Lawyers’ Committee: Mandamus Petition Aims To Speed 9/11 Grand Jury Process.

9/11 Justice: Lawyers’ Committee to File Mandamus Petition as U.S. Attorney Declines to Disclose Status of 9/11 Grand Jury Proceeding

 

The executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, David Meiswinkle, and the Lawyers’ Committee’s litigation director, Mick Harrison, spoke last month by telephone with Michael Ferrara, the chief of the terrorism unit of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Ferrara is one of two officials who signed the November 7, 2018, letter to the Lawyers’ Committee on behalf of Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

In this phone conversation, Mr. Ferrara confirmed that the November 7, 2018, letter he signed was sent with the intention of conveying to the Lawyers’ Committee that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had received the Lawyers’ Committee’s petition and amended petition (both of which reported federal crimes and evidence relating to the use of explosives at the World Trade Center on 9/11) and that the U.S. Attorney would comply with the federal statute regarding Special Grand Juries as it relates to the two petitions.

He said, however, that he could not disclose any information regarding the status of the Lawyers’ Committee’s petition and amended petition due to the secrecy requirements for federal grand jury proceedings imposed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Attorneys Meiswinkle and Harrison thanked Mr. Ferrara for taking their call.

Rule 6(e) does in fact impose substantial secrecy requirements on federal grand jury proceedings, although federal courts can order disclosure under certain circumstances. Given that the U.S. Attorney’s Office is reading this rule as preventing any disclosure to the Lawyers’ Committee (and all the petitioners) regarding the status of the Lawyers’ Committee’s petition and amended petition, the Lawyers’ Committee is preparing to file a mandamus petition and a petition for disclosure in federal court prior to the upcoming anniversary of 9/11.

The goal of this federal court filing will be to have the court confirm that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has acted in good faith by presenting the Lawyers’ Committee’s petition, amended petition, and petition supplements with accompanying evidence to a federal Special Grand Jury or to confirm that this has not occurred — and, if the latter, to obtain a court order requiring the U.S. Attorney to present the petition, amended petition, and petition supplements with accompanying evidence to a federal Special Grand Jury.

*

*Editor’s commentary: As noted in this article cross-posted from AE911Truth.org, nearly (8) months have passed since the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York agreed (November 7, 2018) to comply with U.S. law – and proceed with a special grand jury to investigate evidence of possible explosives use on September 11, 2001.

Americans from coast-to-coast will once again celebrate Independence Day this July 4. The American people might take some quality time to consider what form of “freedom and democracy” features the highest legal institutions in the land seemingly blocking efforts to reach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on arguably the most important world event of the 21st century.

Please widely disseminate this message from The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, and increase awareness on this most recent legal development in the monumental effort to finally achieve 9/11 Justice. Thank you.

Peace.

Advertisements

UNILATERAL SANCTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Alfred de Zayas' Human Rights Corner

Vienna, 27 June 2019

Prof. Alfred de Zayas, Geneva School of Diplomacy

Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, ladies and
gentlemen,

The world order established by the UN Charter takes
precedence over other international and regional treaties and imposes positive
and negative obligations on member states, including the United States of
America and the European Union. This is stipulated in Article 103 of the
Charter, the supremacy clause.

The question arises whether in the light of the UN
Charter unilateral coercive measures could be considered compatible with modern
international law? The orthodox answer
is that only those sanctions that are imposed by the Security Council
under Chapter VII can be considered legal. Article 41 of the charter stipulates
“The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed
force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions “. But even Security Council decisions and
resolutions must be…

View original post 4,060 more words

More G20 Awkward.

n contrast to the late (chopped to pieces) Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, at least Yulia and Sergei Skripal are still alive. That is … IF they are still alive. The father and daughter haven’t been seen nor heard for over near 15 months since surviving what is (still) alleged by United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May as a Russia-sponsored “Novichok” nerve agent attack.

The extreme, persistent controversy of the Skripal affair, combined with continuing troubling questions about their health, well-being and … well, aliveness, not to mention their recounts of what they experienced that March 2018 day, unsurprisingly has led to another very awkward moment at the annual G20 meeting in Osaka, Japan.

Could Russia’s Vladimir Putin have just asked Britain’s Theresa May “Where are Yulia and Sergei Skripal?”? Inquiring minds want to know, and that is why men and women around the world have for some 15 months been demanding a straight answer to precisely that same, hugely-important question.

***ALERT: People knowing the whereabouts of Yulia and/or Sergei Skripal are being strongly advised to call 9/11 or their nearest law enforcement agency immediately. Officials emphasized their advisory is directed at politicians as well, and most especially United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May. 

*Sarcasm aside and in all seriousness …

Where the hell are Yulia and Sergei Skripal?

And so it goes – June/July 2019 on planet Earth. 

G20 “Awkward” Moment.

ith imaginations running wild over possible developments at this year’s G20 meeting of the world’s largest economies, – adding to tensions already complicating the precarious state of international relations, the group photo produced on extremely awkward moment.

And so it goes – June 2019 on planet Earth…