Support 911Blogger


DoJ Reply Brief With 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals For 9/11 Records Case

On November, 7 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice entered its reply to the plaintiff’s opening brief, before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of Monaghan v. Department of Justice, dismissed earlier this year by the U.S. District Court of Nevada. This action seeks the release of numerous FBI records regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including the actual audio recording obtained from the cockpit-voice-recorder for United Airlines Flight 93, plus Pentagon and Shanksville, PA crash scene evidence collection records.

Much thanks to those who have generously donated to this effort.

(Open entry to view brief)

var docstoc_docid="102257893";var docstoc_title="DoJ Reply 9th Circuit";var docstoc_urltitle="DoJ Reply 9th Circuit"; DoJ Reply 9th Circuit -

Where are the files?

Such a dissapointment i would have just paid the original fee then maybe we would have the files by now,

Perhaps Fee Matter Was Used To Avoid Review Of Exemption Claim

If the DoJ claimed these records were exempt per statute, the exemptions could be overturned by a court.

The open ended assessment of fees may have been an attempt to deter the requests.

IMO, the DoJ do not want to release these records.

Can We Sue Them?

Cant we sue them for the files? I think you might have mentioned this possibility.
Can we sue the court or the FBI for the files just as you did NIST?
This is all really dissapointing they have information which should be
public knowledge, and the bastards are trying to hide them, god how
i hate the current U.S GOVT so much corruption, so much greed,
such evil and so many people who arent even human and dont give
a s**t.

The Court Documents Regard Such A Lawsuit

Have reason to wonder if at least some FBI 9/11 records are "absent". Have seen some suspect FBI FOIA answers of late stating such and in a previous lawsuit hearing of mine, the judge directly asked the DoJ attorneys: "Do you have anything?" (regarding requested aircraft identification records from the Pentagon and Shanksville), to which they replied "no". At the time I thought they were playing word games to avoid release, but have since wondered if they were in fact being honest. Wanted a court transcript but didn't want to pay the $50 for it.

Error?

Page 20/21 ("docstoc"/PDF page 24/25)

("The plaintiff argues that he has exhausted his remedies because he ‘filed suit’ on April 2, 1996, the day his complaint was received by the Court, which was before the [agency’s] April 8, 1996 request for payment. . . . Regardless of whether the plaintiff ‘filed’ suit before or after receiving a request for payment, the plaintiff has an obligation to pay for the reasonable copying and search fees assessed by the defendant);

1996??

DoJ Was Citing A 1996 Court Finding For Comparison

The quote doesn't refer to events of the case at hand.

Ah.

So... do you expect to win the appeal? And if you lose, will you have committed DoJ to release of the files if you then do pay the fee, since that appears to be the primary objection now, and like how DoJ claims your untimely introduction of your request for a free waiver based on the delayed response by DoJ renders it moot, will DoJ's lack of mention of any other reasons for not releasing the files affect the outcome of future litigation? (Although they do mention "unusual circumstances") And how can DoJ maintain you don't have access to a large audience? You've done radio shows, interviews, and Google analytics can be used to demonstrate that 911blogger reaches a broad international demographic. Moreover, a "cockpit voice recording" such as that from UA 93 isn't comparable to a needle in a haystack; it's a easily locatable in FBI's 9/11 evidence archive, any suggestion otherwise is a lie.

P200056 Summary from Flight 93 depicting information contained on the flight data recorder and the recorded contents of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (Exhibit Under Seal). [This video presentation remains under seal. See next exhibit for a transcript of the Cockpit Voice Recorder tape.]

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

It's right there, although I don't know if the CVR was actually played in court or not.

ETA: I do now:

"April 12: The jury hears the United Flight 93 cockpit voice recording. The transcript is released to the media."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-03-moussaoui-timeline_x.htm

Assessed Fees Likely A Fraction Of Final Search Fees

The DoJ failed to reveal how long a search would have required but advised the requested body of records was extensive. They also failed to advise if the records would be released once they were located. So potentially, there would be open ended requests for search fee payments, with a possibility (or liklihood) that such records would be declared expempt from disclosure once located and after extensive search payments were provided.

One CIA FOIA request that reached litigation, involved assessed search fees of tens of thousands of dollars.

Sibel Edmonds Recent Comments on Flight 93

What are your thoughts about the two recent comments made by Sibel Edmonds, saying she has high level government and military sources who say Flight 93 was shot down?

The Boiling Frogs Presents Russ Tice
(at the 1:01 mark)
(Russ gives an interesting reply.)
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/09/29/podcast-show-58/

The Boiling Frogs Presents Laurie Van Auken
(at the 31:40 mark)
(Laurie's response is also interesting.)
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/08/19/podcast-show-51/

Yes

I've heard that show, and Lorie's reaction, but does it require FDR fakery. It ought to be provable by FDR analysis. There were also no witnesses who actually saw a shoot down, save for some who are manipulated and/or taken out of context (nobody actually saw a fighter jet fire, or a missile hit UA 93), and what's more, we know Dick Cheney never issued a shoot down order until after UA 93 went down. That last part is what bothers me more. Sure, I too would like the crash time discrepancy resolved.

Thanks

I value your feedback.

I've formed a trust for what Sibel puts forward. I guess she must trust these sources. I hope she can get somebody to talk. It really bothers me that anyone "knows" information like this and doesn't produce it, in order to protect their career (though punishment has been worse than loss of career for some whistle blowers).

Did you also listen to Russ' response?

"...Uh....Hmmm...I may or may not know something about that."

Also thanks, Aiden, for the attempts you are making at getting evidence!

speaking of trust

BTW, Snowcrash, your comments are generally appealing, as they don't require trust and offer intelligent analysis. Thanks again.

Thanks

I think I also listened to Tice speak, but I'm not sure. There is someone in our midst who has lost someone dear to him (Mickey Rothenberg) on UA 93, and that is YT/Cosmos.

"Meredith Rothenberg doesn't understand why her husband, who lived by the phone, didn't call her from the plane."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028rothenbergbio1028p8.asp

“They just knifed a guy,” and adds that this person was a passenger. [Burnett and Giombetti, 2006, pp. 61] (According to journalist and author Jere Longman, this would likely have been Mark Rothenberg in seat 5B; Burnett was assigned seat 4B. Rothenberg is the only first class passenger who does not make a call from the flight. [Longman, 2002, pp. 107]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a927burnettcalls#a927burnettcalls

If this is true, we're not talking about patsies fooled into doing an exercise, we're dealing with hijackers who wanted to crash a plane... Surely an exercise doesn't involve stabbing people. Except, to me it seems like there was a concerted effort going on across US government agencies to protect and facilitate these hijackers, together with the Saudis. Whether or not this facilitation was done with the intent to help them complete their attack, or merely malignant incompetence, it means the people responsible should be held to account. Rewarding George Tenet with a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his lies under oath, failures and/or deliberate frustration of anti-terror investigations is not the sort of accountability the family members had in mind, I presume. Tenet is a pathological liar.

Roemer knows Tenet is lying, and like a good little cover-up toady, he doesn't do much about it.

Would Prefer The Discussion Be On Topic

As the user who posted this entry regarding FOIA requests and litigation, I'd naturally prefer the discussion doesn't descend into speculation about Tenet, alleged passenger phone calls or alleged violence by the accused.

I'm not trying to pose as a moderator by making this request.

"Also thanks, Aiden, for the attempts you are making at getting evidence!"

Thanks Zica.

Sorry and donation suggestion

Didn't mean to derail the focus. I would love to see more evidence released (from any valid source). I may start a post about my particular questions.

I wouldn't mind donating to your FOIA efforts. If there's a particular one that you think is important and worth the money they're asking, please consider opening up some kind of fund raiser. Or let me know where to go to donate if you've already done this.

Thanks!

Thanks Zica!

Not sure what the immediate future hold litigation-wise. My discussion topic comment request wasn't referring to your commentary.