Click here for more info.
In September of 2014 9/11 researcher and author Christopher Bollyn traveled to California and gave two public talks about 9/11. Bruce Leichty (Ellen Mariani’s former attorney) introduced Bollyn at one of the talks. Prior to the talks, a short article was published on this website advertising them and also giving a little bit of information about each of Leichty and Bollyn and a very little bit about the work that each have been doing relating to 9/11. Although these talks are now in the past, the article announcing them will be left here for the time being in case readers which to read a little about these topics. (Click HERE to read the article.)
This update gives an overview of this entire fundraising project and some information about Ellen’s case. Click here to read the Sept. 7, 2014 update.
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.