been deleted and flagged for being 'off topic' - ironically when it's the only 'one' I cited.

Where in the petition is this issue raised? Please quote it, and give page numbers.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/before-the-pdf.35308/

 

[Mick West]

Who exactly and how many are 'most professional people'?

They are the ones not in AE911Truth. There are millions of people qualified to join. There are 3,000 members.

But let's focus on the petition.

 

[Mick West]

I just re-read the petition. It does not appear to suggest that the lack of arson investigation was evidence. In fact, it appears to say that there was no need for arson investigation because it was obviously "explosives and/or incendiaries"

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/before-the-pdf.35308/ Page 51-52

The totality of the evidence described above, the forensic and physical evidence coupled with scientific and expert analytical findings and opinion corroborated by direct eyewitness accounts constitutes conclusive evidence of the use of explosives and/or incendiaries to destroy the WTC Towers and WTC7, and the commission of the federal crimes described above.
The totality of this evidence does not require conjecture, speculation, or assumptions, only direct
observation or scientific measurement or in some cases basic scientific knowledge and logic.
Even the need for logical inference based on these categories of evidence is limited because this
evidence involves laboratory confirmation of the presence of explosive and/or incendiary
materials (thermite, thermate, and/or nano-thermite) and credible eyewitness accounts from
multiple professional First Responders of the sights and sounds of explosions. This is a body of
evidence that, based on established scientific principles and logic, admits of no other explanation
than the use of explosives and/or incendiaries.

Content from External Source

So they claim to have irrefutable and obvious evidence.

And yet they do not.

 

[Paradigm_shift]

Where in the petition is this issue raised? Please quote it, and give page numbers.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/before-the-pdf.35308/

From the full petition report - Updated as of July 30th 2018.
Section 1: Preliminary Statement. Page 6

This Petition presents evidence heretofore ignored by federal authorities that the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) and WTC Building 7 (WTC7) collapsed on 9/11 due to the detonation of pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries.

Content from External Source

Perhaps you misunderstood my original comment- the petition is in response to NIST failing to test for explosives, in accordance with the NFPA's standards for investigating fire and explosives. Since it's well established that explosives were not tested for, the aforementioned federal authorities are the ones referred to, but I do think they should make that clear.

In that case, maybe a new thread is required to discuss how these standards were not met in the investigation by NIST.

 

[Mick West]

Perhaps you misunderstood my original comment- the petition is in response to NIST failing to test for explosives

Where does it say that? What exactly does it say?

 

[Mick West]

In that case, maybe a new thread is required to discuss how these standards were not met in the investigation by NIST.

See here first.
https://www.metabunk.org/does-nist-...sting-wtc7-steel-invalidate-everything.t1763/

 

[Paradigm_shift]

So if I wrote a lot of things about, say, the Flat Earth conspiracy, and petitioned the New York US Attorney to ask a Grand Jury to fully review it, then do you think they should? What about the "no planes" theory? Or the "DEW" theory? Where do you draw the line?

Flat Earth is a tough one to answer because it's not just pertinent to the USA, so it's difficult as to whether it would be in the Federal Grand Jury's jurisdiction to review it.
With no planes or DEW (I have no idea what that is), yes they can try. If it's reviewed and dismissed then there's the answer.

 

[Mick West]

Flat Earth is a tough one to answer because it's not just pertinent to the USA, so it's difficult as to whether it would be in the Federal Grand Jury's jurisdiction to review it.
With no planes or DEW (I have no idea what that is), yes they can try. If it's reviewed and dismissed then there's the answer.

But the question here is if the US Attorney alone can dismiss it. AE911 are saying he will submit it to the grand jury. But the DOJ (and lawyers I've talked to informally) say the US Attorney makes the call.

Do you think a Grand Jury should hear the case that no planes hit the World Trade Center? Why? I mean there's loads of "evidence", like the "nose out" and "video glitches" and the lack of black boxes, and the weird way the planes sank into the buildings in violation of some laws of physics. Lots of people have brought this up, including some with advanced degrees.

 

[Paradigm_shift]

But the question here is if the US Attorney alone can dismiss it. AE911 are saying he will submit it to the grand jury. But the DOJ (and lawyers I've talked to informally) say the US Attorney makes the call.

Do you think a Grand Jury should hear the case that no planes hit the World Trade Center? Why? I mean there's loads of "evidence", like the "nose out" and "video glitches" and the lack of black boxes, and the weird way the planes sank into the buildings in violation of some laws of physics. Lots of people have brought this up, including some with advanced degrees.

Yes, let them hear it. That's the point of democracy. People make cases in court over their religion for exemptions from the law in certain cases. Not that there is any proof of the validity of their religion, yet it serves as a vital part of civil discourse and freedom of speech.

 

[Mick West]

Yes, let them hear it. That's the point of democracy. People make cases in court over their religion for exemptions from the law in certain cases. Not that there is any proof of the validity of their religion, yet it serves as a vital part of civil discourse and freedom of speech.

So you basically say that a Grand Jury should hear any argument, no matter how silly.

But that's not how it works. And that's the point here, AE911 and the Lawyers are saying that they have got some big victory when all they actually have is an acknowledgment that the UU Attorney got their petition. They still have to wait to see if he thinks it's worth doing anything with.

I think he'll treat it in a similar way to how he would treat a "no planes" petition.

 

[Paradigm_shift]

So you basically say that a Grand Jury should hear any argument, no matter how silly.

But that's not how it works. And that's the point here, AE911 and the Lawyers are saying that they have got some big victory when all they actually have is an acknowledgment that the UU Attorney got their petition. They still have to wait to see if he thinks it's worth doing anything with.

I think he'll treat it in a similar way to how he would treat a "no planes" petition.

I'm not saying that. They're obligated by law to do so.
All forms of silly religions are made, people literally exploit it.
Court has had to even hear from Christians as to why evolution shouldn't be taught in school - that's quite silly yet it's well within their rights to do so.

 

[Mick West]

They're obligated by law to do so.

Can you back this up? Because it seems to be a claim in direct contradiction with the DOJ.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging

After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information he gathers from talking with the individuals involved, he decides whether to present the case to the grand jury.

Content from External Source

 

[Paradigm_shift]

Can you back this up? Because it seems to be a claim in direct contradiction with the DOJ.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging

After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information he gathers from talking with the individuals involved, he decides whether to present the case to the grand jury.

Content from External Source

What you linked is an investigation as presented by a government agency to a US attorney.

This petition, however:

The Lawyers’ Committee’s Petition noted that the U. S. Attorney is legally required to present this evidence of 9/11 related federal crimes to a Special Grand Jury pursuant to a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3332. The U.S. Attorney, in his November 7, 2018 letter to the Lawyers’ Committee, has agreed to comply.

Content from External Source

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3332

(a)
It shall be the duty of each such 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. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. 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.
(b)
Whenever the district court determines that the volume of business of the special grand jury exceeds the capacity of the grand jury to discharge its obligations, the district court may order an additional special grand jury for that district to be impaneled.

Content from External Source

So yes, by law they have to at least be aware of the allegation / situation and decide whether or not to formally review it, did I suggest something other than that? The US attorney has to be aware of the full investigation in any case, by law.

 

[Mick West]

What you linked is an investigation as presented by a government agency to a US attorney.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3332

Yes, but that does not mean the purpose of the US Attorney is simply to rubber stamp every complaint that comes his way and pass it on to the grand jury. You said "They're obligated by law to do so" even in regard to ridiculous "no plane" theories. But the DOJ says:

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.110

The principles of federal prosecution set forth herein are intended to promote the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial discretion by attorneys for the government with respect to:

1. Initiating and declining prosecution;
2. Selecting charges;
3. Entering into plea agreements;
4. Opposing offers to plead nolo contendere;
5. Entering into non-prosecution agreements in return for cooperation; and
6. Participating in sentencing.

Comment. Under the federal criminal justice system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of federal criminal law. The prosecutor's broad discretion in such areas as initiating or foregoing prosecutions, selecting or recommending specific charges, and terminating prosecutions by accepting guilty pleas has been recognized on numerous occasions by the courts. See, e.g., United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 762 (1997); Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962); United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Newman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479 (D.C. Cir. 1967); Powell v. Ratzenbach, 359 F.2d 234 (D.C. Cir. 1965). This discretion exists by virtue of the prosecutor's status as a member of the Executive Branch, and the President's responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that the laws of the United States be "faithfully executed." U.S. Const. Art. II § 3. See Nader v. Saxbe, 497 F.2d 676, 679 n. 18 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Content from External Source

 

[deirdre]

Court has had to even hear from Christians as to why evolution shouldn't be taught in school - that's quite silly yet it's well within their rights to do so.

that kind of stuff has to do with their rights being infringed upon. the right to freedom of religion etc. or like with transgenders, their right to equality under the law.

Otherwise evidence needs to presented.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Mick--without spending a ton of time and actual money researching the case law in depth, I believe the governing case here is In Re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). This ruling makes clear that, at least as a general matter, the intent of the last sentence of 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) is to effectively eliminate prosecutorial discretion with respect to whether a an alleged offense be presented to a grand jury if a third party requests it be presented. I suspect that a court would find that there are limits to this in some cases, such as in a case where the alleged offense is pure nonsense on its face, but such cases have not been tested in the courts as far as I could find.

I thus think that the SDNY US Attorneys office would be obligated to present the alleged offenses described by AE911Truth to a grand jury. Note, however, that this does not mean those prosecutors have to do any further investigation or even that they have to support in any way AE911Truth's allegations. In fact, they could even pass the allegations to the grand jury and tell the grand jury that, in their opinion, the allegations are mere crackpottery. This is probably the path of least resistance given that aforementioned case law, actually, and I wouldn't be surprised if it had already been done and the allegations had already been effectively binned.

Grand jury processes are highly secret for good reason and so we will likely never know exactly what happens. I'd wager good money that the allegations never turn into an indictment, however.

 

[Inti]

I'm not saying that. They're obligated by law to do so.
All forms of silly religions are made, people literally exploit it.
Court has had to even hear from Christians as to why evolution shouldn't be taught in school - that's quite silly yet it's well within their rights to do so.

I'll admit that as a British citizen I'm not very familiar with US law, but surely such hearings, such as the Dover case, were not criminal prosecutions? So I'd be surprised if they involved a grand jury.

Surely any system of prosecution screens cases to determine whether there is a prima facie case, to determine whether there would be a credible likelihood of conviction before proceeding? That's why the fact that there is no compelling evidence of demolition in the estimation of most competent observers is both relevant and important.

 

[deirdre]

I thus think that the SDNY US Attorneys office would be obligated to present the alleged offenses described by AE911Truth to a grand jury

baed on your link they have to present the allegation, they have to present the name of AE Truthers and he needs to tell the jury how he acted on the information. It doesn't say he needs to give them hearsay evidence or "expert testimony" of people who don't qualify as experts.

 

[benthamitemetric]

baed on your link they have to present the allegation, they have to present the name of AE Truthers and he needs to tell the jury how he acted on the information. It doesn't say he needs to give them hearsay evidence or "expert testimony" of people who don't qualify as experts.

It's actually not clear what aspects of the alleged offenses the prosecutor would have to present to the grand jury. The closing paragraph of the ruling states "... [T]he statute does not specify in what way the United States Attorney should present information to the grand jury," and then goes on to note that the court could not specify in what way the United States Attorney general would have to present the information as doing so would violate prosecutorial discretion. The ruling does close by emphasizing, however, that "The statute requires that the information proffered by plaintiffs, and the identity of plaintiffs, be brought to the attention of the grand jury."

Given this, I think the prosecutors would have some reasonable discretion in how they present the information provided by AE911Truth, and could probably decline to share with the jury information they reasonably deem not related to an alleged offense. It's really a very blurry and untested area of the law, however. The prosecutors could certainly choose to simply provide a grand jury with the AE911Truth filing as a whole if they wanted and, as mentioned above, the prosecutor could comment upon it however the prosecutor saw fit. (I'm guessing the prosecutor will end up doing (or has already done) something along these lines.) It probably just boils down to which is least work -- slicing and dicing the AE911Truth filing to separate the allegations from the extraneous information or preparing comments and recommendations on the AE911Truth filing as a whole. Either way, I'm sure a grand jury will wind up in the same place.

EDITED TO ADD: It is clear that the prosecutor would have no obligation beyond, at most, simply sharing the AE911Truth filing with a grand jury (i.e., the prosecutor would not have to allow expert witness testimony or presentations by a representative from AE911Truth. Also, note that the SDNY US attorneys could also very easily rebut the AE911Truth claims by pointing out that actual 911 criminals have been successfully prosecuted in federal court (see, e.g., the Moussaoui prosecution, which followed a grand jury indicting Moussaoui on six felony charges related the 911 attackers). Truthers in their myopia ignore such realities and the fact that the FBI's 911 criminal investigation was by far the largest criminal investigation in its history (see, also, the summary of the report of that investigation).

 

[deirdre]

probably just boils down to which is least work -- slicing and dicing the AE911Truth filing to separate the allegations from the extraneous information or preparing comments and recommendations on the AE911Truth filing as a whole.

i m thinking of wasting the Grand Jurys time. Are they supposed to spend 2 hours staring at a 30 second video of WTC7 collapsing to try and figure out if it's free falling? (<thats an oversimplification obviously). I would think they'd have more important things to do with their time.. but maybe not.

 

[Mick West]

Mick--without spending a ton of time and actual money researching the case law in depth, I believe the governing case here is In Re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). This ruling makes clear that, at least as a general matter, the intent of the last sentence of 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) is to effectively eliminate prosecutorial discretion with respect to whether a an alleged offense be presented to a grand jury if a third party requests it be presented. I suspect that a court would find that there are limits to this in some cases, such as in a case where the alleged offense is pure nonsense on its face, but such cases have not been tested in the courts as far as I could find.

Interesting, as that was my initial reading of the law:

All the attorney has to do is inform the grand jury of the allegation, and given them a recommendation (like: "recommend you investigate" or "recommend you take no action")

My later reading about attorney discretion seems to be more around the attorney initiating a prosecution.

 

[Kevlar]

Mick, I'm a fan of what you do, consider myself a critical thinker and not all that gullible, but after reading through the 9/11 threads and seeing the language used by yourself, I can't help but feel disappointed.

Of all conspiracy theories, the issue of 9/11 has and always has been argued with severe scientific rigor from both sides. The level of debate is the highest I've ever witnessed on an out of academic setting, yet I feel you are perhaps disingenuous to the professionals who provide evidence to a demotion. I absolutely agree with the idea that the simplest explanation is the best, yet when we pile up all the issues and concerns about the NIST version of 9/11, trying to explain each individual aspect of the event through means of acts of nature after initial collapse is starting to look a lot more complicated than a purposeful demolition.

Your go to statement these days is referring to the "rest" of the scientific community, and why they are not addressing the issue. Does this event need a 51% academic reaction for you to concede that there is a case at all? Do you expect scientists to dive headfirst into this hotbed, where professionals have lost their jobs for supporting ae911 from the onset (including in my own country of Scotland)?

I fear that being a professional critic may have addled you somewhat, not saying your work isn't useful, it certainly is. I only wonder, if this Grand Jury session moves to real investigation, will you concede, or keep going out of pride for all work you've done to denounce a demolition?

 

[Mick West]

Of all conspiracy theories, the issue of 9/11 has and always has been argued with severe scientific rigor from both sides.

It hasn't though, and that's a very significant issue with the lawsuit. In fact, I'd say the lawsuit is not even the best representation of the best 9/11 "Truth" research, which itself isn't very good.

I generally focus on the details because I think that's the best way of getting through to people, and generalization tend to alienate. But if asked to characterize the topic as a whole, then my experience is that the level of science and technical understanding is generally very bad. Take, for example, the issue of iron microspheres. While a small number of people might approach that with some impressive sounding facts, equations, and conclusions, the bottom line is they are wrong to say it's evidence of thermite, and this lawsuit is dead wrong when it says:

The presence of such material would be physically impossible based on the burning of jet fuel and office contents alone (i.e., impossible without the use of incendiary materials such as thermite, thermate, or nano-thermite which have the capability to generate the extreme temperatures required to create the iron microspheres observed)

Content from External Source

Now I'm just a gentleman scientist. I know there are lots of working engineers and scientists far better qualified than me. If I can figure it out, then they can too. The ones I've I've talked to have either never heard of the conspiracy, or think it's utterly ridiculous.

It's worth repeating. The reason that most scientists don't spend time investigating or rebutting 9/11 theories isn't that they are worried about losing their jobs, it's because they think it is frivolous and baseless. If they do look into it they will very quickly come across something like the iron microspheres claim, or Gage's cardboard boxes. Then they will stop.

I know you think this is just me speaking from my debunker-addled stated. But it's not. I'm quite clear here. This lawsuit is well-meaning, but it's nonsense.

 

[benthamitemetric]

... if this Grand Jury session moves to real investigation, will you concede, or keep going out of pride for all work you've done to denounce a demolition?

What specifically would he or anyone else have to concede in that case? Even if a grand jury issued an indictment based on the AE911Truth filing (and I guaranty you that won't happen), grand juries can be wrong. If that weren't the case, criminal defendants would never be acquitted or otherwise exonerated. If there were an indictment, it would need to be discussed on the merits, not via generalities, which is really the point of this site and why it is such a useful repository of information. Further, it's worth noting that you don't even need any grand jury indictment to make a post on this site about any specific claim in the AE911Truth filing you believe is evidence of your preferred 9-11 theory. You should go ahead do so instead of writing vague criticisms of Mick that are not tethered to any specific claim.

 

[Todd Cee]

The petition to the grand jury is clearly aimed at the controlled demo scenario. I have yet to see any mentions of actual physical evidence of explosives to support this theory. This will border on frivolous if allowed to proceed.

 

[Redwood]

The petition to the grand jury is clearly aimed at the controlled demo scenario. I have yet to see any mentions of actual physical evidence of explosives to support this theory. This will border on frivolous if allowed to proceed.

There's no evidence that the Grand Jury has any interest. Nor the U.S. Attorney