December 01, 2003

Mariani Vs Bush (Full Amended Complaint)

Well, I don't know about you, but for me, the "Full
Amended Complaint" in Mariani Vs. Bush is newsworthy.
Yet, here it is provided to you via the Information
Rebellion, as opposed to oh let's say SeeNotNews
(CNN), SeeBS (CBS), AnythingButSee (ABC)or NotBeSeen
(NBC), or the NYTwits or the WASHPs...Ellen Mariani is
the wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died on 9/11...The
suit filed on behalf of Mrs. Mariani alleges that the
_resident, the VICE _resident as well as Attorney
General Ashcroft, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and
numerous others:
1. had knowledge/warnings of 911 and failed to warn or
take steps to prevent;
2. have been covering up the truth of 911; and
3. have therefore violated the laws of the United
States; and
4. are being sued under the Civil RICO Act.
Please take the time to scrowl through this
extraordinary "complaint"...You will be amazed...Much
of it has been documented in the LNS and elsewhere,
BUT this compilation is the actual text of a suit
filed in court by the widow of one of those innocent
US citizens who lost their lives on 9/11...Show up for
Democracy in November 2004: Defeat Bush (again)!

Excerpt from the "Full Amended Complaint":"Yet, Defendant GWB has not been forthright and honest with regard to his administration’s pre-knowledge of the potential of the “911” attacks and Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant GWB to justify why her husband Louis Neil Mariani died on “911.’ Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB is invoking a long standard operating procedure of invoking national security and executive privilege claims to suppress the basis of this lawsuit that Defendant GWB, et al., failed to act and prevent the “911” attacks. This Court must see through this and Plaintiff argues from the onset, the reasons why “911” occurred are no longer a national security risk, but, a national security disgrace and tragedy. "

UQ Wire: Mariani Vs Bush (Full Amended Complaint)
Friday, 28 November 2003, 12:18 pm

UQ Wire: Mariani Vs Bush (Full Amended Complaint)
(Philadelphia, PA – 11/26/03) - Philip J. Berg,
Esquire, announced today that he, attorney for Ellen
Mariani, wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when
United Air Lines flight 175 was flown into the South
Tower of the World Trade Center on 9-11 at a news
conference regarding the filing of a detailed Amended
Complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 11/26/03 in the
case of Mariani vs. Bush et al that he is alleging
President Bush and officials including, but not
limited to Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Feinberg
that they:

1. had knowledge/warnings of 911 and failed to warn or
take steps to prevent;
2. have been covering up the truth of 911; and
3. have therefore violated the laws of the United
States; and
4. are being sued under the Civil RICO Act.

The full amended complaint follows…

See also…
- (article)- Sept. 11 widow sues the President
- (press release) - 911 Victim Ellen Mariani Open
Letter To The POTUS
- (press release) - 911 Victim’s Wife Files RICO Case
Against GW Bush


Case No. 03-5273
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno

ELLEN MARIANI, Individually, as:::)
Personal Representative of the Estate:::)
of LOUIS NEIL MARIANI, deceased,:::)
and others similarly situated [1], ::::::)
:::::: Plaintiff, ::::::)

GEORGE W. BUSH [2], President of::::::)
the United States, Officially and::::::)
RICHARD CHENEY, Vice President of:::)
The United States, Officially and::::::)
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of:::)
the United States (DOJ), Officially and:::)

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of:::)
Defense (DOD), Officially and ::::::)
GEORGE J. TENET, Director, Central:::)
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Officially and:::)
and :::::::::::::::)
NORMAN Y. MINETA, Secretary,:::)
Department of Transportation (DOT),:::)

Officially and Individually,:::::::::)
PETER G. PETERSON, Chairman of the:::)
RELATIONS (CFR) [3], Officially and:::)
Individually, :::::::::::::::)
and :::::::::::::::)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, National::::::)
Security Advisor, to Defendant Bush,:::)
Officially and::: Individually,:::::::::)
GEORGE H. BUSH [4], Former,::::::)
Director, Central Intelligence Agency, :::)
(CIA), Vice-President and President of:::)
the United States of America, Officially,:::)
and Individually,::::::::::::)
KENNETH R. FEINBERG, Special Master,:::)
"September 11 Victim Compensation :::)
Fund of 2001” Officially and Individually,:::)
Other unnamed past, present, officials, :::)
representatives, agents, and private :::)
consultants of THE UNITED STATES :::)
OF AMERICA,::::::::::::)

Defendants. [5]::::::)




NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Ellen Mariani, on
information, belief and established facts, by and
through her counsel of record, Philip J. Berg,
Esquire, and for her causes of action against all
named and unnamed Defendants states the following:


1.:::Plaintiff commenced this civil action on
September 12, 2003, by filing of Complaint with this
Honorable Court. Since Plaintiff’s initial filing and
the ‘firestorm” surrounding Defendant GWB’s refusal to
comply with the “911 Commission [7],” this Amended
Complaint provides newly discovered substantial
additional facts, evidence and voluntary support from
former federal employees and other concerned American
Citizens who all seek justice and the truth as to how
and why the events of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter
“911”), occurred. Plaintiff hereby asserts Defendants,
officially and individually are exclusively liable to
answer the Counts in this Complaint under the United
States Constitution and provisions of the 18 U.S.C. §
1964(a) and (c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (hereinafter “RICO Act”) for
“failing to act and prevent” the murder of Plaintiff’s
husband, Louis Neil Mariani, for financial and
political reasons and have “obstructed justice” in the
aftermath of said criminal acts and omissions. [8]

2.:::On “911,” Plaintiff’s husband, Louis Neil
Mariani, an American Citizen and paying passenger on
United Airlines Flight 175, was murdered by
unidentified perpetrators, (hereinafter “terrorists”)
according to Defendant GWB.

:::3.:::At the time of the “911” attacks Defendant GWB
was and continues to be President of the United States
of America and Commander-in-Chief of the United States
Armed Forces. Defendant GWB “owed a duty” not only to
Plaintiff, but the American People to protect and
defend against the preventable attacks based upon
substantial intelligence known to Defendant GWB prior
to “911” which resulted in the death of Plaintiff’s
husband and thousands of other innocent victims on

4.:::Defendant GWB has purported to the American
People, this Court and the Plaintiff that the infamous
attacks of “911” were directly masterminded by Osama
bin Laden and his Al Qaeda Network terrorists
(hereinafter “OBL”), almost immediately after the
attacks. Yet, Defendant GWB has not been forthright
and honest with regard to his administration’s
pre-knowledge of the potential of the “911” attacks
and Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant GWB to justify
why her husband Louis Neil Mariani died on “911.’
Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB is invoking a long
standard operating procedure of invoking national
security and executive privilege claims to suppress
the basis of this lawsuit that Defendant GWB, et al.,
failed to act and prevent the “911” attacks. This
Court must see through this and Plaintiff argues from
the onset, the reasons why “911” occurred are no
longer a national security risk, but, a national
security disgrace and tragedy. Plaintiff asserts,
contrary to Defendant GWB’s assertion that OBL is
responsible for “911,” the compelling evidence that
will be presented in this case through discovery,
subpoena power by this Court and testimony at trial
will lead to one undisputed fact, Defendant GWB failed
to act and prevent “911” knowing the attacks would
lead to our nation having to engage in an
“International War on Terror (IWOT)” which would
benefit Defendants both financially and for political
reasons. Plaintiff asserts, her husband was murdered
on “911” and Defendant GWB and many of his cabinet
members are now profiting from the IWOT. Plaintiff
will prove, the “Bush family” has had long ties to
power in the federal government and with the OBL
family which raises serious public trust questions yet
to be answered, to include, but not limited to, the
fact that Defendant Cheney is profiting immensely from
his former company’s exclusive contracts to rebuild
Iraq. [9]

5. Plaintiff reasonably believes Defendants knew or
should have known the attacks on “911” would be
carried out and intentionally and deliberately failed
to act and prevent these deadly attacks leading to the
untimely death of her husband. Plaintiff believes,
Defendant GWB et al, allowed the attacks to take place
to compel public anger and outcry to engage our nation
and our military men and women in a preventable “IWOT”
for personal gains and agendas. The statement of “911
Commissioner” and former United States Senator Max
Cleland reinforces Plaintiff’s claims that her
President and Commander-in-Chief Defendant GWB has not
been honest and forthright to her or the American
public with regard to “911”:

“As each day goes by, we learn this government knew a
whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11
than it has ever admitted.” [10]

:::6.:::Plaintiff believes the facts, circumstances
and substantial evidence once presented to a jury will
ultimately establish Defendants allowed the “911”
attacks to occur to create an “IWOT” for malicious
personal agendas, to include, but not limited to war
profiteering. A pattern of this financial war
profiting and the “Bush Family” goes back to their
dealings with Nazi Germany during World War II.
Plaintiff understands this assertion will be a shock
to her fellow Americans who are not aware of this
fact, however, her sentiment is expressed in the
following Paul Donovan: “Why Isn't the Truth Out
There?” Observer (U.K.), October 5, 2003, article
which states in part:

"This is the staggering story of the events of 9/11.
No reasons have been given for the Bush
administration's conduct on that day; no one has been
brought to account. Yet from the tragedy that was
9/11, Bush has been able to deliver for his backers in
the arms and oil industries …” (Emphasis added).

7.:::Plaintiff intends to prove to a “reasonable jury”
the Defendants in this matter have engaged in a long
history of foreign policy decisions and have possessed
absolute control of power of her government and have
not been honest and forthright with the American
public as to “911” and have “obstructed justice”
setting a second basis for a “RICO Act” claim as
evident by its secrecy and refusal to comply with the
“911 Commission” in the aftermath of “911.” For
example, the following, September 11,
2003, William Bunch article; “Why Don't We Have
Answers to these 9/11 Questions” goes to the heart of
Plaintiff’s claims and states:

"NO EVENT IN recent history has been written about,
talked about, or watched and rewatched as much as the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - two years ago
today. Not only was it the deadliest terrorist strike
inside America, but the hijackings and attacks on New
York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in
Washington were also a seminal event for an
information-soaked media age of Internet access and
24- hour news. So, why after 730 days do we know so
little about what really happened that day? No one
knows where the alleged mastermind of the attack is,
and none of his accomplices has been convicted of any
crime. We're not even sure if the 19 people identified
by the U.S. government as the suicide hijackers are
really the right guys." [11]

:::8.:::Defendants have influenced American national
security policy either as public officials or private
citizens to the detriment of innocent American lives
to include the wrongful death of Plaintiff’s husband
that provides her standing to seek answers on behalf
of others similarly situated who, without question,
“fear” even questioning the Defendants’ conduct or
misconduct prior to, on and after “911.” Plaintiff
will prove Defendants have engaged in a “pattern of
abuse of public powers” dating back to the late 1970’s
to support her civil RICO Act and Bivens
constitutional tort action in this matter. The facts
will show, Defendants’ have engaged in both personal
business and national security “deals” with alleged
terrorists, “OBL” and Saddam Hussein, providing the
foundational claim of Plaintiff that her husband was
murdered due to Defendants’ “failure to act and
prevent” the attacks on the United States of America
on “911” for one overall chilling reason, to profit
either personally or politically from the so-called
“IWOT.” [12] Plaintiff asserts, in the late 1970’s and
throughout the 1980’s, Defendants were allies with OBL
and Saddam Hussein during the former Soviet Union’s
invasion of Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq war
respectively, wherein, personal and political deals
were made and it is believed upon discovery, these
dealings hold the truth about “911.”

9.:::Plaintiff will establish herein claims based upon
the United States Constitution, statutory and case
law, to compel judicial redress of her husband’s
wrongful death and to set a precedent to prevent
future abuses of power in the United States Government
as will be clearly established by the wanton acts and
omissions of Defendants’ in this case. Plaintiff’s
husband was murdered on “911” and Defendants have yet
to be honest and forthright as to the truth as to how
and why “911” occurred. For these reasons, Plaintiff
brings this cause of action with the genuine belief
Defendants have broken the law and continue to show
great contempt towards herself, the American Public
and the laws of the United States of America.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is historical in nature as our
Constitutional way of government has been attacked and
the following quote of Justice Louis Brandeis is very
relevant to this cause of action:

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that
government officials shall be subjected to the rules
of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a
government of laws, existence of the government will
be imperiled if it fails to observe the law
scrupulously. Our government is the potent,
omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches
the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious.
If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds
contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a
law unto himself. It invites anarchy.” (United States
v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)).
10.:::As widely reported and confirmed by many
American independent researchers of the facts and
circumstances of “911,” Defendant GWB knew the attacks
of “911” were probable and failed to act.
Specifically, Special Agent Robert Wright wrote a memo
on June 9, 2001, warning his superiors, Defendant
DOJ/FBI of the potential of terrorists hijacking
aircraft to attack the United States and two (2)
months later, Defendant GWB’s National Security
Advisor, Defendant Condoleezza Rice, acknowledged that
on August 6, 2001, (one month prior to the “911”
attacks), she provided a written brief to Defendant
GWB at his Texas ranch which warned “OBL” might try to
hijack U.S. aircraft. Plaintiff, as all Americans have
a “right to know” why these reports provided Defendant
GWB were not acted upon to prevent the most deadly
attacks against our nation since Pearl Harbor which
led us into War World II as “911” is now leading us
into the never ending “IWOT.” From the mountain of
evidence and the ongoing “secrecy” of Defendant GWB
and his unwillingness to cooperate with the “911
Commission,” Plaintiff brings this RICO Act civil
action to obtain justice for herself and husband Louis
Neil Mariani and to expose the “truth” to the American
public as to the great betrayal Defendants have
inflicted upon each and every freedom-loving American
arising from the crimes prior to, during and after
“911.” [13]

11.:::Plaintiff asserts, Defendants acting in their
official and individual capacities were grossly and
criminally negligent in failing to act and prevent the
attacks on “911” resulting in the wrongful death of
her husband and attacks against her country.
:::Plaintiff incorporates for the public record at
Exhibit “A”, an “Open Letter” directed at Defendant
GWB that provides her personal reasons for proceeding
with this cause of action. Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint and “open letter” will of course be
supported by substantial facts and evidence to prove
Defendant GWB and all subordinate Defendants named
herein have not been “truthful” with the American
People and must be held accountable to Plaintiff and
the families of the thousands of other innocent people
who lost their lives on “911.” [14]

12.:::In sum, Plaintiff having “standing” to bring
forth this cause of action and its claims herein, will
set forth bona fide challenges to the “official
version” of the events of “911” version as purported
by Defendant GWB. Plaintiff will establish
inconsistencies establishing a prima facie case for
this matter to proceed to a jury trial in the search
for truth and justice to redress the untimely death of
her husband and thousands of other innocent people.

13.:::Plaintiff asserts, in a free society such as
America, no one, including the President of the United
States of America is above the law. This Honorable
Court must afford Plaintiff her fundamental United
States Constitutional First Amendment Right to
petition this Court for redress of Defendant USA, et
al., “failure to act and prevent” the “911” attacks
which led to the murder of her husband Louis Neil
Mariani and thousands of other innocent people to
include daily, our brave men and women of the United
States Armed Forces who Plaintiff believes are dying
in Iraq because of Defendant GWB’s lies.

14.:::For the above stated reasons and the Counts
provided hereinafter, Plaintiff’s Complaint is
exclusively based upon the United States Constitution
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO Act)(citations omitted), however, other
basis for jurisdiction and venue are based upon
special factors due to the “unique” nature of this
matter. For the good of Plaintiff and her nation this
case merits judicial review, relief and vindication to
ensure another “911” never occurs again due to the
wrongful acts and omissions of federal employees as
will be proven in this matter at trial. [15]

:::15.:::In sum, Plaintiff will call to trial former
federal employees with firsthand knowledge and
expertise with military intelligence and other duties
to support the underlying RICO Act foundational basis
to prove Defendants have engaged in a “pattern of
criminal activity and obstruction of justice” in
violation of the public trust and laws of the United
States for personal and financial gains. Plaintiff
will prove, Defendants have engaged our nation in an
endless war on terror to achieve their personal goals
and agendas.


16.:::The following jurisdictional and venue claims
merit this Complaint to be afforded judicial review on
behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
Americans who lost loved ones in the aftermath of the
terrorists’ attacks on “911.”

17.:::Jurisdiction is based upon:

a. 28 U.S.C. 1331, in that it is a civil action
arising under the laws of the United States, and the
First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States, (federal question);

b. 28 U.S.C. § 1346, United States as a Defendant;

c. 28 U.S.C. § 1361, An action to compel an officer of
the United States to perform his duty;

d. 28 U.S.C. § 1366, Construction of reference to laws
of the United States or Acts of Congress;

e. 28 U.S.C. § 1357, Injuries under Federal law;

f. 28 U.S.C. § 1365, Senate actions;

g. 28 U.S.C. § 1349, Corporation organized under
federal law as party;

h. 32 U.S.C. § 102(3), Federally recognized agencies
as all Defendants, named and unnamed are all
employees, former employees, agents or consultants of
the United States Federal Government;

i. 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(2)(3), Civil rights and
elective franchise and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and
1986, Public Health and Welfare Act in conspiracy and
or failure to act and prevent criminal violations of
civil rights;

j.:::28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), in that there is complete
diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy
exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest
and costs;

k. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1964(a)(c), Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act)
civil remedies and Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), compensation for victims
of "constitutional torts" by federal actors; and

l. 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaratory and injunctive relief
as deemed necessary.

18.:::Venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is
proper due to the special factors involved in this
"unprecedented" federal lawsuit and the fact the
United States Constitution, the "supreme law of the
land' originated at the May 25, 1787, Constitutional
Convention in the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiff
reasonably believes in the wake of the national
tragedy giving rise to this action on "911" and its
serious and controversial claims, New York City is an
inappropriate venue for justice to be served in this
matter. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1965 (a) because Defendants reside, are
found, operate under color of authority or office,
have agents, or connected with or related to the
aforesaid and transact affairs in this district. Venue
is also proper in this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1965 (b) because, to the extent any Defendant
may reside outside this district, the ends of justice
require such Defendant(s) to be brought before the
Court. Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (b) (2) or, alternatively,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (a) (2). Further,
certain of the conspiratorial acts alleged herein took
place and continue to take place within this judicial
district. Any and all Defendants, named and unnamed
who are employed with, were employed with, contracted
with and connected to Defendant USA and GWB, can be
compelled through order and/or subpoena power of this
federal court to be subjected to discovery or
otherwise appear before the court under federal law,
executive order, or the Code of Federal Regulations or
other process to establish venue in this Honorable
Court. Venue is further proper in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) as
Plaintiff's Counsel of Record, (agent), under the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and (b), practices law
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the ends
of justice require this matter to be heard in this
District, wherein the Constitution and Nation were


19.:::Defendant, the United States of America
(hereinafter "Defendant USA [16]"), an international
sovereign nation, empowered, limited and controlled
subject to its United States Constitution, is the USA
as set forth by its territorial boundaries description
which the Court is requested under Federal Rules of
Evidence ("F.R.E."), Rule 201, to take judicial notice
of said territorial description and boundaries
commonly referred to as the USA, herein as defined and
set forth under the United States Constitution.

20.:::Defendant GWB, under color of authority and
office is responsible as President and
Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America and
Armed Forces respectively, officially and
individually, under the United States Constitution and
National Security Act of 1947, (hereinafter “NS Act”)
was and continues to be in control of Defendant USA
and all other named and unnamed Defendants, officially
and individually. At all times relevant to the claims
herein, all Defendants present and past federal
employees of the USA or national security consultants
have long had personal ties to Defendant GWB and or
his family relevant to establish and support the RICO
Act basis of this lawsuit. Defendant GWB is an
individual who is also a citizen of the United States
who acted with executive power as the President of the
United States of America under Article II of the
Constitution. Defendant GWB receives for his
compensation for services payments from the United
States Treasury to conduct his official acts in a
faithful manner and solemnly swore he will faithfully
execute the Office of President of the United States
and will do the best of his ability, to preserve,
protect and defend the United States Constitution.
Defendant GWB’s conduct prior to, on and after “911”
raises serious doubt on the face of the evidence he
failed to uphold his “oath” to protect Plaintiff’s
husband and our nation from the devastating attacks of
this infamous day. Due to the complexity of this
litigation and large number of named and unnamed
Defendants in this matter, for clarity purposes,
Defendants USA, et al., will mean GWB as he is solely
responsible for all acts and omissions of all
subordinate Defendants under the provisions of the “NS
Act”. [17]

21.:::Plaintiff ELLEN MARIANI is an adult individual
and a citizen of the Defendant USA and is domiciled
and a resident of the State of New Hampshire. On “911”
Ellen Mariani and Louis Neil Mariani were domiciled in
New Hampshire. Plaintiff is the surviving wife of
decedent Louis Neil Mariani, who died on “911” as a
fare-paying passenger in the crash of United Airlines
Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade
Center. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
herself, the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani
[step-daughter Lauren Peters and Ellen Mariani], and
all wrongful death beneficiaries who believe the Air
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act,
P.L. 107-42, Section 408(b)(3), 49 U.S.C. Section
40101 (2002), is unconstitutional as ex post facto law
and a ploy by Defendant GWB to silence and bury the
truth as to the reasons Plaintiff’s husband and
thousands of other innocent people died from the
attacks on “911.” Plaintiff has a legal duty to
counter fraud and any other illegal activities
affecting her personal, financial interest, welfare,
safety or security as a citizen of the Defendant USA
and the State of New Hampshire, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, by petitioning the federal
judiciary for redress of grievances as provided for
under Article(s) 4, Section 2 and 3 and as thereafter
amended Article I, IV, V, IX, X or XIV of the United
States Constitution to compel answers by Defendants as
to how and why her husband and thousands of others
died on “911.”


:::22.:::That on January 20, 2001, Defendant GWB was
sworn in as President of the United States of America
and assumed the duties as Commander-in-Chief of the
United States Armed Forces.

:::23.:::That, the evidence will show that Defendant
GWB from the period of July through August 2001, was
provided by his subordinate Defendants credible
intelligence information that the attacks against the
United States of America on “911” were imminent.
Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB both grossly and
criminally failed to carry out his duties as President
and Commander-in-Chief and should be held accountable
to her and the American People as to what he knew
prior to the “911” attacks. In the wake of “911” it
was later stated by United States House of
Representative Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, “The
reports are disturbing that we are finding this out
now." Plaintiff stands on her claim Defendants at the
minimum were “grossly negligent” in acting to prevent
“911” as early as two (2) months prior to the deadly
attacks. Another lawmaker, Representative Jerrold
Nadler of New York stated:

"Certainly if the White House had knowledge that there
was a danger or an intent to hijack an American
airplane and did not warn the airlines, that would be
nonfeasance in office of the highest order…That would
make the President bear a large amount of
responsibility for the tragedy that occurred."

:::24.:::That, on or about, August 6, 2001, Defendant
GWB received intelligence reports that a potential
attack against the United States of America was being
planned by the use of hijacked civilian airliners. The
American people were never warned of this potential
threat to their health and well-being as Defendant GWB
owed a duty to inform and warn the public as
apparently high level cabinet members to include
Defendants Rumsfeld and Ashcroft stopped flying
commercial aircraft prior to the “911” attacks.

25.:::That, on September 10, 2003, Plaintiff and her
husband Louis Neil Mariani spent their last day
together as husband and wife on this earth.

:::26.:::That, on or about 8:00 a.m. on “911,”
Defendant GWB sat down for his Presidential Daily
Briefing (“PDB”). "The President's briefing appears to
have included some reference to the heightened
terrorist risk reported throughout the summer" but
contained nothing serious enough to call National
Security Adviser Defendant Rice. The briefing ends at
on or about 8:20 a.m.

27.:::That, on “911” on or about and between 8:13 a.m.
and 8:20 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11, is not
responding to Defendant FAA communications, goes off
course and its transponder signal stops transmitting
“Friend or Foe” (IFF) beacon signal. On or about 8:24
a.m. Defendant "FAA," by and through an unidentified
employee at this time, hears alleged terrorist over
United Airlines Flight 11's radio; "We have some
planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are
returning to the airport. Nobody move." At this very
moment, Defendant “FAA” was mandated to alert
Defendant NORAD to expedite immediate defensive
measures to prevent loss of life or property damage
via scrambling of American alert fighters to intercept
Flight 11 and Defendant GWB should have been
immediately briefed of the situation and should have
by a simple phone call. [19]

:::28.:::That, on or about 8:32 a.m., eight [8]
minutes after Defendant FAA was first alerted to the
highjacking of Flight 11, Defendant Bush’s motorcade
leaves the resort en-route to Emma E. Booker
Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. That, it is
believed Defendant NORAD was notified by Defendant FAA
on or about 8:36 a.m., ten [10] minutes prior to the
first crash into the WTC that Flight 11 was hijacked.

29.:::That, on or about 8:46 a.m., Flight 11 crashes
into the North Tower of the World Trade Center
(hereinafter “WTC”) and Plaintiff husband’s plane,
United Airline Flight 175 transponder signal stops
transmitting “IFF” beacon signal, as did Flight 11
before it crashed into the WTC.

:::30.:::That, on or about 8:47 a.m., Defendant NORAD
was alerted that Flight 11 crashed into the WTC and at
8:48 a.m., the first news broadcasts on radio and
television report a plane crashed into the WTC.

31.:::That, on or about 8:51 a.m., Defendant GWB
arrives at Booker Elementary and should be completely
aware Flight 11’s crash was not an accident,
especially in light of the “PDB” provided him 51
minutes earlier.

32.:::That, on or about 9:05 a.m. Andrew Card walks up
to Defendant GWB in front of the world while Defendant
GWB is listening to a goat story and is alleged to
have whispered in his ear; “A second plane has hit the
World Trade Center. America is under attack.” For
approximately the next seven (7) to eighteen (18)
minutes Defendant GWB continues to listen to the goat
story while Plaintiff’s husband was just murdered and
does not immediately assume his duties as
Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

33.:::Plaintiff believes if Defendant GWB, DOD and
NORAD responded expeditiously as trained for and
according to protocol, at 9:03 a.m, thirty-nine (39)
minutes after being alerted to the highjacking of
Flight 11, and Defendants acted responsibility and
warned all U.S. Commercial aircraft captains of
potential danger to their aircrafts, crews and
passengers, Plaintiff’s husband and thousands of other
innocent people might still be alive today.

:::34.:::Plaintiff as previously stated, incorporates
at Exhibit “C” a comprehensive list of “timelines” of
Defendant GWB’s acts on “911.” Under this section,
Plaintiff will provide the foundation of “pre-911” and
“post-911” events that support the basis of this
Complaint that Defendants GWB and subordinate United
States Government officials are grossly and criminally
negligent for failing to act upon credible evidence to
prevent the “911” attacks and have engaged in a
pattern of “obstruction of justice” since the “911”
attacks to mislead the American People. For these
reasons, Plaintiff possesses “standing” to bring this
cause of action arising from the wrongful death of her
husband, Louis Neil Mariani and does speak on behalf
of others similarly situated who might fear bringing a
cause of action arising from the evil events of “911”
against Defendant GWB, et al., provides the following
“Counts” in support of this cause of action:

Count I
Plaintiff asserts the Ex Post Facto “Air
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act”

as unconstitutional and Defendants GWB et al., are
exempted parties under the Act’s

specific ‘exemption’ for claims against Terrorists and
Their Aiders, Abettors and Conspirators

:::35.:::Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
allegations in this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein at length.

:::36.:::Plaintiff asserts the Air Transportation
Safety and System Stabilization Act, (hereinafter
“Act”) is unconstitutional and ex post facto
legislation specifically intended to silence the truth
of the true perpetrators or terrorists which have yet
been captured or held to account for the "911" attacks
which resulted in the murder of her husband Louis Neil

:::37.:::Plaintiff asserts the "exclusive
jurisdiction" under the Act mandating her to bring
this claim into the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York due to the serious
nature of this Amended Complaint and the fact that New
York City was the primary target of the "911" attacks
will prejudice her case. Plaintiff reasonably believes
venue in Philadelphia is appropriate in the federal
district wherein the United States Constitution was
signed as the Defendants have tested the United States
Constitution and pose the greatest threat to our way
of life if they are not held to account for their
actions prior to, during and after the “911” attacks.
Moreover, Defendant GWB, the primary focus of this
Amended Complaint, and a majority of the Defendants
are employees of the United States who were acting
within their official capacity on "911" and Plaintiff
can bring this action in "any judicial district"
predicated upon the fact that "a substantial part of
the events and omissions giving rise" to this action
occurred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff argues, the entire United States of America
and its Citizens were victims of "911" for that
matter, coupled with the fact that the United States
Constitution is under attack in of itself, merits this
Amended Complaint to be tried and decided in the Birth
Place of the Constitution and where our Declaration of
Independence was written and signed in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and where our battle of freedom was won
in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Furthermore, all of the
Defendants conduct public business and/or have offices
throughout the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

:::38.:::Plaintiff further believes Section 408(c) of
the Act provides one critical "exception" relevant to
Plaintiff’s case being heard in this Honorable Court
and venue set therein. The Act states in part:

"The Southern District has 'original exclusive
jurisdiction' over all actions brought for any claim
(including any claim for loss of property, personal
injury, or death) resulting from or relating to the
terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11,
2001" with the exception of claims to recover
collateral source obligations and claims against
terrorists and their aiders and abettors and
conspirators.” (Emphasis added) (Act Section 408(c)).

39.:::Plaintiff asserts from the mountain of evidence
that will be produced and based upon her RICO Act
claim, Defendant GWB et al., are exempt from the Act’s
jurisdiction in New York because Defendants will be
directly connected to their true standing in the “911”
attacks as “aiders and abettors and conspirators” who
intentionally and deliberately “failed to act and
prevent” the “911 attacks on the United States of
American leading to the murder of Plaintiff’s husband
Louis Neil Mariani and thousands of other innocent
people for many years to come, to advance their
agendas, including but not limited to an “IWOT.” [21]

:::40.:::Plaintiff, herein also names Defendant
Kenneth R. Feinberg, Special Master of the September
11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, (hereinafter
“Fund”) as a party for his questionable strong-arm
tactics and hostility towards Plaintiff. Plaintiff
asserts and alleges, Defendant Feinberg’s appointment
by Defendant Aschroft was tactical placement of a “go
along to get along” move by Defendant GWB to ensure
all “911” families joined the fund to prevent any
questions of liability, gross or criminal negligence
on behalf of Defendant GWB and his administration for
failing to act and prevent the “911” attacks.

:::41.:::Plaintiff provides at Exhibit “D” proof of
his lack of independence in administering the “Fund”
via a letter signed by Defendant Feinberg to Donald J.
Nolan, Esquire dated February 8, 2002. Most notable is
the handwritten statement below Defendant Feinberg’s
signature that states: “So – are you bringing your
clients into the Fund? Give me a call. Best - K.”

42.:::Plaintiff asserts Defendant Feinberg’s overall
involvement with the “Fund” and his appointment by
Defendant Ashcroft is highly suspect and will call at
trial staff members of the “Fund” who will expose the
appropriate facts to support Plaintiff’s claim that
Defendant Feinberg’s assignment is not to administer
just compensation to the families but, a ploy to
silence any traditional lawsuits that will expose
Defendant GWB’s failure to act and prevent the “911”
attacks. Furthermore, Red Cross delays have in effect
thrown needy families into the waiting arms of
Defendant Ashcroft and Defendant Feinberg while also
serving to keep the government of the United States
out of the courtroom via what Plaintiff originally
termed "the Feinberg hush fund." Defendant Feinberg
has maintained total control over fund settlements
while allowing the Red Cross to extend payments in the
millions from donations to displaced renters and
homeowners who did not even lose a family member, and
also to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
workers, all of whom should have been paid from FEMA's
well-established and budgeted funds approved by
Congress. Defendant Feinberg allowed the U.S.
government to use Red Cross funds specifically donated
to the families who lost their loved ones, said funds
given to other parties, which only helped to extend
and intensify the financial difficulties of victims
family members, as many just decided to give up and
submit to Defendant Feinberg's fund while also
absolving the government of the United States of all
future accountability.

43.:::Plaintiff, reasonably believes, Defendants are
hiding behind arbitrary legislation such as this “Act”
[Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization
Act] and the Patriot Act to silence Americans such as
herself from obtaining the truth as to how and why
“911” ever occurred. To protect and preserve the
United States Constitution Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint merits judicial redress and all
extraordinary relief for the good of our nation. [22]

Count II
Defendant “GWB’s” Official Version of “911” and
refusal to cooperate with his “911 Commission” demands
judicial scrutiny in this cause of action

44.:::Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein
at length.

:::45.:::Plaintiff asserts from the timelines as set
forth in the “Summary of Facts” Defendant GWB’s
behaviors, both officially and individually are highly
suspect. Plaintiff, a reasonable person with
“standing” seeks to find the truth of “911” and
questions why it has taken almost two (2) years for
Defendant GWB to establish the “911 Commission.”

46.:::Plaintiff believes from the substantial
investigations and news reports from around the world,
Defendant GWB must be compelled to answer the claims
and assertions in her lawsuit as it has been over two
(2) years since her husband’s death and yet to date,
no “terrorists” have be held to account.

47.:::Plaintiff deserves her day in court in this
matter for many reasons, most specifically to
challenge Defendant GWB’s purported fact that the
“terrorist” responsible for the “911” attacks and its
mastermind is “OBL.” Defendant GWB has not released to
the public intelligence reports or statements to
remove suspicion regarding his own good faith efforts
to find the terrorists responsible for “911.”
Moreover, why are several alleged terrorists named by
Defendant GWB who allegedly died in the “911” attacks
still alive?

48.:::Plaintiff asserts and alleges Defendant GWB’s
behaviors on the morning of “911” upon being informed
the nation was under attack to include but not limited
to his continued reading of a children’s story when he
should have expeditiously carried out his joint duties
as President and Commander-in-Chief to order air
defenses to prevent continued attacks against our
Nation, in of itself, calls into question his
stability and motives to carry out this nation’s top
public office.

49.:::Plaintiff seeks to find and obtain the answer as
to why her husband was murdered on “911” and to date,
political reasons and “obstruction of justice” by
Defendant GWB in failing to release intelligence
reports and to fully cooperate with the “911
Commission” provide Plaintiff with no other option but
to proceed with this cause of action. In light of the
fact that Defendant Ashcroft is a party to this
litigation, this Honorable Court must provide
Plaintiff justice by issuance of subpoenas and by
affording Plaintiff discovery to support her claims
regarding Defendant GWB failing to act and prevent the
deadly attacks on “911.” Moreover, the fact that the
only federal employee who has the power to seek
prosecution of the murders responsible for “911,”
namely Defendant Ashcroft who has spent more time
advocating for his Patriot Act than seeking the
“terrorists” responsible for the “911” attacks is yet
another bona fide issue which advances Plaintiff’s
right to judicial review in this matter. [23]

Count III
Defendant “USA” and “DOD” for Twenty-Five (25) Years
had prior knowledge

American Airspace was vulnerable to terrorist attacks
via highjacking of

Commercial Airliners

50.:::Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein
at length.

51.:::Plaintiff’s basis for alleging Defendants had
prior knowledge “terrorists” could highjack commercial
aircraft and attack the United States is not only due
to Defendant GWB’s continued withholding of facts and
public records necessary for the “911 Commission” to
perform its public duty, but, supported by the sworn
affidavit of Timothy Stuart McNiven, former United
States Army participant in a 1975 Congressional funded
military study which purpose was to “identify security
lapses and submit corrective actions” to Congress.
(See Exhibit “B”). [24]

52.:::Based upon review of Affiant McNiven’s sworn
statement Plaintiff asserts Defendant USA, et al.,
charged with defending America had prior knowledge
before “911” that the events of this infamous day in
American history could take place and did. Hence,
Defendant USA’s failure to implement the findings of
the study was grossly/criminally negligent and
Defendant’s “failing to prevent” the attacks of “911”
raises other serious national security and public
trust matters important for Plaintiff to obtain
justice in this case. Affiant McNiven’s testimony and
the chilling similarities of the study’s scenarios to
the actual events of “911,” support a basis Defendants
were grossly/criminally negligent in failing to
prevent “911.” Affiant McNiven’s testimony also
provides the “nexus” to include Defendant George H.
Bush, Sr., (hereinafter “Defendant GHB”) as a critical
party to this litigation as Defendant GHB as CIA
Director at the time of the study and reasons for its
not being implemented are very relevant for Plaintiff
to find the answers as to why her husband was murdered
on “911.” Plaintiff believes, Defendants’ GWB and his
father, GHB, hold the answers for the entire nation to
be informed of the truth as to “911” and why it
occurred and was not prevented. [25]

:::53.:::Plaintiff asserts the facts and circumstances
as set forth in Affiant McNiven’s statement provide
the foundation to call into question all Defendant
GWB’s official and private national security advisors’
apparent ill-willed “advice” which once full discovery
is achieved, will prove not only that Defendants were
grossly negligent in failing to prevent the “911”
attacks, they were also criminally negligent wherein
this Court, for the good of the nation, must grant any
and all declaratory and injunctive relief to hold
Defendants’ accountable for all crimes proven in this
civil action. For these reasons, Defendant GWB cannot
and must not be afforded “Executive Privilege” or any
other governmental immunity from defending this
lawsuit as the “national security” interests of
Plaintiff and the American People outweigh the
“national security” interests of “individual
Defendants” in this matter. [26]

:::54.:::In sum, on July 25, 2003, a report by a joint
panel of House and Senate Intelligence Committees
concluded that 9/11 resulted from C.I.A. and F.B.I.
"lapses." Defendant GWB is solely responsible as
President of the United States of America for the
“lapses” that resulted in the murder of Plaintiff’s
husband Louis Neil Mariani and must be held to answer
by this Court to explain his failure to act and
prevent the attacks of “911.”

Count IV
Defendant GWB and his Administration were provided
ample warning the

“911” attacks were Imminent and Failed to Act

:::55.:::Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein
at length.

56.:::Plaintiff asserts Defendant GWB received and
ignored advance warnings of an imminent plan to hijack
passenger airplanes and fly them into buildings in the
United States and will be further supported by the
actions of high cabinet officials who stopped flying
commercial airliners leading up to the “911” attacks.

:::57.:::Plaintiff through reason and belief maintains
the cloud of “secrecy” Defendant GWB and his
subordinate advisors continue to engage in by not
being forthright and honest with the United States
Congress, its “911” hearings and now, the “911
Commission” support her claim Defendants were provided
ample warnings to prevent the murder of her husband
Louis Neil Mariani.

:::58.:::Plaintiff believes and upon discovery and
compelling of the release of Defendant CIA’s July
2001, “Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB)” will clearly
demonstrate Defendant GWB’s lack of swift and decisive
action during his story telling session at the school
on the morning of “911” occurred for one reason –
Defendant GWB knew the attacks would occur. [27]

:::59.:::Plaintiff asserts perhaps the single most
damning indictment of Defendant GWB and all Defendants
who failed to protect our nation on “911” was the
failure of Defendants DOD/NORAD to follow normal
military protocol to be followed as standard
procedure. The following testimony of “911” victim
family member of Mindy Kleinberg, presented on March
31, 2003 before the “911 Commission” is so articulate
that it stands with Plaintiff’s “open letter” to
Defendant GWB as cited at Exhibit “A” and to support
this Count:

“Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals
gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to
handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown
hijackings. These ‘protocols’ were in place and were
practiced regularly for a good reason -- with heavily
trafficked air space; airliners without radio and
transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities
waiting to happen.
Those protocols dictate that in the event of an
emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that
notification takes place, it is then the
responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to
intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of
routine procedure for fighter-jets to ‘intercept’
commercial airliners in order to regain contact with
the pilot.

If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th,
NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of
NORAD) was several days into a semi-annual exercise
known as ‘Vigilant Guardian.” This meant that our
North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In
short, key officers were manning the operation battle
center, ‘fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and
carrying extra gas on board.’

Lucky for the terrorists that none of this mattered on
the morning of September 11th. Let me illustrate using
just flight 11 as an example:

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan
Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication
between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13
a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became
unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar
indicated that the plane had deviated from its
assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder
contact was lost -- (although planes can still be seen
on radar - even without their transponders).

Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called
American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence
of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on
passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem
abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was
not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m.
Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until
8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of
contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why
was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets?
How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with
planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat
pattern of delays in notification and delays in
scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable
considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the
World Trade Center.

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter
jets were not scrambled from the closest air force
bases. For example, for the flight that hit the
Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air
Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air
Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington
skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of
September 11th. At 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11 minutes
after the first plane hijack confirmed by NORAD,
Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets
were still miles away. Why?

So the hijackers’ luck had continued. On September
11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard
emergency operating procedures. Who were the people
that delayed the notification? Have they been
questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or
fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.

“Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at
their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would
have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of
their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners
before they could have hit their targets, and
undoubtedly saved lives.”

:::60.:::From the above public statement of Mindy
Kleinberg, Plaintiff does not stand alone in her
belief that Defendant GWB’s and all subordinate
Defendants in this action should be held to account
for the worst attacks on our nation since Pearl Harbor
leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people,
including Plaintiff’s husband Louis Neil Mariani. Mrs.
Kleinberg has also voiced her support for Plaintiff in
this cause of action and will be called as a favorable
witness on behalf of Plaintiff at trial.

61.:::Plaintiff, with the assistance of other
concerned Americans are actively involved in assisting
with the production of facts and circumstances to set
a prima facie case proving Defendant GWB knew of and
failed to prevent the “911” attacks. The following
“Pre-911” facts and circumstances provided by
independent researcher Allan Duncan, a Citizen of the
State of Pennsylvania are hereby provided verbatim to
support Defendant GWB’s pre-“911” knowledge the
attacks would take place:

A.:::Explicit warnings from foreign sources

(1):::1999. The U.S. was warned by British
intelligence two years prior to “911” that terrorists
were planning to use airplanes in unconventional ways,
perhaps as bombs

In 1999, Britain’s intelligence agency, M16, warned
the U.S. in a classified report that al Qaeda was
planning to use airplanes in an unconventional manner
to attack U.S. interests. No targets were specified.
The Times of London quoted a British senior Foreign
Office source saying, “The Americans knew of plans to
use commercial aircraft in unconventional ways,
possibly as flying bombs.” (cited in AFP 6-9-2002)

(2):::April to May 2001. U.S. government received
‘specific’ threats of terrorist attacks against U.S.
targets or interests

Condoleezza Rice admitted that the U.S. government had
received “specific” threats that “al Qaeda attacks
against U.S. targets or interests…might be in the
works. There was a clear concern that something was
up, … but it was principally focused overseas. The
areas of most concern were the Middle East, the
Arabian Peninsula and Europe.” (cited in CNN 5-16-2002
“Timeline: Events leading up to September 11”) She did
not elaborate on where the intelligence originated,
but the Independent of London, reported that the
information had been relayed to Washington by British
intelligence sources. (Bennetto and Gumbel 5-18-2002)

(3):::June 6, 2001. German intelligence warned CIA

The German intelligence agency, the BND, warned both
the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were
“planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as
weapons to attack important symbols of American and
Israeli culture.” This intelligence reportedly came
from Echelon, a high-tech electronic surveillance
system used by the intelligence agencies of several
nations to glean through electronic communications for
certain keywords. It was first reported by the German
daily newspaper, Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung on
September 13. Its sources were reportedly from the BND
itself. (Stafford 9-13-2001; Thomas 5-21-2002)
According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002) of Global –
Intel, the original source of information actually
came from Israeli Mossad agents operating in the U.S.
who had infiltrated al Qaeda. According to his account
the Mossad also informed British and Russian
intelligence about the attacks, who then in turn
notified the CIA. Thomas’s sources are allegedly
informants within the Mossad itself.

(4):::July 16, 2001. British intelligence sent a
report to Tony Blair warning of imminent attacks. The
report was also sent to Washington

The British Cabinet Office Joint Intelligence
Committee (JIC) sent a memo authored by the heads of
British intelligence agencies, MI6, MI5 and GCHQ, to
Tony Blair and other cabinet ministers, warning that
al Qaeda was in the final stages of preparing for a
terrorist attack. The memo suggested that the attacks
would likely be aimed at American or Israeli targets.
The report did not indicate however that the agencies
had any knowledge with regards to the “timings,
targets and methods of attack.” According to the Times
of London, the warning was “based on intelligence
gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US
agencies, including the CIA and the National Security
Agency, which has staff working jointly with GCHQ.”
[Emphasis added] The newspaper added, “The CIA
sometimes has a representative on the JIC. The
contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed
to the Americans, Whitehall confirmed.” (Evans

(5):::June 23, 2001. Arabic News Network reported that
bin Laden had predicted a ‘severe blow’ to the United

“According to the June 23rd report, the
Arabic satellite television network MBC claimed that
‘the next two weeks will witness a big surprise.’ An
MBC reporter who had met with bin Laden in Afghanistan
on June 21st predicted that ‘a severe blow is expected
against U.S. and Israeli interests worldwide. There is
a major state of mobilization among the Osama bin
Laden forces. It seems that there is a race of who
will strike first. Will it be the United States or
Osama bin Laden?’ ” (Grigg 3-11-2002)

(6):::Summer 2001. Jordan’s General Intelligence
Division (GID) warned Washington of an attack planned
on the U.S. mainland using aircraft.

According to John Cooley (5-21-2002), author of the
book, Unholy Wars: America, Afghanistan, and
International Terrorism, Jordan’s intelligence agency,
GID, intercepted al Qaeda communications indicating
that a terrorist operation, code-named ‘Al Ourush al
Kabir’ or ‘The Big Wedding,’ was being planned for
within the U.S. and would involve aircraft. Cooley
confirmed the validity of this warning. (see also
Bubnov 5-24-2002)

(7):::Summer 2001. Iranian man warned U.S. authorities
of a planned terrorist attack during the week of
September 9, 2001 reported “German police have confirmed an
Iranian man phoned US police from his deportation cell
to warn of the planned attack on the World Trade
Centre” during the week of September 9. He reportedly
called several times. Very little information was
given about the ‘Iranian man’ other than the fact that
he was 28-years old. No other news agencies
independently reported the incident. (
9/14/01; cited in Anova 9-14-2001; Ruppert 11-2-2001;
11-24-2001; 4-22-2002)

(8):::August 2001. Moroccan intelligence warned
Washington about “large scale-operations in New York
in the summer or autumn of 2001”

According to reports published in November 2001 by a
French magazine and a Moroccan newspaper, Morocco’s
royal intelligence informed Washington that one of its
agents, who had penetrated al Qaeda, learned that bin
Laden’s organization was preparing “large operations
in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001.” The
agent, who is said to be presently in the U.S. helping
its intelligence agencies, also informed Moroccan
intelligence that bin Laden was ‘very disappointed’
with the first WTC bombing which failed to bring the
two towers down. John Cooley (5-21-2002), who reported
this in the International Herald Tribune wrote that as
of 5-21-2002, he had not independently verified this
warning. (see also Bubnov 5-24-2002)

(9):::August 2001. Israel warned U.S. about
large-scale attacks on the U.S. mainland

“Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned
their counterparts in the United States last month
that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible
targets on the American mainland were imminent.”
(Jacobson and Wastell 9-16-2001; Davis 9-17-2001;
Stafford 9-13-2001; Serrano and Thor-Dahlburg
9-20-2001; Martin 1-5-2002; Martin 1-16-2002)
According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002), this
information was based on intelligence gleaned from
Israeli Mossad agents who had penetrated or were
spying on the al Qaeda operatives. Thomas’s sources
are allegedly informants within the Mossad itself.

(10):::August 2001. Intelligence sources warned
Argentine Jewish leaders of imminent attacks

According to Argentine Jewish leaders, the Jewish
community in that country “received a warning about an
impending major terrorist attack against the United
States, Argentina or France just weeks before
September 11.” Forward quoted Marta Nercellas, a
lawyer for the Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas
Argentinas, or DAIA, Argentina's main Jewish
representative body: “It was a concrete warning that
an attack of major proportion would take place, and it
came from a reliable intelligence [source]. And I
understand the Americans were told about it.”
[Emphasis added] (Forward 2-5-2002)

(11):::August 24, 2001. Russian intelligence warned of
possible hijacking

Russian intelligence warned the CIA that 25 terrorist
pilots were specifically training to crash airliners
into planned targets. This was reported by the Russian
Izveztia on September 12 and translated for From The
Wilderness Magazine by a former CIA officer. (cited
from Ruppert 11-2-2001; see also Ruppert 11-24-2001;
4-22-2002; Martin 1-5-2002; Martin 1-16-2002)
According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002) Russian
intelligence received this information from the
Israeli Mossad.

(12):::August 31, 2001. Egyptian president warned U.S.
that something was brewing

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned the U.S. that
“something would happen” 12 days before the terrorist
attacks. (AP 12-7-2001; MacFarquhar and Tyler
6-4-2002; Martin 1-5-2002). Egypt had also warned the
U.S. on June 13. (Martin 1-16-2002). The U.S
intelligence denied that they had received this
information soon before the attacks and instead
alleged that the only warnings that had been given to
them from Egypt occurred between March and May of
2001. (MacFarquhar and Tyler 6-4-2002)

(13):::September 1, 2001. Russian intelligence warned
the U.S. again about ‘imminent attacks’

“Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian
intelligence to warn the U.S. government ‘in the
strongest possible terms’ of imminent attacks on
airports and government buildings” (We do not have a
reference to the original source. See Ruppert
11-2-2001; 4-22-2002 based on MS-NBC interview with
Putin, September 15. See also Martin 1-16-2002; Thomas
5-21-2002) According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002)
Russian intelligence received this information from
the Israeli Mossad.

(14):::Early September 2001. Mossad chief warned CIA
of possibility of attacks

According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002), Mossad Chief
Efraim Halevy warned both the CIA and FBI of the
possibility of near term attacks. George Tenet
presumably thought that it was “too non specific.”

(15):::September 5-6, 2001

Commenting on the U.S. intelligence failure, the
French Le Monde reported: “The first lapse has to do
with the processing of intelligence items that come
out of Europe. According to our information, French
and American officials did in fact hold important
meetings in Paris from the 5th to the 6th of
September, that is, a few days prior to the attacks.
Those sessions brought representatives of the American
Special Services together with officers of the DST
(Directorate of Territorial Security) and military
personnel from the DGSE (General Overseas Security
Administration). Their discussion turned to some of
the serious threats made against American interests in
Europe, specifically one targeting the U.S. Embassy in
Paris. During these talks, the DST directed the
American visitors' attention to a Moroccan-born
Frenchman who had been detained in the United States
since August 17 and who was considered to be a key
high-level Islamic fundamentalist. But the American
delegation, preoccupied above all with questions of
administrative procedure, paid no attention to this
'first alarm,' basically concluding that they were
going to take no one's advice, and that an attack on
American soil was inconceivable. It took September 11
for the FBI to show any real interest in this man, who
we now know attended two aviation training schools, as
did at least seven of the kamikaze terrorists.” (cited
in Ridgeway 5-28-2002)

(16):::September 7, 2001. Mossad chief warned CIA a
second time of possible attacks

According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002), Mossad Chief
Efraim Halevy sent another alert to the CIA warning of
possible terrorist attacks. The message was received
in Washington on September 7.

(17):::September 3-10, 2001. Anonymous caller informed
a radio talk show that Osama bin Laden’s organization
would be launching imminent attacks against the U.S.

“MSNBC reports on September 16 that a caller to a
Cayman Islands radio talk show gave several warnings
of an imminent attack on the U.S. by bin Laden in the
week prior to 9/11.” (We do not have a reference to
the original source. See Ruppert 11-2-2001)

(18):::September 10, 2001.

U.S. intelligence intercepted conversations from al
Qaeda that were extremely specific. USA Today,
reported “Two U.S. intelligence officials,
paraphrasing highly classified intercepts, say they
include such remarks as, ‘Good things are coming,’
‘Watch the news’ and ‘Tomorrow will be a great day for
us.’ “ [Emphasis added] This information was contained
with 13,000 pages of material from the National
Security Agency that was handed over to the
Congressional 9-11 inquiry. It is unclear when these
intercepts were reviewed by U.S. intelligence. They
may not have been reviewed until after 9-11. (Diamond

(19):::September 11, 2001. Employees at Odigo Inc,
received warnings predicting the attacks hours before
they happened

The Israeli company, Odigo, Inc. was apparently warned
two hours before the attacks. Odigo CEO Micha Macover
told the Ha’aretz that ‘two workers received the
messages predicting the attack would happen.’ The FBI
was quickly notified but it is presently not clear if
U.S. authorities are still investigating the incident.
The company’s offices in Israel are located
suspiciously near the Israeli Institute for Counter
Terrorism which broke story of the insider trading
scam on 9-11. (McWilliams 9-28-2001; Seberg 9-28-2001;
Ruppert 2-11-2002; 4-22-2002)

B.:::Evidence that U.S. authorities were concerned

(1):::1994. FBI videotaped an informant being
recruited as a suicide bomber by two men, one of whom

Posted by richard at December 1, 2003 03:12 PM