There is a group of active, large 9/11 civil lawsuits which represent an opportunity for 9/11 truth

Click here for more info.

Update for 10-11-13 — Ellen Mariani agrees to probate court settlement

Bruce Leichty, attorney for Ellen Mariani, has informed the Legal Defense Fund that, based on the exhaustion of all her options in the federal court 9/11 case, Mrs. Mariani reached a settlement of all issues in her late husband’s probate case in New Hampshire in late September — more than 12 years after Louis Neil Mariani boarded United Flight 175 and became one of the 3,000 persons who died at the hands of terrorists on 9/11/2001.   Bruce notes that although the settlement could not and did not involve further insights into the identities of all the covert terrorists or collaborators, or the events leading to her husband’s death, Ellen avoided the serious monetary surcharges that had been threatened in the probate case as a result of her activism.  Ellen and Bruce convey their thanks for your support during a difficult time.

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.

Update for 9/1/13:

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.

Update for July 12, 2013: The court issues a partially favorable ruling on the latest motions

Judges Carney and Hall, the same judges who imposed sanctions on Ellen Mariani and Bruce Leichty on 5/15/13, have issued a mixed ruling (dated 7/8/13) on the most recent two motions that Bruce filed (see post of June 24 below).  (Click here to read the 7/8/13 ruling.)
In the first of the two motions Ellen and Bruce had asked the Court to make sure that only an official arm of the Court would hear future motions — starting with this one.   Judges Carney and Hall, whose ability to make further procedural rulings had been explicitly challenged in the motion, denied that motion without explanation or comment.
The second of the two recent motions, for reconsideration of the order confirming the Clerk’s “striking” of the Mariani Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e. for a hearing by a larger group of judges), was granted in part.  Judges Carney and Hall now concede that the striking of the Mariani petition must be partly overturned, without explaining how the Petition could be separated into parts that are to be stricken and not stricken.  The Clerk of the Court, Catherine O’Hagen Wolfe, has been directed to poll 2nd Circuit judges to see if there are sufficient judges who think Mariani and Leichty are owed a rehearing on the money sanctions and findings of “anti-semitism” made by Carney and Hall, and on that alone.

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.

Update for June 24, 2013: Bruce Leichty files two new motions

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.