The settlement allows Bruce Leichty to challenge the sanctions imposed on him for having revealed to the 2nd Circuit the ties that existed between the son of 9/11 trial Judge Alvin Hellerstein and the Israeli affiliates and joint venturers of certain defendants in the 9/11 case (ICTS, Huntleigh, and Boeing). Bruce says he has not yet decided whether he can take on that appeal; there will be an announcement on the website when a decision is made.
Unfortunately, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ellen Mariani’s Petition For Rehearing En Banc of her appeal. The decision is dated 7/30/13 and it can be read by clicking here. Ellen and her attorney Bruce Leichty are considering what to do next. There is a possibility that they will want to pursue a new petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
The Mariani Petition for Rehearing En Banc contained arguments for both review of the denial of Ellen’s appeal and the imposition of sanctions. If the Clerk complies with this latest Order it would appear that under the procedure for determining en banc rehearings a much broader selection of 2nd Circuit judges will now see the complete Petition for Rehearing En Banc, although it is not possible to predict whether these judges will feel compelled (as Carney and Hall have instructed) to ignore the request for full rehearing of the denial of Ellen’s appeal. Leichty had argued that only the judges polled for rehearing were qualified to decide if rehearing en banc could still be granted as to the underlying denial of the appeal, which denial was justified by Carney and Hall on the grounds that all of Mariani’s claims had been disposed of by rulings in her earlier efforts to intervene and appeal — a patently inaccurate conclusion if one reads the entire Mariani appellate brief.
On June 20, 2013 Ellen Mariani’s attorney, Bruce Leichty, filed two motions directed to the Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. He filed: (1) an Emergency Motion For An Order Requiring That All Future Motions In This Case Be Considered By Different Judges From Those Who Issued The 5/15/13 Decision; and (2) a Motion For An Order Vacating The 6/14/13 Order And Asking The Court To Reconsider The Rulings (dated 5/30/13 and 6/14/13) Which Prevented The Filing Of The Petition For Rehearing En Banc.
One of the arguments Bruce made in both of these motions is that the court issued the 5/15/13 order which issued sanctions against and harshly condemned both Bruce and Ellen only after the mandate had been issued, which was improper, and then the court would not allow Bruce to respond because the mandate had issued. A “mandate” is a document issued by an Appeals Court and sent to the lower court after the Appeals Court is done with an appeal. It returns jurisdiction of the case back to the lower court. No activity is supposed to happen in the Appeals Court with a given case after the mandate is issued because the Appeals Court no longer has jurisdiction (except that it is possible in some cases for an Appeals Court to recall a mandate and then it could act). What the Appeals Court did was it waited until after the mandate had issued and then, in violation of basic legal principles, it issued its vitriolic 5/15/13 order. But then when Bruce sought to respond by filing the Petition For Rehearing En Banc, the court said that the mandate had already issued and that therefore Bruce could not file his petition. This was a kind of trick that Judge Carney and Judge Hall of the Appeals Court used to deny Ellen her basic right to file a Petition For Rehearing En Banc and to prevent any other judges from reviewing their corrupt and demented handling of Ellen’s appeal.
The Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued an order dated 6/14/13 which denied Bruce Leichty’s motion, dated 5/31/13, which sought to (1) overrule clerk Catherine Wolfe’s Notice Of Defective Filing dated 5/30/13 (which prevented Bruce from filing his Petition For Rehearing En Banc), and (2) to file the Petition For Rehearing En Banc of Ellen Mariani’s Appeal. (A petition for rehearing “en banc” means that one is seeking to get a full panel of judges to review a decision, as opposed to just the small panel of judges who initially reviewed the appeal.) In essence this means that this little cabal of judges along with clerk Wolfe are trying to make sure that no other judges besides them get to see Ellen Mariani’s appeal. They are saying that Bruce does not even have a right TO FILE a Petition For Rehearing En Banc. Only judges Susan Carney and Peter Hall have been permitted to review Ellen’s appeal, the same two judges whose vitriolic 5/15/13 order excoriated Bruce and Ellen and issued sanctions against each of them and condemned them as “anti-Semitic” for merely showing improper connections of Judge Hellerstein to the Israeli defendants in this case (in his filings dated 4/19/12). (The Petition for Rehearing en Banc also sought review of the 6/26/12 summary order denying Ellen’s underlying appeal.)
Hey Judge Carney and Judge Hall, what are you afraid of? Are you afraid that if other judges looked at this appeal they would see that your conduct was very unlawful and that it violated Ellen’s basic rights?
The conduct of these two judges constitutes abuse of power and it violates not only Ellen Mariani’s rights but it also even violates the rights of the court itself, since the other judges are wrongly being prevented from reviewing this case.
After Judge Hellerstein oversaw a process in which every single one of the approximately 100 cases which sought a trial (instead of taking the government hush money from the Victims’ Compensation Fund) after a family member died on 9/11 was forced to settle out of court without any trial, Judges Carney and Hall are doing all they can to stamp the legal life out of the one remaining case which is still trying to find justice in the courts.
Ellen Mariani’s attorney, Bruce Leichty, attempted on 5/29/13 to file a Petition For Rehearing En Banc of the 5/15/13 order of the Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals (which strongly castigated both him and Ellen, alleging that he was “anti-Semitic” and that he had acted in “bad faith” and that he had filed frivolous briefs). However, the clerk of the court, Catherine Wolfe, refused to file it and sent Bruce a Notice Of Defective Filing. However, Bruce argues that she was overstepping her authority in doing this because she based her position on a legal analysis of some of the details of the motion, details which were argued inside that motion. That is a decision that should be made by a judge, not a clerk of the court. (See discussion in the MEMORANDUM OF APPELLANT ELLEN MARIANI IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER OVERRULING NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING, ALLOWING FILING OF PETITION FOR EN BANC REHEARING, AND FOR RECALL OF MANDATE IF NEEDED.) Bruce called her and tried to discuss the matter with her. She hung up on him. (See Bruce’s affidavit [after the Memorandum of law], paragraphs 3-5.) Bruce was forced to file an additional motion just to try to get the Petition For Rehearing En Banc filed and considered. (That motion includes the following documents as attachments: the Notice Of Defective Filing; the Petition For Rehearing En Banc; the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’s 5/15/13 order; and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’s 6/26/12 order. That motion also includes an affidavit from Bruce which refutes many of the false positions contained in the 5/15/13 order [in particular see pages 8-17 of that affidavit].)
Vincent Gillespie was interviewed on Inside The Eye Live! with Dennis Fetcho on 6/1/13. You can listen to that interview by clicking here.
The Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued an order dated 5/15/13 which harshly castigated both Ellen Mariani and her attorney Bruce Leichty and which issued financial sanctions against both of them and which accused Bruce of “bad faith” and “anti-Semitism” and filing frivolous briefs. On 5/29/13 Bruce filed a Petition For Rehearing En Banc of the 5/15/13 order. (This means that he is asking the court to reconsider the matter with a full panel of judges, instead of just the two who issued that order.) Bruce’s Petition For Rehearing En Banc refutes the court’s allegations of the 5/15/13 order. The petition can be read by clicking here.
The Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued a ruling dated 5/15/13 (click here to read it) which is very hostile to Ellen Mariani and her attorney Bruce Leichty. The order harshly castigated them and imposed financial sanctions against both of them for allegedly filing frivolous briefs and for allegedly offending the court and being “anti-Semitic” by pointing out certain improper connections between Judge Hellerstein (who is Jewish and who is actively involved in the Jewish community) and several Israeli defendants in the case. (Judge Hellerstein’s son, Joseph Hellerstein, is an attorney who worked at a law firm which had connections to Israeli defendants in Ellen’s case.) (These issues are detailed in Ellen Mariani’s 4/19/12 filings with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.) The 5/15/13 order (at the end of it) also threatens Bruce and Ellen with even greater sanctions if they dare to raise these issues again.
The order did not mention the fact that Bruce only alleged that there was an appearance of a conflict of interest, not that Judge Hellerstein actually was biased. (An appearance of a conflict of interest should be enough for a judge to recuse himself.) The order also did not mention a very important issue that Bruce was trying to raise in his briefs, that attorney John Ransmeier, who was and is the fiduciary of Louis Neil Mariani’s Estate, was representing the insurance companies who were going to have to pay out to Ellen and her step daughter Lauren Peters at the same time that he was purporting to be a “neutral administrator” on behalf of Ellen and Lauren Peters. That is an enormous and fundamental conflict of interest on the part of Ransmeier. For the 5/15/13 order to fail to even mention this while it accuses Bruce Leichty of filing frivolous appeals and of bad faith speaks volumes about the lack of impartiality of that panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Remember, every single 9/11 case, about 100 in total (the cases which refused to take the hush money and demanded a trial instead after a relative died in the 9/11 attacks) has been shut out of the courts and prevented from coming to trial. Ellen Mariani was still fighting to find justice and answers through the courts (as opposed to a payout and no answers as to what happened), and the court is doing all it can to slam the door on this case as well.
Additionally, John Ransmeier has filed a motion to remove Bruce as Ellen’s attorney, which would probably be disastrous for Ellen’s case if it succeeds.
Also, there has been a spate of negative articles in the mainstream media in April and May of 2013 (they can be read at the Articles About Ellen’s Case page). However, in the alternative media Martin Hill wrote a nice and favorable article dated 5/21/13. Click here to read it. Also, Christopher Bollyn has written a nice article on this issue dated 5/22/13.
So Bruce and Ellen are being attacked on several fronts at once.
The above comments are from me, Vincent Gillespie, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund.
I know that Bruce Leichty also has many things that he would like to say in response to the 5/15/13 order. However, it is my understanding that an attorney is not allowed to make any public comments regarding an order like this while any further proceedings relating to that order are possible. I understand that Bruce and Ellen are planning to file a petition for rehearing en banc (meaning by a full panel of justices, instead of just the two that heard his prior appeal) with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. When that gets filed we will be able to read other points explaining why the 5/15/13 decision is improper and wrong.
2/19/2013 — The Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund has been informed by Bruce Leichty, Ellen Mariani’s attorney, that the Supreme Court has denied the petition of Ellen Mariani as of 2/19/2013. No explanation has been received to date, nor would it be customary for any explanation to be provided. The docket entry shows that Justice Alito did not take part in the consideration of the petition, meaning that Justice Sotomayor apparently did take part, despite Mrs. Mariani’s disclosure that Justice Sotomayor had been part of a panel at the 2nd Circuit sitting on a motion relating to the case.
As of this time, there has still been no ruling from the Second Circuit on whether sanctions will be imposed on Mrs. Mariani and Mr. Leichty.
Mrs. Mariani and Mr. Leichty convey their sincere thanks to the Committee members and particularly Vincent Gillespie, Secretary-Treasurer, for their support, without which this attempt could not have been made. We are extremely gratified by the many expressions of support, both financially and otherwise, we received from backers of the Legal Defense Fund.
The cause of 9/11 truth continues, despite this significant setback. May the groundswell increase in other ways. Please keep Mrs. Mariani in your thoughts as she and her attorney now must face what will be acrimonious personal attacks and an assault on Mrs. Mariani’s recovery rights in New Hampshire probate court.
-Vincent Gillespie, Secretary-Treasurer of the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund