"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them," except when the terrorists are business partners of ours, personal friends of ours, members of our alphabet agencies, elected officials of ours, or terrorists that we use from time to time when it benefits us.

1) We were told Al Qaeda was a dangerous threat to the US.

2) Yet US intel was ordered to back off from Saudi sponsored terrorism (which means al Qaeda). Examples can be found in Robert Baer's book about Saudi Arabia and Palast's reporting on WAMY and W199I.

3) We were told al Qaeda was an independent terrorist organization that was opposed to both the Saudi government and the US.

There is too much secrecy to know the actual mechanics of the attack (i.e. coordination between al Qaeda recruits, black op outfits, US intel agencies, other state intel, etc). What we can be sure of is that US officials are not telling the truth about al Qaeda. Orders to back off Saudi links to terrorism were basically orders to facilitate al Qaeda attacks. It seems rather obvious that such orders were treasonous.

Statement by Counsel for the Family of John P. O'Neill in Response to U.S. Supreme Court's Refusal to Hear 9/11 Victims' Case Against Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Others

* Press Release
* Source: Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.
* On Monday June 29, 2009, 2:23 pm EDT

PHILADELPHIA, June 29 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Jerry S. Goldman of Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., counsel to the family of John P. O'Neill, Sr.:

We are disappointed by today's decision by the United States Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case brought by the family of the late American hero, John P. O'Neill, on behalf of the victims of 9/11 against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others. Federal Insurance Company, et al., v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 08-640 (6/29/09).

We are saddened to see that the Court declined to apply its traditional standards for accepting a case for review. We assume that it relied upon the arguments propounded by the Executive branch and the defendants to deny the 9/11 victims their day in Court against certain sovereign nations, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that we allege materially support terrorists.

We note, however, that there are still cases pending in the lower courts against other sovereign nations unaffected by the Supreme Court's ruling.

We note, too, that there are still cases pending against other defendants seeking to hold them accountable for their actions in assisting Al Qaeda.

At the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that the decision of the Second Circuit was only of limited impact on the other defendants in the case. We can only assume that the Justice Department will be consistent with the arguments that they propounded before the Supreme Court. Similarly, we are looking forward to their filings as to the scope of sovereign immunity.

We are optimistic that the lower courts will allow the rest of the lawsuit to proceed, as we believe that it is obvious that a United States court is the appropriate forum for hearing claims brought for harms suffered by individuals and businesses on American soil, whether against the terrorists who hijacked planes to wreak death and mass destruction, or against those, who provided the material support enabling terrorists to wreak death and destruction.

We look forward to finally proceeding with discovery and allowing justice to prevail.

About Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.