9/11 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Competency Hearing in New York City

(Susan Lindauer, a woman who has been accused of being an Iraqi spy, but claims she is a US intelligence asset, had a hearing yesterday to determine her mental fitness to stand trial. In a surprise revelation, one of her character witnesses told the court that, "She told him that a "massive" attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon." Not once, but 3 times, preceding the events of 9/11. Interesting, no? The author of this news report has previously covered the Lindauer case at the New Zealand website, Scoop. - rep.)

9/11 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Hearing in NYC

by Michael Collins - Thursday, 19 June 2008

(June 17, NYC) A surprise development occurred at today's hearing in the case of Susan Lindauer versus the United States. A long time associate of the accused, associate professor of computer science at Toronto's York University, Parke Godfrey, Ph.D., testified that Susan Lindauer predicted an attack on the United States in the southern part of Manhattan. According to his testimony, she said that the attack would be very similar to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Godfrey said that Lindauer made the prediction on several occasions, one as late as August 2001.

The testimony occurred in a hearing on Lindauer's competence to stand trial held before U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska, Southern District of New York, in lower Manhattan. On March 11, 2004, Lindauer was arrested for acting as an "unregistered agent" for the nation of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. Prosecutors have delayed the trial for over four years claiming Lindauer was delusional for asserting that she was a U.S. intelligence asset over a period of nine years, including the period covered by the indictment.

This was Lindauer's first real opportunity to argue her competence to stand trial and deny the delusions claimed by court psychiatrists. Lindauer asserts that she had been a U.S. intelligence asset since working on the Lockerbie case and subsequent antiterrorism efforts.

Appearing for the defense, Dr. Godfrey testified under oath that Lindauer told him of her specific concerns about an attack on the United States. She told him that a "massive" attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon. The witness said that she mentioned this in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie trial. And then in 2001, Lindauer also mentioned the anticipated attack in the spring, 2001 and then August 2001. Godfrey said, at that time, Lindauer thought an attack was "imminent" and that it would complete what was started in the 1993 bombing (the original World Trade Center bombing).

After the hearing, Lindauer elaborated that this extreme threat scenario was done in concert with the man she says was one of her CIA handlers, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who has been associated with U.S. intelligence.

Federal prosecutor Edward O'Callaghan tried to diminish the prediction by asking Godfrey if Lindauer presented this as a "prophesy". Godfrey denied hearing that word mentioned in their conversations. He stated that Lindauer used the term "premonition." The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey's testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness. After the hearing, Lindauer said that she'd called the Department of Justice Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 reporting her fears about an attack.

The courtroom where the revelation was made is about a 15 minute walk from the site of the September 11, 2001 attack where the former World Trade Center towers once stood.

The Issue of Competency to Stand Trial

After initially evaluating Lindauer, court appointed psychiatrists in New York argued that her clams of innocence and her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusional thinking. However, a Maryland based psychiatrist and two psychotherapists with whom Lindauer visited on a regular basis failed to support the notion of delusions or a debilitating mental illness. Lindauer has told federal authorities continuously that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and she offered to prove that in open court.

Prosecutors typically disparage appeals by defendants to delay or avoid trial based on psychological stress or suffering. This case is an exception. The United States Government is the party delaying the trial based on their claims of Lindauer's inability to assist in her own defense.

Today's testimony was limited to what is known as "lay" witnesses. Lindauer's expert witness, a distinguished psychiatrist and academic, will testify at a July 7, 2008 hearing that she's competent to stand trial.

Lindauer triggered today's hearing by refusing to attend court mandated counseling, a court requirement during her periods of release from 11 months of federal detention. In a recent interview in "Scoop," Lindauer said: "Since August, 2007, I have refused to go back [to court mandated counseling]. I told the Court the game is over. Go to trial or drop the charges, which are ridiculous anyway. They don't have a case, and they know it."

More Testimony by Dr. Godfrey and Kelly O'Meara

Dr. Godfrey's testimony contained some other elements of note. Lindauer's defense attorney, Brian Shaughnessy of Washington, DC, asked about Lindauer's personality and behavior. He said that she was "mercurial," subject to periods of joy and sadness in response to the events that she experienced. He also testified that he'd never seen her as having any mental impediments.

Kelly O'Meara was also called to the stand in Lindauer's behalf. O'Meara served as a senior congressional staffer for over two decades. She did investigative work for members of Congress on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash on Long Island Sound in 1996. She's a former investigative reporter for Insight Magazine and the Washington Times and author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill, a recent book on the dangers of psychiatric medication.

When examined by the prosecution, O'Meara said that she had no reason to believe that Lindauer had a mental disorder. Prosecutor O'Callaghan then asked if she believed that she was qualified to make that judgment. O'Meara responded affirmatively saying that she could read the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders like anybody else and compare behavior with the list of symptoms provided.

Under questioning by defense attorney Shaughnessy, the witness described an after-work group that met every Thursday over a number of years at Capitol Hill's Hunan Restaurant. This group included Lindauer, 'O'Meara, and lobbyists and staffers who enjoyed talking politics and having a refreshment at the end of the day. O'Meara focused on her long term close friendship with Paul Hoven, who is described by Lindauer as an intelligence operative and one of her handlers.

The O'Meara-Hoven relationship included regular meetings over several years and frequent phone calls. O'Meara mentioned that Hoven enjoyed going to dinner at her sister's home and that she had accompanied Hoven to a shooting visit at the country home of a legendary intelligence figure.

O'Meara was asked if Hoven indicated any relationship with Lindauer. She responded that "I heard about Susan all the time from Paul." She also described him speaking with her frequently at the Thursday night group at the Capitol Hill restaurant.

O'Meara said that after Lindauer was sent to Carswell federal prison facility, O'Meara got a "strange call" form Hoven during which he said, "Susan's crazy." O'Meara said that she'd never heard Hoven make those remarks before Lindauer was sent to the federal prison facility began.

Lindauer's relationship with Hoven is a key part of her defense, with the Thursday night group as one of their frequent points of contact.

On cross examination, prosecutor O'Callaghan asked O'Meara if she would be surprised if Hoven had reported only a very few meetings with her throughout his entire life.

Visibly angry, O'Meara responded by saying, "I would be insulted."

Defense counsel Shaughnessy produced two witnesses, one a computer science professor and the other a reporter and congressional staffer. Together they provided the framework for Lindauer's claim that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and "lay" testimony that she did not impress either witness as having any type of mental or emotional problem.

The prosecution presented no lay witnesses.

After the hearing was over, Lindauer spoke to the press. She said, "I've been left out to dry" by those in the government who employed her services as an intelligence asset. She described efforts that she made to develop a major contact in Iraq to help with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

Lindauer's next competency hearing is scheduled for July 7, 2008 before Judge Preska.

Lindauer is Andrew Card's Cousin

It must not be forgotten that Susan Lindauer is Andrew Card's second cousin. Card served as George W. Bush's Chief of Staff from inauguration through early 2006.

He's the one who purportedly whispered in Bush's ear on 9/11, "America is under attack."

Lindauer is on trial for sending Card letters stating that invading Iraq would be a bad mistake. (Duh!) The Bush administration claimed she sent those as an agent for Iraq.

What are the odds that the cousin of the President's Chief of Staff worked as an agent for Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion, as the Bush administration maintains?

Or is it more likely that the cousin of the President's Chief of Staff was instead a U.S. intelligence asset, as she claims and which is substantiated by witnesses, and who told people at least twice in 2001, once less than a month before 9/11 about the impending "massive" attack involving airplanes on southern Manhattan, which is also substantiated by witnesses?

In any case, how did Lindauer come to believe there would be an attack?

From the

From the article:

"Prosecutors have delayed the trial for over four years claiming Lindauer was delusional for asserting that she was a U.S. intelligence asset over a period of nine years, including the period covered by the indictment.

,,,"Prosecutors typically disparage appeals by defendants to delay or avoid trial based on psychological stress or suffering. This case is an exception. The United States Government is the party delaying the trial based on their claims of Lindauer's inability to assist in her own defense."

Over 4 years? Why? Are they afraid of what she might say "in her own defense"?

________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

this could be big

This dovetails with claims made by other assets of intelligence agencies (lower Manhattan, nuclear attack)

Randy Glass

said that "9/11 was supposed to be a nuclear attack" in an interview with Sander Hicks.

David Schippers

“FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota” tell him “there [is] going to be an attack on lower Manhattan.”

Susan Lindauer

"She told him that a "massive" attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon."

not to mention Sibel Edmonds findings regarding the nuclear-network, ATC, etc.

I'm missing one, I can't remember who, somebody help me out.

maybe Vreeland... but he is, after all, a Wild Card

well...

It doesnt matter if Vreeland is a wild card, his proof is incontrovertible. He clearly wrote his note before the attacks and on the record attempted to contact the authorities on the matter. He is clearly some sort of agent and even possibly an assassin, but the note speaks for itself.
_______________________________________
9/18 was an inside job! So maybe 9/11 was too...

And Sibel Edmonds...

Other claim... from her letter.

"More than four months prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that: 1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities; 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes; 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States; 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing 302 forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the special agent in charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to "keep quiet" regarding this issue."


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

This will be interesting to follow!

Was Lindauer threatening to speak out? Was Hoven pulling out the mental illness card as a result? It will be interesting!

Lindauer
...don't believe them!