Metatron

St. John v. Attorney General of the USA

Home
Why doesn't the City of San Jose fly the national flag according to the law?
Letter to Rush Limbaugh on the 15th Anniversary of 9/11
CONTACT
Hierosolyma: An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem
Beth El Is the Correct, Prophesied Location for the Real Israel's Next Temple
Constitution of the USA Offers Model Legal Mechanism for Conflict Resolution Among Nations
An Eight Part Peace Proposal for Greater Jerusalem Copyrights
SUBMISSION TO THE LAST SAVIOUR FESTIVAL BEING HELD IN TEHRAN, IRAN
ERSATZ ISRAEL: On those who say they are Jews, but are not.
KHAZARS from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition
TALMUD AWARENESS
The Talmudic Law of the Moser
Julius Rosenberg & the Talmudic Law of the Moser (Informer)
FAX BROADCASTS 2009
Fax Broadcasts 2005 & Before
Fax Broadcasts 2006
Fax Broadcasts 2007
Fax Broadcasts 2008
Letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist on George H. W. Bush & the JFK Assassination, 31 January 2005
Primary Documentary Evidence Showing Bush in Dallas & helping Jack Ruby spin Oswald's public Persona
USS Liberty Survivor fights for Truth, Justice & End of Cover-up
USS Liberty Incident: "The Missing Piece of the Middle East Peace Puzzle"
USS Liberty Documentary
US Army Intelligence Officer reveals Suppression of Analysts' Findings on USS Liberty Incident
FLASHBACK: Peled statement that 1967 Six Day War was in effect Dayan's "private venture"!
Arabic Numerals
Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge A. Jay Cristol
Petition for Review of Chief Judge's Dismissal of Complaint
Letter of advice to the clerk of the court:
Letter of request to clerk of the court for permission to donate case file
Reply to court's request for inventory of documents to be donated.
Follow up to edit court's summary of inventory of documents to be donated.
A 9/11 Timeline within a 9/11 Timeline
Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications
The Praxis of Evil's Other Form of Telecommunications Hacking
The extraordinarily strange Odyssey of Professor Peter Bowal
Eyewitness Account of Judicial Conference on morning of 11 September 2001
9/11: Another Look
A Dissenting Critique of the 9/11 Commission Report
The Mastermind Behind 9/11?
Complaint to FCC on CNN's Bias Against "9/11 Truthers"
8 June 2012 Letter to District Attorney in San Jose, California
Open Letters on 9/11 to Attorney General of the USA Michael B. Mukasey
Certified Letter to US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey
Open Letters on 9/11 to the Attorney General of the USA Eric Holder
Highly Recommended Documentary Films on 9/11
Alex Jones's Interview with Colonel Donn de Grand Pre
Barbarians Inside the Gates
Schlock & Awe on Top of Shock & Awe: NIST Report on WTC 7
President Bush twice said he saw the first jet hit the north tower World Trade Center 1
9/11 Dutch Treat?
Was 9/11 an Inside Job?
Citizen Investigation Team
911 Index
ARTICLE RETRACTED: "Dulles Airport" Shadow casts Doubt on US Government's 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Letter to Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr., U. S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Richmond, VA
ARTICLE RETRACTED: "Dulles Airport" Shadow disproves US Government's 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Complaint against US Department of Justice et al. for 9/11 Fraud UPDATED 24 MAY 2010
USCA, 2nd Circuit, 10-3022
St. John v US DoJ et al. Plaintiff-Appellant Brief
Petition for Rehearing En Banc
St. John v. Attorney General of the USA
Double Crossing Liberty
Lebanon's Cedar of Truth
US President Barack Obama's True Citizenship Status and Eligibility to be President Still Unresolved
Letters to the Ambassadors of Kenya & Indonesia on Barack Obama's Qualifications to be US President
USAF EC-135N & EGYPTAIR Flight 990: Precursors of Remote Controlled Flights of 9/11?
USAF EC-135N ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT
In Memoriam: Yitzhak Rabin, Peacemaker
Eidelberg Column in The Jewish Press argues for the Overthrow of the Rabin Government
Incitement for Assassination of President Asad is in Violation of the Law!
Letter on Newt Gingrich's Law of the Jungle
TWA Flight 800 Ten Years On
Photo of Cruise Missile that shot down TWA Flight 800
Cybernetic Telecommunications Piracy, The Boeing Company, & the Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
Letter to Putin
Letters to Dutch Safety Board on the Shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine
Virginia Tech Massacre: Any Lessons Learned?
Mughniyah Assassination coincides with Brzezinski/Rand Corporation Visit with Asad in Damascus!
Hear, oh Muslims! Hear!
In Memoriam: Helen Thomas, an honest, fair, accurate and courageous journalist
Alex Odeh Assassination File
Alex Odeh Assassination File: The Cartoon
New Olympic Event: Georgian Tie Eating
Hollywood Black Bag Job on the Iranians
FLASHBACK! Letter to Warren Christopher on NY Times Golan maps & Golan wine, dated December 29,1992
Editors of The Jewish Press compared President of the USA with Pharaoh back in 1998!
Stephen M. St. John for President of USA 2012
Governors Island in New York Harbor: Site of UN Military Staff Committee Headquarters?
Corporate Advertising on Legal Tender. Mind over Matter. Mind over Money. Mind over Deficit!
Magi Blowout Sale! Xmas Jingle, Middle East Peace & Security for Ersatz Israel!
Historic Schlesinger Letter points to Angleton/Eliot Same Man Theory!
Letter from Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Letter to Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
E-mail to BBC's Rowena Thursby concerning Dr. David Kelly, Princess Diana & CIA's Angleton/Eliot
Broadsheet protesting "Shock & Awe" Attack on Iraq
March 2001 Fax on Angleton/Eliot Same Man Theory
BLOODY BUSH CABAL BROUGHT US DALLAS 1963; WATERGATE 1972; BEIRUT 1982; BAGHDAD 1991 & 2003
2 February 1989 Reply from Princess Diana's Lady-in-Waiting Anne Beckwith-Smith
Letter to Mary Jo White on Jonathan Pollard & Marc Rich
Correspondence from the British Royal Family and British Government regarding my peace proposal.
British Bombers dressed as Arabs and caught in the Act!
Judith Miller on Joseph M. Demarest, Jr.
Will? Is that you, Will?
Red Heifer Sighted?
Jesus: Don't be called "Rabbi"! Call no man "Father" on this earth!
Is Harry Potter hawking the British Coronation Throne?
Bowl of Stupid
Resumes
Letter of Recommendation from Dr. Frank Przetacznik
1993 Letter from Government of Lebanon
CONTACT
Why doesn't the city of San Jose fly our national flag according to the law?
Why doesn't the City of San Jose fly our national flag according to the law?

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Docketed # 10-10204 on 28 April 2011

Waiver of right of respondents, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al. to respond filed on 31 May 2011

DISTRIBUTED for conference of 23 June 2011 on 8 June 2011

Petition DENIED on 27 June 2011

(Waiver of right of respondents to respond appears at the end of the document below.)

 

Docket Number 10-10204

 

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 

 

 

 

STEPHEN M. ST. JOHN, Pro Se,

Petitioner

 

-against-

 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.;

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,

PREETINDER BHARARA;

ET AL:

PERPETRATORS, ACCOMPLICES & ACCESSORIES

TO THE ACTS DESCRIBED IN LOWER COURT ACTIONS,

Respondents

 

 

 

 

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

To the United States Court of Appeals

For the Second Circuit

 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

 

Stephen M. St. John, Pro Se

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen M. St. John

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Newark, CA   XXXXX

stephen@show-the-house.com

XXX XXX XXXX

 

 

Questions Presented for Review

 

Do Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States imply a certain reservoir of unspecified rights and powers of the people?

In a grave matter without precedent and of imperative public importance, where strong and universal delusion results from fraud, does this reservoir of rights and powers of the people provide a way to meet these exceptional circumstances, particularly when the aforementioned fraud emanates from within the government itself, from the very agency that is charged with enforcing the laws of the land?

Does this reservoir of rights and powers of the people confer on a citizen, who confronts his government with irrefutable evidence of its very serious wrongdoing, proper standing to pursue justice for all?

Is the Petitioner’s discovery of a bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” surveillance video that was used by the US Department of Justice to fool the public and a jury and to frame Arabs for the heinous crime of the century tantamount to an exceptional circumstance conferring on a citizen the right to sue in pursuit of justice for all regardless of any provision that normally requires his demonstration of actual damage?

 

 

List of all Parties

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.


 
 

Table of Contents

Questions presented for Review                                                                       2

List of Parties                                                                                                          3

Table of Contents                                                                                                  4

Table of Cited Authorities                                                                                    5

Citations                                                                                                                   6

Basis for Jurisdiction in this Court                                                                   7

Constitutional Provisions                                                                                    7

Statement of the Case                                                                                          9

Argument                                                                                                                 11

Appendices                                                                                                             18

                Appellate Court’s Order of Dismissal                                                       A        

            District Court’s Civil Judgment and Order of Dismissal                                    B

            Appellate Court’s Order denying Motion for Reconsideration             C

            Letter from Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority                       D

            Aerial Photo Washington Dulles International Airport                          D

            Aerial Photo Dulles Airport Main Terminal                                              D

            Edited still Photo from purported 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video               E

            Texts of cited authorities in Table of Cited Authorities (page 5)          F

 

Table of Cited Authorities

18 USC § 35                                                                         Fraud                                         p. 9

18 USC § 371                                                                       Conspiracy to commit fraud   p. 9

18 USC § 1512(c)                                                                Obstruction of justice              p. 9

18 USC § 2381                                                                     Treason                                     p. 9

18 USC § 2382                                                                     Misprision of Treason             p. 9

18 USC § 2384                                                                     Seditious Conspiracy              p. 9

28 USC § 1331                                                                     Federal Questions                   p. 9

28 USC § 1332                                                                     Diversity of Citizenship           p. 9

Charter of the United Nations, Article 2.4                         Initiating aggressive war         p. 9

Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3   Treason                                     p. 9

Constitution of the United States, Article VI                     Supremacy Clause                  p. 9

Constitution of the United States, Amendment IX          unspecified rights                pp. 10,                                                                                                                                         11, 14, 15

Constitution of the United States, Amendment X           unspecified rights                pp. 10,                                                                                                                                         11, 14, 15

Nuremberg Principles, VI(a)                                               Initiating aggressive war       pp. 9,                                                                                                                                                      12

 

 

Citations

Citations of the official reports of the opinions and orders entered in the case by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (10 CIV 3908):

This case was an ex parte proceeding with a sua sponte civil judgment and order of dismissal by Chief Judge Preska.  To the best of the Petitioner’s knowledge and belief there were no official reports of the opinions and orders entered in the case.  Chief Judge Preska relied on the following citations:

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);

28 U.S.C.  1915(a)(3);

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 717, 751 (1984);

Arizonians for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997);

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962);

Fulani v. Bentsen, 35 F.3d 49, 51-52 (2d Cir. 1994);

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992);

Pashaian v. Eccelston Properties, Ltd., 88 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1996);

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982);

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99 (1975);

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 508, 518 (1975);

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990);

 

Citations of the official reports of the opinions and orders entered in the case by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (10-3022-cv):

This case was also an ex parte proceeding with a terse sua sponte order of dismissal by Judges Sack, Parker and Raggi.  Again, to the best of the Petitioner’s knowledge and belief there were no official reports of any opinions or orders entered in the case.  Judges Parker, Sack and Raggi relied on the following citations:

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)

 

 

Basis for Jurisdiction in this Court

On 13 October 2010 Judges Sack, Parker and Raggi of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit denied a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal.  On 16 November 2010 they denied “a motion for reconsideration.”  On 22 February 2011 the Clerk of this Court advised the Petitioner to resubmit a corrected petition.  Petitioner believes Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States confer on this Court jurisdiction to review on a writ of certiorari the judgments and orders in question.

 

 

Constitutional Provisions etc.

(The pertinent text of each citation appears in Appendix F.)

18 USC § 35                                                                         Fraud

18 USC § 371                                                                       Conspiracy to commit fraud

18 USC § 1512(c)                                                                Obstruction of justice

18 USC § 2381                                                                     Treason

18 USC § 2382                                                                     Misprision of Treason

18 USC § 2384                                                                     Seditious Conspiracy

28 USC § 1331                                                                     Federal Questions

28 USC § 1332                                                                     Diversity of Citizenship

Charter of the United Nations, Article 2.4                         Initiating aggressive war

Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3   Treason

Constitution of the United States, Article VI                     Supremacy Clause

Constitution of the United States, Amendment IX          unspecified rights

Constitution of the United States, Amendment X           unspecified rights

Nuremberg Principles, VI(a)                                               Initiating aggressive war


 

Statement of the Case

 

The Petitioner seeks review of a judgment by a United States court of appeals, and hereby states the basis for federal jurisdiction in the court of first instance.  The subject matter jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was properly based on consideration of both federal questions (28 USC § 1331) and diversity of citizenship (28 USC § 1332).  Allegations were made of fraud (18 USC § 35); conspiracy to commit fraud (18 USC § 371); obstruction of justice (18 USC § 1512(c)); treason (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3; 18 USC §§ 2381, 2382, 2384); and initiating aggressive war (Nuremberg Principles, VI(a); Charter of the United Nations, Article 2.4; Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Supremacy Clause) by employees of the United States Department of Justice and others as yet unidentified, including foreign nationals and United States nationals with dual citizenship.  These crimes were carried out in Herndon, Virginia; Alexandria, Virginia; Washington, District of Columbia; New York, New York; and other parts as yet unknown.  The appeal was from Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska’s sua sponte Civil Judgment and Order of Dismissal of 12 May 2010, for which she later issued a Certificate of Appealability on 27 July 2010.

The Petitioner’s actions at both the district and appellate court levels yielded only sua sponte judgments and orders of dismissal; hence these actions were in effect entirely ex parte with no known involvement of the respondents. 

Notwithstanding Chief Judge Preska’s judicial erudition and focus, the Petitioner believes that a just remedy emanates from Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States in a case of most unusual and compelling circumstances and of utmost importance where tried and true methods have not worked and still do not work.

The Petitioner caught the US Department of Justice in a false and misleading presentation of evidence about 9/11 to the public and to a jury; namely, a demonstrably bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” surveillance video.  In a case of such exceptional and compelling circumstances, he believes he has proper standing to sue as a natural right springing from the reservoir of unspecified rights and powers implied by Amendments IX and X of our Constitution.  Otherwise, the limitations imposed by an overly narrow definition of standing only serve to cover up and perpetuate a major fraud that, as one component of a coldly calculated ruse to create a pretext for war, led to unjustified invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.  The courts must join with a citizen in preventing or otherwise exposing fraud and force, and not set barriers.  This Court now has a unique opportunity to prosper the Petitioner’s quest for governmental accountability about 9/11 and satisfy a worldwide yearning for truth and justice on this very grave matter which has adversely affected millions upon millions of people.


 

Argument

For whatever reason, the appellate judges did not detect from the Petitioner’s intuitive reasoning the grounds on which he bases his claim of most exceptional circumstance that overrides the actual damage test for proper standing.  The matter was ignored altogether, and remains an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court.  Amendments IX and X of the Constitution provide a source of resilience and innovation for matters that are unprecedented and unforeseen.

The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority recently confirmed the Petitioner’s correctly deduced location and view of the video surveillance camera at “West Security Checkpoint #1” at Washington Dulles International Airport on 11 September 2001.  (Per Rule 14(1)(i)(vi) please see Appendix D.)  This new information reinforces the Petitioner’s original challenge in the lower courts to the authenticity of the video which had been used by the Associated Press to promote the publisher’s release of the 9/11 Commission Report on 21 July 2004 and by the US Department of Justice to convict Zacharias Moussaoui in 2006.  This surveillance video allegedly shows five Arab hijackers passing through the security checkpoint at Dulles Airport on their way to boarding American Airlines Flight 77 on the morning of 9/11.

Now that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has established beyond any and all doubt that the surveillance camera pointed north and passengers walked south through the checkpoint, a reliable framework from Dulles Airport authorities permits final analysis of the sun’s shadows cast by passersby seen outside the terminal entrance in the far background of the video.  (Per Rule 14(1)(i)(vi) see appendices D and E.)  These shadows are pointed south at a heading of approximately 180°, which means the sun had to have been rising at the north cardinal point of the compass on the morning of 11 September 2001 in Herndon, Virginia.  This of course is impossible and the only conclusion to be made is that the video is a total fraud.  The video could not possibly have been made at Dulles Airport, but was made elsewhere, at a place and time as yet unknown, and then falsely presented first to the public and then to a jury as having been filmed at Dulles.  The lower court judges somehow failed to appreciate these circumstances as exceptional and compelling, but instead insinuated that the Petitioner’s just cause in the public interest is either frivolous or malicious.

The Petitioner avers that whatever the true provenance of this purported “Dulles Airport” video, it staggers the mind to imagine a scenario not indicative of foreknowledge and preparation for the framing of Arabs in a classic “false flag” military intelligence black operation.  Again, the lower court judges did not see that the solitary effort of one citizen, the Petitioner, to expose the fraud is tantamount to a compelling and exceptional circumstance very much in the public interest.

Furthermore, the Petitioner avers that such a ruse to commence unjustified and immoral invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq with a fake video is an act of treason at home and the supreme war crime abroad according to international law, particularly the 1950 Nuremberg Principles.  Shouldn’t the lower court judges have moved heaven and earth to allow the Petitioner wide latitude in exposing fraud and force?

The Petitioner points out that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq began in a very real sense at three airport gates on the morning of 11 September 2001.  Yet we have NEVER seen ANY credible video surveillance evidence of ANY of the passengers or hijackers at ANY of the three airports from which the flights of 9/11 are said to have departed.  Billions of people around the world were mesmerized by heavily repeated broadcast images of two alleged hijackers passing through a security checkpoint, but few know the video actually came from Portland Maine International Airport.  This Portland tape and the bogus “Dulles Airport” tape are all we have in the category of routine video surveillance evidence for 9/11.  How could the appellate judges not see in these circumstances compelling reason to override the actual damage test for a unique and original action to expose serious wrongdoing and find out what really happened?

These grave issues go to the heart of good governance and integrity in government.  Now we know why our government could not respond in a forthright way to the Taliban’s good faith offer to hand over Osama Bin Laden upon presentation of evidence of his involvement in the crime of the century.  Our government lacks evidence.  It also lacks integrity.  It did then, and it does now.  The current administration countenances the manifest criminality of the previous one, and sixteen months after having been apprised of the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video by the Petitioner’s repeated faxes, emails, phone calls and personal visits, it is at the very least an accessory after the fact.

The bogus “Dulles Airport” video is just the tip of the iceberg of accumulated evidence undermining the official findings of the 9/11 Commission Report.  It is unique, however, in that the video presumably has a chain of custody of evidence which will lead to the Praxis of Evil in our midst which actually pulled off 9/11 and the cover-up.  Why would the lower court judges baffle such a fortuitous discovery that explodes the myth of 9/11?

The Co-Chairmen of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, have already indicated in their book Without Precedent that they were “set up to fail” in their investigation of 9/11.  What better argument can there be for the establishment of a new and a real investigation?  Such a new and real investigation of 9/11 – one that will look into foreign infiltrations and espionage, as well as high tech piracy of telecommunications, computer, radar and flight control systems - is the main remedy sought by the Petitioner in the lower courts.  The investigation will work in tandem with a federal grand jury in New York.  Is this not a reasonable goal in the interests of truth and justice for all?

The sun and its shadows are unimpeachable witnesses at Washington Dulles International Airport on the morning of 11 September 2001.  Basic astronomy and geometry give the proof of our government’s fraud and force.  A choice now presents itself to the esteemed members of our nation’s highest court.  Do we follow the light in pursuit of 9/11 truth and justice?  Or do we join or maintain the ignoble conspiracy of silence and of shunning surrounding this very grave matter?  By directing the lower courts to regard Amendments IX and X of the Constitution not as dry artifacts in a legal desert, but as living sources of resilience and innovation for unprecedented and unforeseen circumstances, the prospect for truth to be told and justice done will come alive to the benefit of all mankind.

The Petitioner’s discovery of treasonous, warmongering fraud on the people of the United States and indeed the people of the entire earth should be introduced in an adversarial process where the respondents will be confronted with the evidence and compelled to respond in a reasonable way according to the law and the grave responsibilities of their offices.

In light of these very serious crimes, the Petitioner should not be impeded by a legal stricture with respect to standing, but should go forward in the best interests of justice and the good name and national security of the United States of America.

In this unique and compelling circumstance, where the Petitioner is quite alone in making his discovery and accusation against the chief law enforcement agency of his nation and in the face of a conspiracy of silence and of shunning, shouldn’t the status of proper standing devolve upon him as one of the unspecified rights guaranteed by Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States?  Is this not a simple matter of a natural right to hold his government to account for serious wrongdoing when no one else can or will?

The wise advice seen on New York City subway posters to heighten security awareness - “If you see something, say something” - goes to the heart of the matter.  Herein is the essence of what promises to be a landmark case of a solitary citizen standing at the gates of justice and shaking the nations of the earth from very strong delusion about 9/11.  But what kind of jurisprudence denies a watchman’s approach, let alone his warning?  In a very real sense all citizens who see something and say something have standing and a corresponding natural right to a responsive government.  Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States guarantee that no law or statute or decision can deny the Petitioner’s right to a responsive government, let alone reasonable relief that leads in this case to exposure of treasonous, warmongering fraud and rewards his vigilance and perseverance against all odds and under circumstances never before encountered or even imagined.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “Let us have faith that right makes might.”  Where law intersects with humanity, surely the law’s natural rigidity can give way in circumstances never before encountered or even imagined by those who write or interpret it.  A just and proper resolution of this very extraordinary case should therefore not be contingent on actual damages such as loss of a spouse or other family member or property damage and a dollar amount attached thereto, especially when such a legal requirement prevents discussion of far graver matters that have hitherto been unexplored.  A unique and original discovery that explodes the 9/11 Myth should not be relegated to the dust bin of history and the discoverer in effect exiled to Siberia.  Rather, this Court will serve all of mankind quite well by initiating rational, honest and open discussion about a very troubling aspect of the official account of 9/11.  Jesus said, “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The Petitioner is not asking for the moon, but a chance to confront the Respondents with his evidence in a moment of truth.

Furthermore, the remedies sought by the Petitioner are reasonable, forward looking, corrective, collaborative and in the best interests of justice, our national security and our nation’s good name and proper standing as a sovereign equal among sovereign equals.

The Petitioner also reminds this Court that one purpose of the Judiciary is to check the excesses of the executive and legislative branches of government and if this is not done in this instance our nation will be exposed to adventitious outcomes.

 

 

Conclusion

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

 

Respectfully submitted,


 

Stephen M. St. John

22 April 2011

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Newark, CA   XXXXX

stephen@show-the-house.com

 

Appendices

 

A         Appellate Court’s Order of Dismissal      

B         District Court’s Civil Judgment and Order of Dismissal

C         Appellate Court’s Order denying Motion for Reconsideration

D         Letter from Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

D         Aerial Photo Washington Dulles International Airport

D         Aerial Photo Dulles Airport Main Terminal

E         Edited still Photo from purported 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video

F          Texts of Cited Authorities from Table of Cited Authorities (page 5)

 

Appendix A

Appellate Court’s Order of Dismissal

SCOTUS Appendix A

Appendix B

District Court’s Civil Judgment and Order of Dismissal

SCOTUS Appendix B

SCOTUS Appendix B1

SCOTUS Appendix B2

SCOTUS Appendix B3

Appendix C

Appellate Court’s Order denying "Motion for Reconsideration"

 SCOTUS Appendix C

 

Appendix D

Letter from Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

 

MWAA 05 January 2011 Letter from Naomi Klaus

MWAA Aerial View of Dulles Airport
 

The aerial photo above was kindly provided by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and shows the Main Terminal at Washington Dulles International Airport and its orientation with the main parallel runways that go north/south at 10°/190° headings.

 
 
MWAA Dulles Main Terminal West Security Checkpoint
 

The aerial photo above of the Main Terminal at Washington Dulles International Airport was provided by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority after it was edited to show the north cardinal compass point, the passenger entrance on the north side of the Main Terminal, the location of the surveillance video camera at “West Security Checkpoint” and its view northward.

Appendix E

Edited still Photo from purported 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video

 

 Dulles Airport AA Flight 77 Suspect lower left

The photo above is a still from the purported 9/11 “Surveillance videotape from Dulles Airport West Security Checkpoint #1,” which is published on the website of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at:

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

where one scrolls down to Exhibit NT00211 and clicks to download.

The Petitioner’s analysis of this videotape reveals that it could not have been filmed at Washington Dulles International Airport as falsely stated and maintained by the US Department of Justice, the respondents in this case, but was filmed elsewhere at a time and place as yet unknown.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has confirmed beyond any and all doubt that on 11 September 2001 the camera faced north and passengers going to the gates to board airplanes entered the terminal on its north side and walked southward through the security checkpoint.  Therefore, the shadow of the passerby seen just outside the terminal entrance in the far background of the video (outlined in a yellow oval) is pointing south at an approximately 180° heading.  This of course means the sun had to have been rising very near the north cardinal point of the compass on the morning of 11 September 2001 in Herndon, Virginia.  But this is impossible.  One must conclude the video is bogus.

 

Appendix F

Texts of Cited Authorities from Table of Cited Authorities (page 5)


18 USC § 35

(a) Whoever imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this chapter or
chapter 97 or chapter 111 of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 which shall be recoverable in a civil action brought in the name of the United States.
(b) Whoever willfully and maliciously, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this chapter or chapter 97 or chapter 111 of this title - shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

18 USC § 371

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

 

18 USC § 1512(c)

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

18 USC § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

18 USC § 2382

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

 

18 USC § 2384

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

 

28 USC § 1331

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

 

28 USC § 1332

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—

(1) citizens of different States;

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;

(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties;

 

Charter of the United Nations, Article 2.4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

 

Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

Constitution of the United States, Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

Constitution of the United States, Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

 

Constitution of the United States, Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Nuremberg Principles, Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:  (i) Planning, prepaaration, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(c) Crimes against humanity:  Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connexion with any crime against peace or any war crime.

 

 

 

Stephen M. St. John

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Newark, CA   XXXXX

stephen@show-the-house.com

Waiver of right of respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al. to respond

filed on 31 May 2011


 

mSCOTUS Waiver of right of Respondents to respond

 

SCOTUSDocket10-1020427June2011B.jpg

 

SCOTUS Docket 10-10204 27 June 2011 Close-up

 

 SCOTUS 27 June 2011 letter of denial of writ of certiorari

 

 

Thank you for visiting my website.  Please come back soon! 
 
* * * * * * *
©  Stephen M. St. John 2007, 2017
 
All original articles written by Stephen M. St. John and published on this website and its forerunner mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps are fully protected by copyright law.  All rights are reserved.  However, non-commercial dissemination of these articles is allowed and encouraged so long as there is no change to the text or its meaning and proper attribution is given to the author, Stephen M. St. John.  Requests for commercial republication should be directed to the author through the contact information given below.  The author is not responsible for any changes made to the contents of this website without his awareness and consent, and will as soon as possible restore the true content if and when such unauthorized changes are discovered.
 
Current (2017) contact information:
 
stephen@show-the-house.com
stephen.m.st.john@gmail.com
Please direct email to both email addresses
.
 
Cellphone:  408 934 6549
 
For regular mail via USPS, please send to
:
 
Stephen M. St. John
Post Office Box 720274
San José, CA   95172
United States of America
 
For FedEx and UPS shipments, please send to:
 
Stephen M. St. John
Colonnade # 720274
200 South 3rd Street
San José, CA 95112
USA
 

 
(The San José contact information shown above supercedes all previous contact information that may appear in this website including the mailing addresses Post Office Box 449, Rockefeller Center, New York, NY 10185; Post Office Box 1223, Newark, CA 94560; the email address metatron.metatron@verizon.net; and telephone numbers 212 534 5024 and 917 519 2905.  All postal forwarding orders have long been expired.)

* * * * * * *