Attention: Anybody reading or posting on this thread who thinks a Boeing 767 crashed into the World Trade Center on 911 is urgently invited to
contact the following defendants in the lawsuit FILED UNDER SEAL QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND
DOCKET NO. May 31, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK:
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.;
APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.;
DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.;
GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP;
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI;
EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS;
DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO;
JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM;
ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC;
ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.;
SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & :HEGER, INC.;
S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP;
TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.;
WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.;
AMERICAN AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES;
and UNITED AIRLINES,
These guys are getting sued by Morgan Reynolds in New York District Court. (FILED UNDER SEAL QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND DOCKET NO. May 31,
2007). Morgan Reynolds says there were no planes. He's a 'no planer'. The difference between Morgan Reynolds and the rest of us 'no planers' is
Morgan Reynolds is putting his money where his mouth is.
So what I am saying here is if you think an airplane crashed into the WTC towers you need to call these guys up and say, "Hey! A Boeing 767 crashed
into the World Trade Center towers and I can prove it!"
Believe me these guys will welcome you with open arms because right now they are hurting pretty bad.
You know why?
Ever heard of Rule 11?
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules For Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts (amendments received to February 10, 2006) states that Signing
of Pleadings, Motions, and other papers; Representations to Court, Sanctions, specifically states in (a)(3)” The allegations and other factual
contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery”.
I point this out because the Court, under Rule 11 (c) Sanctions, can “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines
that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law
firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
These sanction include (Rule 11 (1)(A) (excerpt) “If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses
and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible
for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees”.
What this means, of course, is that if Morgan Reynolds and his attorney Jerry V. Leaphart & Associates., P.P. can’t prove their allegations against:
Science Applications International Corp.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. Boeing; NuStates; Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.
Datasource, Inc.; Geostats, Inc.;
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP;
Hughes Associates, Inc.; Ajmal Abbasi;
Eduardo Kausel; David Parks;
David Sharp; Daniel Venezana;
Josef Van Dyck; Kaspar William;
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C.;
Simpson Gumpertz & :Heger, Inc.;
S.K.Ghosh Associates, Inc.;
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP.
Teng & Associates, Inc.;
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.;
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.;
American Airlines; Silverstein Properties;
And United Airlines,
they are going to owe the above defendants a substantial amount of money in addition to which the Court may impose (Rule 11, (2) (excerpt)
“directives of a non monetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an
order directing payment to the movant of some or all the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.
So, I would respectfully and urgently suggest that if you have any information that would help the Court decide the truthfulness of the allegations,
specifically any proof that a Boeing 767 actually crashed into the World Trade Center I would strongly recommend that you contact the defendants. I
think you can get some big bucks for your testimony and your evidence if any. I don’t think uninformed speculation will be allowed.
I will not ask for a finders fee.