STATES COURTS OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
M. ST. JOHN,
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC H. HOLDER,
US ATTORNEY PREETINDER BHARARA,
from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of
Appellant Stephen M. St. John
M. St. John, Pro Se
Newark, CA 94560
Table of Authorities………………………………………
Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction…
Statement of the Issues Presented for Review……………
Statement of the Case……………………………………
Statement of the Facts……………………………………
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
28 USC § 1331 Jurisdiction of District
Court, Federal Question
28 USC § 1332 Jurisdiction of District Court, Diversity of Citizenship
§ 35 Imparting or Conveying False Information
18 USC § 371 Conspiracy against USA in any manner for
18 USC § 1512(c) Tampering with a Record, Document or other Object
of the United States, Article III, Section
3 on Treason
18 USC § 2381 Treason
18 USC § 2382 Misprision of Treason
§ 2384 Seditious Conspiracy
18 USC § 2441 War Crimes
Nüremberg Principles, VI (a) on initiating war of aggression
of the United Nations, Article 2.4, against
Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Supremacy Clause
28 USC § 1291 Appellate Jurisdiction of Final Decisions
of District Courts
28 USC § 1294(1) Circuits within which decisions are reviewable
of the United States, Amendment IX, unspecified
Constitution of the United States, Amendment X, unspecified rights
Book of Ezekiel, 43:10
Constitution of the United States, Amendment I, religion and state
60 Open Letters on 9/11 to the Attorney
General Michael B. Mukasey
Open Letters on 9/11 to the Attorney General Eric H. Holder
9/11 Commission Report
Without Precedent, book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton
28 USC §372(c), Judicial Misconduct
of the US Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Google Earth software with reference to 38° 57' N, 77°
Book of Proverbs,
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
The subject matter jurisdiction of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is properly based on consideration of both federal questions
(28 USC § 1331) and diversity of citizenship (28 USC § 1332). Allegations are 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 (18 USC
§ 2441; Nüremberg Principles, VI(a); Charter of the United Nations, Article 2.4; Constitution
of the United States, Article IV, 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.
jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit is proper because the subject matter encompasses
the very same federal questions and diversity of citizenship which were brought before the United States Court for the Southern
District of New York; because the lower court is within the 2nd Circuit (28 USC § 1294(1)); and because Chief
Judge Loretta A. Preska issued a Certificate of Appealability with respect to her final decision (28 USC § 1291).
Remedy is from Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States.
Appeal was made by United States Postal Service at the Newark, California Main Post Office on 16 August 2010,
which is within the allotted 14 calendar days after receipt of notice of the Court of Appeals docket number 10-3022 on the
evening of 3 August 2010 in a Court of Appeals envelope postmarked 30 July 2010. (Due to certain unexplained
irregularities in mail deliveries, the District Court’s Notification of 22 July 2010 re: 10-CIV-3908 LAP that “this
office received your notice of appeal on 6-21-2010” was returned to sender by the US Postal Service on 30 July and then
resent by the District Court on 9 August but was not received by Plaintiff-Appellant until 9 September 2010.)
The appeal is from Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska’s sua sponte Civil Judgment and
Order of Dismissal of 12 May 2010 for which final decision she later issued a Certificate of Appealability on 27 July 2010
(28 USC § 1291)
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The two main issues now before this Court are (1) the lower
court’s legally correct finding that the Plaintiff-Appellant does not have standing to sue because he did not demonstrate
actual damage, and (2) the unique and compelling set of special circumstances that, as the Plaintiff-Appellant will show in
the following sections of this brief, is entirely without precedent and cries out for this suit to proceed in the best interests
of justice and the national security of the United States of America.
dares not challenge the erudition and logic of the Chief Judge of the District Court, but rather will draw his legal sword
and shield from the reservoir of unspecified rights guaranteed by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the
United States, in Amendments IX and X. A citizen who in good faith alerts his government with evidence
of serious wrongdoing has a right to a direct and forthright response from that government rather than a conspiracy of silence
and of shunning. But when the chief law enforcement agency perpetrated the serious wrongdoing, that
citizen’s actions can become somewhat complicated.
It is simply preposterous
to hold that the Plaintiff-Appellant’s failure to demonstrate actual damages is a sound legal basis to avoid an adversarial
process that conduces toward discovery of an important truth about 9/11; namely, that our nation’s principal investigative
and law enforcement agency used a bogus “Dulles Airport” video surveillance tape to frame certain Arabs for the
heinous crimes of 9/11. This treasonous crime served to create a pretext for unjustified wars.
Our Constitution of the United States is resilient enough to permit an exception in a
most extraordinary circumstance where a private citizen of the United States undertakes to uphold the rule of law and the
good name and reputation of his nation when no one else could or would or will. As a former employee of
the US Department of Commerce, the Plaintiff-Appellant remains bound to his solemn affirmation to preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States.
There were no known proceedings in the District Court involving the Defendants-Appellees in this
action prior to Chief Judge Preska’s sua sponte civil judgment and order of dismissal, so there is no transcript
of proceedings or agreed statement of the record on appeal. Therefore, in this case this Court has a tabula
rasa for creative and innovative solutions. Given the global implications of dissolving a very strong
delusion about 9/11 and the real reasons for the carnage and destruction in Afghanistan and Iraq, this Court should consider
this brief en banc.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Because this case is all about 9/11, and 9/11 is all about
the Middle East, I, the Plaintiff-Appellant, believe it is necessary to disclose to this Court some information about myself;
namely, I have been and still am an entirely independent advocate of a truly just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East
since 1977. I maintain a website for this purpose at www.show-the-house.com. “Show the house” is a command in the Book of Ezekiel and, contrary to conventional
wisdom, refers to the correct location of the prophesied third and final Israelite temple. I also believe
that the main problem in the Middle East is the propensity of the Congress of the United States to pass laws in support of
the Zionist state in direct violation of Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits the
Congress from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion.”
I am an eyewitness to the attacks on New York on 11 September 2001. I was approaching the Brooklyn Bridge
subway station on a Lexington Avenue express train when the north Twin Tower was hit and then was inside the Federal Building
at 26 Federal Plaza on the 30th floor when the second attack occurred. Back then I served as
a part-time Field Representative with the United States Department of Commerce in the Survey Division of the Bureau of the
Census. Most of my work was conducted in the field from my residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
But each day that unforgettable week I was scheduled to attend classroom training at the New York Regional Office for
a new survey sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
3. My boss,
our Assistant Regional Director of the New York Regional Office, Marion Britton, was also a witness to what happened, but
we will never hear from her because she was reported to have perished on board United Airlines Flight 93 from Newark to San
Francisco where she was to attend a Census Bureau conference. I saw Marion for the very last time
the previous day when we greeted each other in a hallway. However, the lack of routine video surveillance
evidence showing her at Newark Liberty International Airport on the morning of 9/11 aroused my suspicions and eventually put
my focus on the general lack of credible 9/11 video surveillance evidence of any of the passengers or alleged hijackers at
all three airports from which the flights of 9/11 are said to have departed. This special interest generated
on behalf of my departed boss culminated in my discovery of the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video which is the
subject matter of this suit. I know Marion would thank me for my efforts if she could. She
taught me the virtues of persistence and patience by managing waiting time. I believe she’d be impressed!
Another colleague at the Census Bureau, whom I shall call “Witness X” because of privacy concerns, told
me within days of the attacks what he saw and heard, and it was his testimony that also propelled me to look deeper into the
matter. Witness X’s desk was about 20 feet from a window giving a view of the World Trade Center
just four tenths (0.4) of a mile away. He told me that at the very beginning of the attacks he heard and
felt two loud explosions about ten seconds apart. Then, minutes later, he saw the second jet crossing New
York harbor in an attitude he said he will never forget; namely, one wing pointed almost straight up to the sky and the other
almost straight down to earth. He watched in horror as the jet leveled in its approach and then smashed
into the south tower WTC2. What Witness X heard and saw that morning has been corroborated by many other
credible witnesses but nevertheless steadfastly omitted from the official account of what happened. All
of these spurned testimonies lead to other conclusions; namely, remote control piloting of the jets and explosives planted
inside the buildings, some of which were imperfectly synchronized with the attacking jets.
5. My avid
interest in finding out the truth of what really happened on 9/11, and exposing the lies and the cover-up, led me to research
and write numerous articles, including 60 Open Letters on 9/11 to the Attorney General of the USA Michael B. Mukasey
(published on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id54.html) and 18 Open Letters on 9/11 to the Attorney General of the USA Eric Holder (published at www.show-the-house.com/id79.html). Each of these letters, and many other articles besides, was faxed to every member of the United States
Congress, both Senate and House, nearly every embassy in Washington, nearly every mission to the United Nations in New York
City, and many other institutions and individuals, both public and private. Responses, though few and far
between, were encouraging. But perhaps needless to say, I never heard back from Mukasey or Holder or any
of my elected federal, state and local officials. These letters point to many topics for a new and real
I did have some solace, however, when Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, the Co-Chairmen of the 9/11 Commission that
produced the 9/11 Commission Report, published their own book Without Precedent in which they admitted that
they were “set up to fail” in their investigation of 9/11. Let me here add that the bogus 9/11
“Dulles Airport” video surveillance tape made its first appearance on TV on 21 July 2004, the night before the
publisher’s release of their 9/11 Commission Report. This public relations stunt to hoodwink
the public and increase book sales only underscores the need to regard the report as a false and misleading document and an
integral part of the cover-up of very serious crimes including treason and war crimes. The best critic
of the 9/11 Commission Report is David Ray Griffin, whose several books on 9/11 I recommend and regard as an excellent
foundation for a real investigation. Griffin’s meticulous work and logical conclusions already constitute
an invaluable service to our nation.
7. For the Court’s information I point out that the
South Carolina law firm Motley Rice LLC allegedly provided the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video surveillance
tape to the media. My email to founding partner Joseph Rice was not returned. Also,
the late, great Internet investigative journalist, Joe Vialls, had incredibly speedy access to this tape, but his exposé
of fraud turned out to be a misdirection for 9/11 truth seekers. Other researchers believe Joe Vialls is
really Ari Ben Menashe, the Israeli intelligence officer of “Iran Contra” fame and an Iranian Jew posing as an
ostensibly anti-Semitic Australian. With the possible exception of Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Special Master
who administered the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, Vialls was foremost in arresting the discovery process
with respect to the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video tape.
8. I should
also point out for the sake of full disclosure that the attacks of 9/11 canceled for the very first time in history the annual
Judicial Conference that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist had just convened inside the Supreme Court building that very
morning. At that time, the Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit had already been entertaining
for an extraordinary length of time my petition for review of the Chief Judge’s dismissal of my complaint of judicial
misconduct that touched on the related matters of the USS Liberty incident; the nearly simultaneous and incredibly fast taking
of the Syrian Golan Heights in less than 24 hours near the end of what is now known as the Six Day War of June 1967; and our
government’s feckless quest for real peace in the Middle East ever since Herbert Hoover advocated “transfer”
of Palestinians out of Palestine to make room for the Zionists. (RE: Miscellaneous Number
01-0030, IN THE MATTER OF: Stephen M. St. John) The possibility therefore existed within
the law (28 USC §372(c)) that the 11th Circuit chief judges might refer this sensitive matter to the Judicial
Conference even without notice to me, the complainant-petitioner, or to the complained-of judge. This real
possibility raised two other possibilities, depending on one’s point of view; namely, an extraordinary public relations
coup for the survivors of the USS Liberty, their families, friends and supporters in their long quest for truth and justice,
or a totally unacceptable public relations disaster for the Zionists which would put at risk both their public support in
the USA and their capacity to control or at least influence the USA’s foreign policy deliberations. And
so what loomed as a real possibility was also regarded as an existential threat and an unacceptable risk. Well,
I certainly don’t know what the two chief judges from the 11th Circuit were thinking that morning at the
Judicial Conference inside the Supreme Court building, but I do know for sure that the attacks of 9/11 erased both of the
two aforementioned possibilities. And I also know for sure that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not
kidding when he says – as he has said more than once - “9/11 was good for Israel.” Indeed,
the existential threat and unacceptable risk had been removed by the attacks of 9/11, and his Likud doctrine, which goes hand
in hand with the Zionist Neoconservative ideology in the USA, finally turned into an action program. Netanyahu’s
shameful remark that “9/11 was good for Israel” can be accurately put into a certain context that is troubling
indeed for those who honestly consider motives, means and opportunities. I have endeavored to do this in
my article Did Laughter of the Judges make the World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 & 7 fall on 9/11? This
is also published at www.show-the-house.com/id18.html.
By July 2009 three conditions had finally converged to make it possible for me to double check the false and misleading
2004 claim of “Joe Vialls” that the shadows seen in the far background of the “Dulles Airport” video
surveillance tape indicated late morning or early noon at Dulles Airport (38° 57' North, 77° 27' West) and not the
early morning hour when the alleged terrorists supposedly arrived at Dulles to initiate their terrorist acts.
One, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had published the video on its website after Zacharias
Moussaoui’s 2006 trial and I was able to download it in 2009. Two, I had purchased a powerful new
Hewlett Packard laptop computer with Windows Vista Ultimate software which provides a “Snipping Tool” for copying
any image or part thereof appearing on a computer screen. Three, I had played with the truly outstanding
Google Earth software long enough to realize I could get satellite pictures of Dulles Airport; see how the airport terminals
are oriented with the runways which have directional headings; and then determine at what angle to the Main Terminal entrance
the sun’s shadows point on a September morning. I concluded that if the video were indeed authentic,
then the sun rose in the west on the morning of 9/11. What any competent analyst could have figured out
well before the USA invaded Afghanistan, it took me nearly eight full years!
10. My discovery of
the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” surveillance video did not raise my hope that I would finally pierce my fellow
Americans’ conspiracy of silence and of shunning. With the opening of the new United Nations General
Assembly approaching in September 2009, I conducted a letter writing campaign by fax and email to nearly every head of state
or head of government on this earth. Each received a copy of my article 9/11: Another
Look (published on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id91.html) and most also received a copy of “Dulles Airport” Shadow casts Doubt on US Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy
Theory as well (www.show-the-house.com/id92.html). I urged each ruler or official to use the podium in the General Assembly hall in New York City to call
for a United Nations International Independent Investigation of 9/11 and I also offered my services in this endeavor.
The Defendants/Appellees among others also received copies in this time frame.
11. Next came the 13
November 2009 announcement that President Obama was going to prosecute “confessed 9/11 Mastermind” Khalid Sheikh
Mohammad in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Such prosecution I
strongly believed then and still believe now will only perpetuate the strong delusion about 9/11. And so
on 4 December 2009 I faxed and emailed the following Notice of Claim for having exposed the 9/11 Frame-up and Cover-up
to Chief Judge Preska and nearly all the missions to the United Nations in New York City among others including Defendants/Appellees
Eric Holder and Preetinder Bharara. This fax broadcast appears on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id8.html where you scroll not too far down to 4 December 2009. Here is the text:
12. Citizen of the USA Stephen M. St. John
addresses the international community here in New York and has the honor to file in this fax broadcast a notice of claim before
the Chief Judge of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Loretta A. Preska, for a reward of $50,000,000
for his having uncovered the culprits behind the 9/11 frame-up and cover-up. Such an amount is commensurate
with previous offers of rewards for bringing in certain 9/11 suspects “dead or alive” and is a fair return for
pointing to the real purveyors of the shock and awe doctrine on 9/11, their false flag military intelligence operations and
the full spectrum fraud behind their full spectrum force. Having been stonewalled by the Obama Administration,
which is now staking Afghanistan’s future on derivatives of the BIG LIE of 9/11, Citizen St. John asks the court to
examine in every detail his article “Dulles Shadow casts Doubt on the US Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory”
published on his website at http://www.show-the-house.com/id92.html. Working with a purported Dulles Airport video surveillance tape of five Arab hijackers on the morning
of 9/11, which was admitted as evidence by Judge Leonie Brinkema at the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui, analysis of the sun’s
shadow cast by a passerby outside the terminal door led to the conclusion that the film is bogus; i.e., that the video was
made elsewhere and then fraudulently presented as evidence at the US Courthouse, Eastern District of Virginia, and also on
TV to promote the release of the 9/11 Commission Report. Introduction of fraudulent evidence in the form
of a bogus airport surveillance video could not possibly have been accidental, and somewhere along the chain of possession
of evidence a link to the praxis of evil will be found. With regard to the forthcoming trial of “confessed”
9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it behooves this court to prevent more Texas justice with Virginia lawyers, to confront
the fraud with respect to the purported Dulles Airport video, and to call for a new and real investigation of 9/11 rather
than another show trial of a psychologically impaired pawn.
13. After this 4 December 2009 fax broadcast, I mailed a hard copy with
my letter of 31 December 2009 to Chief Judge Preska, the text of which here follows:
14. I hereby renew and reiterate my claim
of an award for having exposed the frame-up and cover-up of 9/11, which claim I made in a fax broadcast to you and the missions
to the United Nations here in New York City on 4 December 2009. As a federal judge you are obligated to
prevent fraud and force, and you can refer to my fax broadcast now published on my website at http://www.show-the-house.com/id8.html where you scroll to 4 December. My boss, Marion Britton, who was the Assistant New York Regional
Director of the Census Bureau at 26 Federal Plaza, was on United Airlines flight 93 on 9/11, and my misgivings about the official
story of 9/11 began with the realization that airport surveillance videos of her or of any of the other passengers or hijackers
were not made available to anyone under any circumstances. Another Census Bureau colleague witnessed and
described to me the bizarre approach of United flight 175 over New York harbor, which I later discovered could not have been
accomplished even by a top gun pilot, and therefore could only have been done by remote control. Now I’m
showing you that a purported Dulles Airport video surveillance tape, used as evidence by the US Government, is as phony as
Osama Bin Laden’s videotaped messages to the world. Please see http://www.show-the-house.com/id92.html. Please do not join the conspiracy of silence! I’d very much like to meet with
you to discuss what can and should be done.
15. This 31 December follow-up letter to Chief Judge Preska
resulted in my 18 January 2010 receipt of the very same letter returned time-stamped “received” on 5 January 2010
along with a “General Complaint Package” from the District Court’s Pro Se Office dated 15 January 2010.
I availed myself of these materials and filed a complaint by mail on 1 February 2010 which was eventually docketed
10-CIV-3908 and is now under appeal in this Court with docket number 10-3022.
OF THE CASE
16. Incorporating the previous 15 paragraphs of my preliminary statement,
my statement of the case now before this Court takes me back again to my boss Marion Britton who is said to have perished
on Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania on the morning of 11 September 2001. The 9th Anniversary
of that day that changed history and the way we live saw many documentaries on The History Channel and I watched as many as
possible with rapt attention. But sad to say, the same falsehoods that have been exposed long ago are being
retold yet again. I refer specifically to one Deena Burnett. Soon after 9/11 she told
the FBI that her husband Thomas called her from Flight 93 to tell her about the hijacking. She was positive
about her husband’s use of his cell phone because she recognized his cell phone number on her caller ID screen.
Mrs. Burnett was firm and emphatic about this with her FBI interviewers. Yet nine years later she
still seems unaware that there is a big problem with her story that she repeated on History Channel. The
problem is, completed cell phone calls are impossible to make from a jet at high altitude or high speed. I’m
not saying Mrs. Burnett is a liar. She is probably just unaware of the high likelihood that the calls she
thought she received from her husband Tom were actually impersonations made possible by a technology called real time digital
voice morphing. Likewise were the calls received by emergency operator John Shaw from Flight 93 passenger
Edward Felt high tech impersonations. But in this instance the psychopathic criminals made a mistake in
their script and gave away their game. Felt repeated firmly and emphatically that he was using his cell
phone to call 911 from the toilet near the stern where he had locked himself for protection from the “terrorists.”
The problem here is that not only are cell phone calls impossible to make from a jet at high altitude or high speed,
but there are no air phones installed inside toilets on jets. So one must conclude there is no way Edward
Felt made a call to John Shaw. What John Shaw heard was a not very clever impersonation by a caller using
real time digital voice morphing. Even the story about Marion’s phone call lacks plausibility and
suggests inside knowledge of our New York Regional Office procedures. But I’ll hold on to that thought
at least until I head a new investigation.
17. The point I wish to make out of the foregoing is that the combination
of missing airport video surveillance tapes from the morning of 9/11, the introduction of a bogus “Dulles Airport”
video surveillance tape by the US Department of Justice, and stories of cell phone calls that are impossible to make from
speeding jets at altitude or to confuse with seat back air phones very strongly indicates a design to deceive and to confuse
and thereby promote the operations of 9/11. This alone should be enough to warrant a new and a real investigation,
but there is so much more! This brief is not the place to attempt an exhaustive list, but at least for
now let me give just one more example indicating the scope of operations on 9/11. This example is from
my own direct personal observations on 9/11 and the ensuing weeks. Commencing on 9/11 and for about the
next 6 weeks I noted a very strong smell like that of an electrical fire which hanged in the air where I then lived on the
Upper East Side of Manhattan. Each day I would visit the north end of the Great Lawn of Central Park from
where one could view the smoke rising from the remains of Ground Zero more than five miles to the south. Each
day I noted that the winds were out of the northwest and carried the smoke like a huge cloud on the horizon to the southeast.
Yet this strong smell persisted even from an almost windward location more than five miles away. Neighbors,
doormen and merchants in the area share my recollection of this smell and its duration. This smell was
of equal intensity indoors and outdoors, and gradually diminished. Later I discovered that such a smell
is a signature of a nuclear detonation. So too are the burn wounds sustained by Felipe David in the sub-basement
of the north tower WTC1 - moments before the first jet made its impact - evocative of the medical literature from the immediate
aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Add to this the eye-popping seismic record and the general failure
of electronics in lower Manhattan right before evacuation and one can conclude that mini-nukes were used to weaken and then
bring down the Twin Towers and the Salomon Brothers Building, WTC7. The news media silence on this telltale
smell and so much more about 9/11 is deafening and remains very highly suspicious nine years later. We
did not get the real story: the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Now
This Court can choose light over darkness by arranging a moment of truth for the opposing sides of this legal action.
This legal action hinges on a bogus 9/11 airport video surveillance tape that the US Department of Justice used to
frame the Arabs for the heinous crimes of 9/11. This is not a conspiracy theory as such. It
is a damning piece of evidence presumably with a demonstrable chain of custody of evidence that will lead an honest investigation
right to the Praxis of Evil that pulled off 9/11. Choosing more light will help the republic grapple with
a problem that has grown to unwieldy dimensions and has resulted in an ocean of animosity against our nation.
Knowing how our nation was deceived so as to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq is prerequisite to knowing how
to bring our troops home and make amends for the carnage and destruction. In this sense this Court can
restore the good name of the United States and be an integral part of a sovereign power whose remarkable destiny is to lead
other nations but only as a sovereign equal among sovereign equals. Otherwise darkness will prevail, at
least for a time anyway, and a cataclysmic event like 9/11 will remain not only without precedent but without accountability
and without lessons learned. This Court must intervene to prevent a world view of tyranny posing as justice.
At home and abroad, let us pass the torch of freedom and not the cup of treason. I ask the esteemed
members of this Court to read and contemplate the following passage from Chapter 4 of the Book of Proverbs of King
14. Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.
Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.
16. For they sleep not, except they have
done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.
17. For they eat
the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence.
18. But the path of the just is as the
shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.
19. The way of the wicked is as darkness:
they know not at what they stumble.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video surveillance tape 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 you scroll down to Exhibit NT00211 and click to play and/or download.
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 Defendants-Appellees, but was filmed elsewhere at a time and place as
yet unknown. The false statements and misrepresentations of the Defendants-Appellees violate the law as
expressed in USC § 35; USC § 371; USC § 1512(c).
Google Earth satellite
photography and maps published on the website of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority show that all passengers arrive
at and depart from the north side of the Main Terminal which is directly adjacent to the access road called Saarinen Circle.
Please see PHOTO A:
Given the latitude (38° 57' North) and longitude (77° 27' West) of Washington
Dulles International Airport, the north faces of the Main Terminal and the two midfield terminals are always in shadow from
the sun, and throughout the day the sun casts shadows away from the terminal entrances and never towards them.
Yet in Exhibit NT00211 one can see in the far background of the film, just outside the entrance, passersby who are
casting rather long shadows toward the building. One such passerby appears in PHOTO B below.
If this film were really a Dulles Airport video surveillance tape taken on the morning of 11 September 2001, then the
sun was rising in the northwest. But we all know the sun rises in the east.
A close examination of the Dulles Airport Main Terminal with Google Earth satellite
photography shows that the east, south and west sides of the building are directly adjacent to airport operations areas where
there is no public access.
Even if there were a passenger entrance
on the east side of the Main Terminal, the angle of the shadows of the passersby would be inclined from the right toward the
terminal entrance and not from the left as shown in the video because the ecliptic or path of the sun across the sky inclines
to the south. See PHOTO C:
Moreover, the Defendants-Appellees designated this video surveillance tape, Exhibit
NT00211 at the Moussaoui trial, the “Surveillance Videotape from Dulles Airport West Security Checkpoint #1”;
but even if there were a passenger entrance on the west side of the Main Terminal, the area right outside would be in the
shadow of the terminal building from the sun rising in the east, and any passersby would be in the shadow of the building
and therefore not casting their own shadows. Even if the sun could somehow shine upon them, their shadows
would fall away from the building. In the video, the shadows are toward the building.
We are left to conclude that this surveillance video could not possibly have been filmed at Dulles
Airport and that the US Department of Justice, the Defendants-Appellees among others, have perpetrated a fraud against the
people of the United States and indeed the nations of the earth.
Furthermore, we have
never seen any credible 9/11 video surveillance evidence of any of the passengers – let alone
hijackers – at any of the three “Category X” high security airports from which the flights of 9/11
are said to have originated. These airports were Logan International Airport in Boston, Liberty International
Airport in Newark, and Washington Dulles International Airport in Herndon, Virginia. This unexplained lack
of routine evidence in combination with the introduction of false evidence strongly indicates a design to deceive and not
an accident. Moreover, billions of people were mesmerized by news media images of two suspects passing
through a metal detector, but that surveillance video was from Portland Maine International Airport and is fraught with significant
Just weeks after 9/11, Afghanistan’s Taliban government
made a good faith proposal to deliver to the USA Osama Bin Laden on the condition that the US Government must show evidence
of his culpability. The bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video together with the missing surveillance
videos from Dulles, Newark and Logan Airports clearly indicate why the US Government lacked the good faith required to reciprocate
the Taliban’s reasonable offer. The Defendants-Appellees’ fraudulent use of the bogus 9/11
“Dulles Airport” video indicates foreknowledge and preparation for 9/11. The deception helped
to create a pretext for war.
Foreknowledge and preparation for 9/11
so as to create a pretext for war are elements of the supreme international war crime which is, according to Principle VI
of the Nüremberg Principles, to initiate a war of aggression. Such aggressive war violates
18 USC § 2441, the letter and spirit of Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations as well as our constitutionally
mandated treaty obligations upheld by Article IV (the Supremacy Clause) of the Constitution of the United States.
Foreknowledge and preparation for 9/11 so as to create a pretext for war also mean treason here
at home as per the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3; 18 USC § 2381; 18 USC § 2382;
and 18 USC § 2384. In September 2000, Dov Zakheim, who had George W. Bush’s ear as his Foreign
Policy Advisor during his 2000 campaign for the presidency, signed onto a Zionist Neoconservative document suggesting that
a “new Pearl Harbor” would hasten attainment of their goal of full spectrum US military dominance of the world
(See Rebuilding America’s Defenses, page 51 [63/90 of PDF file], published by the Project for the New American Century). Then Paul O’Neill, the Secretary of Treasury in the Bush Administration, heard President Bush
order his National Security Council to find a way to go into Iraq at their very first meeting in February 2001 (See Paul O’Neill’s 11 January 2004 Sixty Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl). Then Zakheim, whose background included expertise in remote control piloting of aerial vehicles, became
Comptroller of the Pentagon a few months before Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced on 10 September 2001 that the
Comptroller’s office could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars. Here is where motive, means and
opportunity to plan and execute a high tech false flag military intelligence operation converge, and here is where the 9/11
Commission never even looked.
The Defendants-Appellees’ use of
the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video surveillance tape is consistent with the planning and execution of a high
tech false flag military intelligence operation to create a pretext for war. Such an operation is also
consistent with President Bush’s February 2001 order to his National Security Council to find a way to go into Iraq.
As indicated in the foregoing paragraphs of this brief, the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport”
video surveillance tape is the epitome of a high tech – albeit imperfect - false flag military intelligence operation
conducted by a Praxis of Evil in our midst.
The Plaintiff-Appellant’s discovery
of this 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 Defendants-Appellees 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.
Because the sun’s shadows cast by passersby seen in the far background of the film do not
comport with the US Government’s scenario in terms of time and place, the Defendants-Appellees themselves deserve the
opportunity to demonstrate how they could spin the earth so as to make the sun rise in the west, which is the only logical
explanation for the shadows if indeed they were filmed at Dulles Airport on the early morning of 11 September 2001.
The Defendants-Appellees’ use of the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video surveillance
tape is consistent with the planning and execution of a high tech false flag military intelligence operation to create a pretext
for war. Such an operation is also consistent with President Bush’s February 2001 order to his National
Security Council to find a way to go into Iraq. In light of these very serious crimes, the Plaintiff-Appellant’s
suit 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.
this unique and compelling circumstance, where the Plaintiff-Appellant 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 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 Plaintiff-Appellant’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.
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.”
In light of the foregoing, the relief demanded in the lower court is reasonable and conducive toward the proper
administration of justice and maintenance of the good name and national security of the United States, and is here reiterated
before this Court:
the Defendants-Appellees to abandon any current plan to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed here in New York or anywhere else
until after a new and a real investigation of 9/11;
Order the Defendants-Appellees to move to grant Zacharias Moussaoui a new trial because the Defendants-Appellees perpetrated
a major fraud on the jury as well as the people of the United States and of the world by introducing the bogus 9/11 “Dulles
Airport” video surveillance tape as evidence at his trial;
Order the Defendants-Appellees to convene a Grand Jury to weigh and consider the bogus "Dulles Airport" surveillance
video, and other evidence which will be forthcoming, with a view toward the identification, indictment, trial, judgment and
punishment of the perpetrators according to the law;
Order the Defendants-Appellees to undertake a new and real investigation of 9/11, which will act in conjunction with
the Grand Jury mentioned above, and will include consideration of the shock and awe doctrine, the cover-up, and many important
discoveries and insights of independent researchers;
Order the Defendants-Appellees to award the Plaintiff-Appellant the sum of $50,000,000.00 for his discovery of a conspiracy
to commit fraud in the furtherance of treasonous acts perpetrated by an enemy within, a Praxis of Evil whose purpose is to
wage aggressive war in violation of the letter and spirit of international law, particularly the Nüremberg Principles.
Such an award is commensurate with previous offers for the capture of other 9/11 suspects “dead or alive”
and should not be confused with compensation for actual damages. Actual damage was done to the good name
and integrity of the United States of America, and inasmuch as the Plaintiff-Appellant is a citizen of the United States of
America, he has sustained such actual damage for which no price can be paid.
Plaintiff-Appellant here adds that he is at the service of his nation to conduct a new and a real investigation of 9/11.
The main duty of judges is to prevent force and fraud. The Defendants-Appellees
need to choose: do they still go forward with the “Dulles Airport” video fraud, or do they
take proper measures to deal with this fraud and all its implications and consequences? Establishment of
judicial evidence with respect to their bogus “Dulles Airport” video surveillance tape will force them to choose
one or the other.
In his 29 January 2002 State of the Union speech President
Bush observed: “Those of us who have lived through these challenging times have been changed by them.
We’ve come to know truths that we will never question: Evil is real, and it must be opposed.”
Indeed! Surely the chain of custody of evidence for the fraudulent “Dulles Airport”
surveillance video tape will lead a new and a real investigation directly to the Praxis of Evil in our midst which actually
pulled off 9/11 and framed certain “likely suspect” Arabs for these heinous crimes.
A gambler’s illusion has eclipsed our national sovereignty and bound the people with strong delusion;
however, science uncovered the deception, which this Court must uphold. Now the Plaintiff-Appellant is
at the threshold of compelling a legal discovery process and achieving closure not just for himself but for countless other
people around the world who have been adversely affected by the events of 9/11 and who deserve to know the whole truth and
nothing but the truth about what really happened. The Plaintiff-Appellant humbly and thankfully awaits
this Court’s consideration and judgment.
Because there were no known proceedings in the District Court involving the Defendants-Appellees in this action
prior to Chief Judge Preska’s sua sponte civil judgment and order of dismissal, there is no transcript of proceedings
or agreed statement of the record on appeal. Therefore, the Plaintiff-Appellant believes that in this case
this Court has a tabula rasa for creative and innovative solutions.
Furthermore, given the global implications of dissolving a very strong delusion about 9/11 and the real reasons
for the carnage and destruction in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Plaintiff-Appellant also believes that this Court should consider
this brief en banc.
The Plaintiff-Appellant respectfully asks
that this Court adjudicate this matter forthwith by establishment of judicial evidence with respect to the Defendants-Appellees’
bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video surveillance tape and to grant the relief demanded in the District Court; or
if this Court is not inclined to do so, that it should remand the case for a fair and impartial trial before an unprejudiced
jury on proper evidence and under correct instructions as the law may deem just and proper.
Stephen M. St. John, Pro Se
24 September 2010
Stephen M. St. John
Newark, CA 94560