It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can the evidence for government involvement stand up in court?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
For many people and groups, the proof of controlled demolition and/or government complicity in 9-11 is overwhelming.

Why is it that no one has started legal action against the government with this proof?

Why haven't the Scholars for 9-11 brought a civil suit against this administration if the evidence is rock solid?

Is it that no one has thought of this before?

Or is it that none of the evidence would stand up in court?

Many have asked what they can do about this conspiracy.

Now you have an answer, contact a lawyer and start the civil suit.

After all, frivolous lawsuits are taken to court all the time, so what could you possibly lose by bringing a civil suit against the groups you think are responsible.

Especially since so many of you have so much evidence to present.

I for one doubt that Alex Jones or the Scholars will ever try this, as they are much to busy pushing their politics and counting their money.

But why hasn't anyone else?



[edit on 25-8-2006 by LeftBehind]




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Various groups have already sued the government. The families of 9/11 victims and NYC firefighters have brought various suits against the government for suppresion of truth.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
No I mean take it a step farther than suppresion of truth.


Why is no one suing them for planning and carrying out 9-11 and planting bombs in the building?

There are many who claim that the evidence backing this is undeniable proof.

If this is true, then why has no one sued the government for being behind 9-11?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
People have. William Rodriguez is one. He's had papers filed for years now. The cases just get delayed for "national security" reasons and etc.

Here's an example: Sibel Edmonds.


Edmonds challenged her retaliatory dismissal by filing suit in federal court. Last July, the district court dismissed her case when Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the so-called state secrets privilege. In legal papers, the ACLU has sharply criticized the government's radical theory that every aspect of the Edmonds case involves state secrets and therefore it cannot go forward.


www.aclu.org...


That should answer your question. Ie, your question was based on a false premise.

That should wrap up this thread.



Btw, I have a .pdf version of Rodriguez's filing open right now (search for it on Google; titled "Rodriguez vs. Bush"), and here's what it asserts:

WTC1, 2, and 7 were demolished; FEMA illegally removed evidence from the site; defendants concealed knowledge of multiple forewarnings; gag orders were issued to inhibit responder and eyewitness testimonies; defendants allowed attacks to take place; Flights 11, 175, and 77 could have been intercepted but were not; "Ground Stop" orders prevented interceptions and must have come from the White House; Flight 93's crash contradicts official story; allegations of election fraud; charges against Rico for staging the recount riot with all republicans.

There is a lot of information in the .pdf, and more charges are brought forth against specific officials in the government, as well as corporations and other organizations. It's 237 pages long and brings out tons of information, encompassing a lot besides 9/11.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
There are many who claim that the evidence backing this is undeniable proof.

I think that is the point of failure of a lawsuit - the lack of proof. Considerng the magnitude this case would be, one must have irrefutable proof before entering court. It's going to take a smoking gun, not just the bits of inconclusive "proof" that has been submitted to the public.

Misfit



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Actually this thread is a serious question.

That lawsuit has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Specifically, that lawsuit was about:


www.aclu.org...

Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 after repeatedly reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program.

"My case is one of many in which the government has fired those who uncover weaknesses in our ability to prevent terrorist attacks," Edmonds said. "If we truly want to protect America, we must first protect America's national security whistleblowers."


I agree with the ACLU on this, and think that the "state secrets" reason is ludicrous.

However that is not a lawsuit alleging that the US government was behind and carried out the 9-11 attacks. She is whistleblowing about our incompetence on 9-11, and she was fired. Thats what the lawsuit is about.


This article from three months later shows that the she kept going with it in a closed hearing. Though it does appear she eventually lost the case, it has nothing to do with this topic.


www.villagevoice.com...

The case that was argued this morning concerned a complaint by Edmonds that the government was denying her First Amendment rights. Only after she was fired did Edmonds go to the Congress. She is saying she played by the rules and was squashed by the government without cause or explanation. And when she went outside the official channel to reveal what was going on within the bureau, the government responded by classifying her previous attempts to speak out, including press accounts written before the classification came down. One of them was a 60 Minutes segment.


I agree with her in that she and other whistleblowers deserve open hearings. But that is another topic.




Why has no one brought a civil suit alleging that 9-11 was planned and carried out by the US government?

It is not based on a false premise. Please stop attempting to derail this with unrelated cases.


Ok the Rodrigeuz case, this is what I'm talking about. However I'm having trouble finding exactly where and when this was filed? While you have presented excellent information regarding the contents of this suit, where was it filed? What is the status of the suit? Are then any records of how this went down in court?

Or is it an action that has yet to be filed?





[edit on 25-8-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I must have edited my post before you got a chance to read it.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Btw, I have a .pdf version of Rodriguez's filing open right now (search for it on Google; titled "Rodriguez vs. Bush"), and here's what it asserts:

WTC1, 2, and 7 were demolished; FEMA illegally removed evidence from the site; defendants concealed knowledge of multiple forewarnings; gag orders were issued to inhibit responder and eyewitness testimonies; defendants allowed attacks to take place; Flights 11, 175, and 77 could have been intercepted but were not; "Ground Stop" orders prevented interceptions and must have come from the White House; Flight 93's crash contradicts official story; allegations of election fraud; charges against Rico for staging the recount riot with all republicans.



That's more than you've even asked for.


I guess to put the final nail in the coffin, you can find the document, download it, call up the relevant court, and see what they have to say about its existence, reasons for delays and/or dismissals of the case, etc.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Please keep the false premise, and nail in the coffin comments to yourself, I am genuinely interested in this and had no idea about the Rodriguez case.

Please don't let your bias against me poison an otherwise worthwhile topic of discussion.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
angelsfortruth.com...

portland.indymedia.org...

www.911forthetruth.com...





I don't see what is biased about proving that people HAVE filed court cases against the government over 9/11.

You asked "Why haven't they?"

They HAVE.

That's not bias, that's fact. See the above. Read the pages, call the courts.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
What is the status of the case?

It was filed two years ago in a philadelphia court.

Why is the websuit filled with pleas for donations and news of a tour, but contains no update on the status of the case?

Seems a little strange to me. I can find hardly any information on this lawsuit. Is it pending, was it dismissed?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Actually, the course of action at the moment is to provide for a better investigation into 9/11 and then bring fourth the sueing and blaming. The investigation is just to make it more official, another investigation rather.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Doesn't matter, does it? You asked why nothing has been filed, not why that case hasn't gone forward, though I guess asking that question shows you now agree that your initial question was based on a false premise, right?

The Sibel Edmonds case should give you a good idea on why it hasn't gone forward.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
It would be nice if you had some facts to add to your opinions bsbray, if you don't have an answer for a specific question, speculation is not a valid substitute.

Do you have any evidence that the Rodriguez case was stopped in the same manner?

I found dozens of news references to back up the Sibel case facts, but I can only find conspiracy sites about the rodriguez case and have found no fact other than it was filed in 2004.

So far I have found three.

I did not know of these cases, and since none of them have been completed, it's still a good topic of discussion.

Perhaps the topic should be:

Can the accusations against the government stand up in court?

There you go Bsbray, no more false premise.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Then my purpose on this thread is done. I've shown that court cases have been filed implicating the government.


I'm not going to waste time speculating on why Rodriguez's case hasn't gone through when Sibel Edmonds' case, which was much milder, was prevented by Ashcroft on grounds of national secrets.

You can call the courts and ask them yourself. It wouldn't be that hard, you'd just have to pay some long distance, and talk to someone over the phone. But I'm sure they'd tell you, and we won't even need a discussion of speculations.




top topics



 
0

log in

join