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.

 

On behalf of the US of A

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Just typed out a whole thing on this, and I forgot to "Title" it. So here is a short and to the point comment from me on it, the topic/material of this post. See for your self, and decide the way you see.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------:
DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS on behalf of the :
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Suit: WTC Investigation Is Deceptive




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I thought this was great until I got to this part:

Page 4 sec. 5


which, as elsewhere elaborated upon, was the use on 9/11/01 of exotic weaponry known as directed energy weapons.


He just could not leave that out and use a generic term like "controlled demolition"?

This will get laughed off because of this line.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 were not hit by Boeing 767 jetliners and all such claims to that effect are glaringly and obviously blatantly false




Coudn't leave out the No Planes theory either. This is going to get tossed faster than a salad at a family reunion.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I think I'm a bit confused... Is this something that's been filed, or is it going to be filed? I'm just curious cause the claims are a bit wordy (no offense to whoever wrote it all out) and most of what's in them should be stated during an actual hearing or trial not in the papers that are filed, and it is missing the part that shows the defendants not only had a duty but that they failed to do their duty. Once again, no offense to whoever wrote it, I've almost finished my paralegal degree so I'm just picky.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
... it is missing the part that shows the defendants not only had a duty but that they failed to do their duty. .


Sections 25-41 seem to outline how each defendant failed to fulfill their duties , but I am not a lawyer.

For example:


27. Defendant GeoStats, Inc. is a privately held company which provides
“highly-specialized consulting services for transportation projects that require the collection and analysis of accurate spatial and temporal data”. Its products include GeoLogger™, a simple and practical in-vehicle GPS data collection solution. Its office is located at 530 Means Street, NW, Suite 310, Atlanta, GA 30318. That expertise was used to perpetrate fraud in the preparation of NCSTAR 1.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Sections 25-41 seem to outline how each defendant failed to fulfill their duties , but I am not a lawyer.

For example:


27. Defendant GeoStats, Inc. is a privately held company which provides
“highly-specialized consulting services for transportation projects that require the collection and analysis of accurate spatial and temporal data”. Its products include GeoLogger™, a simple and practical in-vehicle GPS data collection solution. Its office is located at 530 Means Street, NW, Suite 310, Atlanta, GA 30318. That expertise was used to perpetrate fraud in the preparation of NCSTAR 1.


All the professors I've had (and neither they nor I are by any means flawless when it comes to drafting pleadings!!) have taught me to do it this way:

27. Defendant Geostats, Inc. is incorporated or maintains it's main office at 530 Means Street, NW, Suite 310, Atlanta, GA 30318.
28. Defendant Geostats, Inc. provided .... (services/products they provided and who they provided them to)

Then in a different section:

Defendant Geostats, Inc. had a duty to ..... (whatever their duty was, whether it was to provide functioning equipment, maintaining equipment that was used, etc.)

And in another section:

Defendant Geostats, Inc. failed to ..... (whatever it was they failed to do based on their duties above)

Of course, that is by no means the only way it can be written, but the way it is now just seems slightly wordy and confusing to me. There are a lot of unnecessary facts throughout the document that would be better introduced during a hearing or trial. The initial pleading should only name those parties involved, establish they had a duty, and then show that they neglected that duty somehow.




top topics
 
2

log in

join