Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation


Ellen Mariani's RICO Suit against Bush et al Filed 26 November 2003

February 2004
www.globalresearch.ca        1  February 2004

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR402A.html

                Ellen Mariani's RICO Suit against Bush et al
                           Filed 26 November 2003

        * Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
        * Statement of the Case
        * Jurisdiction and Venue
        * Parties
        * Summary of Facts
        * Count I    Plaintiff asserts the Ex Post Facto "Air
                     Transportation Safety and System Stabilization
                     Act" as unconstitutional and Defendants GWB et
                     al., are exempted parties under the Act's
                     specific `exemption' for claims against
                     Terrorists and Their Aiders, Abettors and
        * Count II   Defendant "GWB's" Official Version of "911"
                     and refusal to cooperate with his "911
                     Commission" demands judicial scrutiny in this
                     cause of action
        * Count III  Defendant "USA" and "DOD" for Twenty-Five (25)
                     Years had prior knowledge American Airspace
                     was vulnerable to terrorist attacks via
                     highjacking of Commercial Airliners
        * Count IV   Defendant GWB and his Administration were
                     provided ample warning the "911" attacks were
                     Imminent and Failed to Act
        * Count V    Defendant GWB's Administration's failure to
                     act and warn the American People caused
                     Plaintiff unimaginable mental, emotional,
                     physical and financial injury as a result of
                     the Wrongful Death of her husband
        * Count VI   Defendants' Intentional, Deliberate, Willful
                     Wrongful Acts and Omissions constitute an
                     "on-going pattern of criminal activity and
                     obstruction of justice" for Plaintiff to
                     support a Civil Claim under the Racketeering
                     Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)
        * Count VII  Wrongful Death - Negligence, Negligence Per
                     Se; Reckless Conduct, Conscious Disregard for
                     the Rights and Safety of the American Public
                     Warrant Punitive Damages
        * Requested Relief
        * Conclusion
        * Footnotes

                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

     ELLEN MARIANI, Individually, as            )
     Personal Representative of the Estate      )
     of LOUIS NEIL MARIANI, deceased,           )
     and others similarly situated.[1]          )
                          Plaintiff,            )
          vs.                                   )     Case No. 03-5273
     GEORGE W. BUSH[2] President of             )     Judge Eduardo C. Robreno
     the United States, Officially and          )
     Individually,                              )     JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
          and                                   )
     RICHARD CHENEY, Vice President of          )
     The United States, Officially and          )
     Individually,                              )
          and                                   )
     JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of         )
     the United States (DOJ), Officially and    )
     Individually,                              )
          and                                   )
     DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of           )
     Defense (DOD), Officially and              )
     Individually,                              )
          and                                   )
     GEORGE J. TENET, Director, Central         )
     Intelligence Agency (CIA), Officially and  )
     Individually,                              )
          and                                   )
     NORMAN Y. MINETA, Secretary,               )
     Department of Transportation (DOT),        )
     Officially and Individually,               )
          and                                   )
     PETER G. PETERSON, Chairman of the         )
     Board, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN                  )
     RELATIONS (CFR)[3] Officially and          )
     Individually,                              )
          and                                   )
     CONDOLEEZZA RICE, National                 )
     Security Advisor, to Defendant Bush,       )
     Officially and Individually,               )
          and                                   )
     GEORGE H. BUSH[4] Former,                  )
     Director, Central Intelligence Agency,     )
     (CIA), Vice-President and President of     )
     the United States of America, Officially,  )
     and Individually,                          )
          and                                   )
     KENNETH R. FEINBERG, Special Master,       )
     "September 11 Victim Compensation          )
     Fund of 2001" Officially and Individually, )
          and                                   )
     Other unnamed past, present, officials,    )
     representatives, agents, and private       )
     consultants of THE UNITED STATES           )
     OF AMERICA,                                )
                      Defendants.[5]            )

                     PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT[6]

          NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Ellen Mariani, on information,
     belief and established facts, by and through her counsel of
     record, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and for her causes of action
     against all named and unnamed Defendants states the following:

                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE

          1.     Plaintiff commenced this civil action on September 12,
     2003, by filing of Complaint with this Honorable Court. Since
     Plaintiff's initial filing and the 'firestorm" surrounding
     Defendant GWB's refusal to comply with the "911 Commission[7],"
     this Amended Complaint provides newly discovered substantial
     additional facts, evidence and voluntary support from former
     federal employees and other concerned American Citizens who all
     seek justice and the truth as to how and why the events of
     September 11, 2001, (hereinafter "911"), occurred. Plaintiff
     hereby asserts Defendants, officially and individually are
     exclusively liable to answer the Counts in this Complaint under
     the United States Constitution and provisions of the 18 U.S.C. §
     1964(a) and (c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
     Act (hereinafter "RICO Act") for "failing to act and prevent" the
     murder of Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, for financial
     and political reasons and have "obstructed justice" in the
     aftermath of said criminal acts and omissions.[8]

          2.     On "911," Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, an
     American Citizen and paying passenger on United Airlines Flight
     175, was murdered by unidentified perpetrators, (hereinafter
     "terrorists") according to Defendant GWB.

          3.     At the time of the "911" attacks Defendant GWB was and
     continues to be President of the United States of America and
     Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Defendant
     GWB "owed a duty" not only to Plaintiff, but the American People
     to protect and defend against the preventable attacks based upon
     substantial intelligence known to Defendant GWB prior to "911"
     which resulted in the death of Plaintiff's husband and thousands
     of other innocent victims on "911."

          4.     Defendant GWB has purported to the American People,
     this Court and the Plaintiff that the infamous attacks of "911"
     were directly masterminded by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda
     Network terrorists (hereinafter "OBL"), almost immediately after
     the attacks. Yet, Defendant GWB has not been forthright and honest
     with regard to his administration's pre-knowledge of the potential
     of the "911" attacks and Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant GWB
     to justify why her husband Louis Neil Mariani died on "911.'
     Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB is invoking a long standard
     operating procedure of invoking national security and executive
     privilege claims to suppress the basis of this lawsuit that
     Defendant GWB, et al., failed to act and prevent the "911"
     attacks. This Court must see through this and Plaintiff argues
     from the onset, the reasons why "911" occurred are no longer a
     national security risk, but a national security disgrace and
     tragedy. Plaintiff asserts, contrary to Defendant GWB's assertion
     that OBL is responsible for "911," the compelling evidence that
     will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power
     by this Court and testimony at trial will lead to one undisputed
     fact, Defendant GWB failed to act and prevent "911" knowing the
     attacks would lead to our nation having to engage in an
     "International War on Terror (IWOT)" which would benefit
     Defendants both financially and for political reasons. Plaintiff
     asserts, her husband was murdered on "911" and Defendant GWB and
     many of his cabinet members are now profiting from the IWOT.
     Plaintiff will prove, the "Bush family" has had long ties to power
     in the federal government and with the OBL family which raises
     serious public trust questions yet to be answered, to include, but
     not limited to, the fact that Defendant Cheney is profiting
     immensely from his former company's exclusive contracts to rebuild

          5.     Plaintiff reasonably believes Defendants knew or
     should have known the attacks on "911" would be carried out and
     intentionally and deliberately failed to act and prevent these
     deadly attacks leading to the untimely death of her husband.
     Plaintiff believes, Defendant GWB et al, allowed the attacks to
     take place to compel public anger and outcry to engage our nation
     and our military men and women in a preventable "IWOT" for
     personal gains and agendas. The statement of "911 Commissioner"
     and former United States Senator Max Cleland reinforces
     Plaintiff's claims that her President and Commander-in-Chief
     Defendant GWB has not been honest and forthright to her or the
     American public with regard to "911":

          As each day goes by, we learn this government knew a whole
          lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has
          ever admitted.[10]

          6.     Plaintiff believes the facts, circumstances and
     substantial evidence once presented to a jury will ultimately
     establish Defendants allowed the "911" attacks to occur to create
     an "IWOT" for malicious personal agendas, to include, but not
     limited to war profiteering. A pattern of this financial war
     profiting and the "Bush Family" goes back to their dealings with
     Nazi Germany during World War II. Plaintiff understands this
     assertion will be a shock to her fellow Americans who are not
     aware of this fact, however, her sentiment is expressed in the
     following Paul Donovan: "Why Isn't the Truth Out There?" Observer
     (U.K.), October 5, 2003, article which states in part:

          "This is the staggering story of the events of 9/11. No
          reasons have been given for the Bush administration's conduct
          on that day; no one has been brought to account. Yet from the
          tragedy that was 9/11, Bush has been able to deliver for his
          backers in the arms and oil industries . . ." (Emphasis

          7.     Plaintiff intends to prove to a "reasonable jury" the
     Defendants in this matter have engaged in a long history of
     foreign policy decisions and have possessed absolute control of
     power of her government and have not been honest and forthright
     with the American public as to "911" and have "obstructed justice"
     setting a second basis for a "RICO Act" claim as evident by its
     secrecy and refusal to comply with the "911 Commission" in the
     aftermath of "911." For example, the following phillynews.com,
     September 11, 2003, William Bunch article; "Why Don't We Have
     Answers to these 9/11 Questions" goes to the heart of Plaintiff's
     claims and states:

          "NO EVENT IN recent history has been written about, talked
          about, or watched and rewatched as much as the terrorist
          attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - two years ago today. Not only was
          it the deadliest terrorist strike inside America, but the
          hijackings and attacks on New York City's World Trade Center
          and the Pentagon in Washington were also a seminal event for
          an information-soaked media age of Internet access and 24-
          hour news. So, why after 730 days do we know so little about
          what really happened that day? No one knows where the alleged
          mastermind of the attack is, and none of his accomplices has
          been convicted of any crime. We're not even sure if the 19
          people identified by the U.S. government as the suicide
          hijackers are really the right guys."[11]

          8.     Defendants have influenced American national security
     policy either as public officials or private citizens to the
     detriment of innocent American lives to include the wrongful death
     of Plaintiff's husband that provides her standing to seek answers
     on behalf of others similarly situated who, without question,
     "fear" even questioning the Defendants' conduct or misconduct
     prior to, on and after "911." Plaintiff will prove Defendants have
     engaged in a "pattern of abuse of public powers" dating back to
     the late 1970's to support her civil RICO Act and Bivens
     constitutional tort action in this matter. The facts will show,
     Defendants' have engaged in both personal business and national
     security "deals" with alleged terrorists, "OBL" and Saddam
     Hussein, providing the foundational claim of Plaintiff that her
     husband was murdered due to Defendants' "failure to act and
     prevent" the attacks on the United States of America on "911" for
     one overall chilling reason, to profit either personally or
     politically from the so-called "IWOT."[12] Plaintiff asserts, in
     the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, Defendants were allies
     with OBL and Saddam Hussein during the former Soviet Union's
     invasion of Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq war respectively, wherein,
     personal and political deals were made and it is believed upon
     discovery, these dealings hold the truth about "911."

          9.     Plaintiff will establish herein claims based upon the
     United States Constitution, statutory and case law, to compel
     judicial redress of her husband's wrongful death and to set a
     precedent to prevent future abuses of power in the United States
     Government as will be clearly established by the wanton acts and
     omissions of Defendants' in this case. Plaintiff's husband was
     murdered on "911" and Defendants have yet to be honest and
     forthright as to the truth as to how and why "911" occurred. For
     these reasons, Plaintiff brings this cause of action with the
     genuine belief Defendants have broken the law and continue to show
     great contempt towards herself, the American Public and the laws
     of the United States of America. Plaintiff's Complaint is
     historical in nature as our Constitutional way of government has
     been attacked and the following quote of Justice Louis Brandeis is
     very relevant to this cause of action:

          "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government
          officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are
          commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence
          of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe
          the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent,
          omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the
          whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the
          government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the
          law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It
          invites anarchy." (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438

          10.     As widely reported and confirmed by many American
     independent researchers of the facts and circumstances of "911,"
     Defendant GWB knew the attacks of "911" were probable and failed
     to act. Specifically, Special Agent Robert Wright wrote a memo on
     June 9, 2001, warning his superiors, Defendant DOJ/FBI of the
     potential of terrorists hijacking aircraft to attack the United
     States and two (2) months later, Defendant GWB's National Security
     Advisor, Defendant Condoleezza Rice, acknowledged that on August
     6, 2001, (one month prior to the "911" attacks), she provided a
     written brief to Defendant GWB at his Texas ranch which warned
     "OBL" might try to hijack U.S. aircraft. Plaintiff, as all
     Americans have a "right to know" why these reports provided
     Defendant GWB were not acted upon to prevent the most deadly
     attacks against our nation since Pearl Harbor which led us into
     War World II as "911" is now leading us into the never ending
     "IWOT." From the mountain of evidence and the ongoing "secrecy" of
     Defendant GWB and his unwillingness to cooperate with the "911
     Commission," Plaintiff brings this RICO Act civil action to obtain
     justice for herself and husband Louis Neil Mariani and to expose
     the "truth" to the American public as to the great betrayal
     Defendants have inflicted upon each and every freedom-loving
     American arising from the crimes prior to, during and after

          11.     Plaintiff asserts, Defendants acting in their
     official and individual capacities were grossly and criminally
     negligent in failing to act and prevent the attacks on "911"
     resulting in the wrongful death of her husband and attacks against
     her country. Plaintiff incorporates for the public record at
     Exhibit "A", an "Open Letter" directed at Defendant GWB that
     provides her personal reasons for proceeding with this cause of
     action. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and "open letter" will of
     course be supported by substantial facts and evidence to prove
     Defendant GWB and all subordinate Defendants named herein have not
     been "truthful" with the American People and must be held
     accountable to Plaintiff and the families of the thousands of
     other innocent people who lost their lives on "911."[14]

          12.     In sum, Plaintiff having "standing" to bring forth
     this cause of action and its claims herein, will set forth bona
     fide challenges to the "official version" of the events of "911"
     version as purported by Defendant GWB. Plaintiff will establish
     inconsistencies establishing a prima facie case for this matter to
     proceed to a jury trial in the search for truth and justice to
     redress the untimely death of her husband and thousands of other
     innocent people.

          13.     Plaintiff asserts, in a free society such as America,
     no one, including the President of the United States of America is
     above the law. This Honorable Court must afford Plaintiff her
     fundamental United States Constitutional First Amendment Right to
     petition this Court for redress of Defendant USA, et al., "failure
     to act and prevent" the "911" attacks which led to the murder of
     her husband Louis Neil Mariani and thousands of other innocent
     people to include daily, our brave men and women of the United
     States Armed Forces who Plaintiff believes are dying in Iraq
     because of Defendant GWB's lies.

          14.     For the above stated reasons and the Counts provided
     hereinafter, Plaintiff's Complaint is exclusively based upon the
     United States Constitution and the Racketeer Influenced and
     Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) (citations omitted), however,
     other basis for jurisdiction and venue are based upon special
     factors due to the "unique" nature of this matter. For the good of
     Plaintiff and her nation this case merits judicial review,
     reliefand vindication to ensure another "911" never occurs again
     due to the wrongful acts and omissions of federal employees as
     will be proven in this matter at trial.[15]

          15.     In sum, Plaintiff will call to trial former federal
     employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise with military
     intelligence and other duties to support the underlying RICO Act
     foundational basis to prove Defendants have engaged in a "pattern
     of criminal activity and obstruction of justice" in violation of
     the public trust and laws of the United States for personal and
     financial gains. Plaintiff will prove, Defendants have engaged our
     nation in an endless war on terror to achieve their personal goals
     and agendas.

                           JURISDICTION AND VENUE

          16.     The following jurisdictional and venue claims merit
     this Complaint to be afforded judicial review on behalf of
     Plaintiff and other similarly situated Americans who lost loved
     ones in the aftermath of the terrorists' attacks on "911."

          17.     Jurisdiction is based upon:

                 a. 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that it is a civil action
                    arising under the laws of the United States, and
                    the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Amendments
                    to the Constitution of the United States, (federal

                 b. 28 U.S.C. § 1346, United States as a Defendant;

                 c. 28 U.S.C. § 1361, An action to compel an officer of
                    the United States to perform his duty;

                 d. 28 U.S.C. § 1366, Construction of reference to laws
                    of the United States or Acts of Congress;

                 e. 28 U.S.C. § 1357, Injuries under Federal law;

                 f. 28 U.S.C. § 1365, Senate actions;

                 g. 28 U.S.C. § 1349, Corporation organized under
                    federal law as party;

                 h. 32 U.S.C. § 102(3), Federally recognized agencies
                    as all Defendants, named and unnamed are all
                    employees, former employees, agents or consultants
                    of the United States Federal Government;

                 i. 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(2)(3), Civil rights and
                    elective franchise and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and
                    1986, Public Health and Welfare Act in conspiracy
                    and or failure to act and prevent criminal
                    violations of civil rights;

                 j. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), in that there is complete
                    diversity of citizenship and the amount in
                    controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00,
                    exclusive of interest and costs;

                 k. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1964(a)(c), Racketeer
                    Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act)
                    civil remedies and Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics
                    Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), compensation for
                    victims of "constitutional torts" by federal
                    actors; and

                 l. 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaratory and injunctive relief
                    as deemed necessary.

          18.     Venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is
     proper due to the special factors involved in this "unprecedented"
     federal lawsuit and the fact the United States Constitution, the
     "supreme law of the land' originated at the May 25, 1787,
     Constitutional Convention in the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiff
     reasonably believes in the wake of the national tragedy giving
     rise to this action on "911" and its serious and controversial
     claims, New York City is an inappropriate venue for justice to be
     served in this matter. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to
     18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (a) because Defendants reside, are found,
     operate under color of authority or office, have agents, or
     connected with or related to the aforesaid and transact affairs in
     this district. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 18
     U.S.C. Section 1965 (b) because, to the extent any Defendant may
     reside outside this district, the ends of justice require such
     Defendant(s) to be brought before the Court. Venue properly lies
     in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (b) (2) or,
     alternatively, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (a) (2).
     Further, certain of the conspiratorial acts alleged herein took
     place and continue to take place within this judicial district.
     Any and all Defendants, named and unnamed who are employed with,
     were employed with, contracted with and connected to Defendant USA
     and GWB, can be compelled through order and/or subpoena power of
     this federal court to be subjected to discovery or otherwise
     appear before the court under federal law, executive order, or the
     Code of Federal Regulations or other process to establish venue in
     this Honorable Court. Venue is further proper in the Eastern
     District of Pennsylvania under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) as Plaintiff's
     Counsel of Record, (agent), under the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §
     1965(a) and (b), practices law in the Eastern District of
     Pennsylvania and the ends of justice require this matter to be
     heard in this District, wherein the Constitution and Nation were


          19.     Defendant, the United States of America (hereinafter
     "Defendant USA[16], an international sovereign nation, empowered,
     limited and controlled subject to its United States Constitution,
     is the USA as set forth by its territorial boundaries description
     which the Court is requested under Federal Rules of Evidence
     ("F.R.E."), Rule 201, to take judicial notice of said territorial
     description and boundaries commonly referred to as the USA, herein
     as defined and set forth under the United States Constitution.

          20.     Defendant GWB, under color of authority and office is
     responsible as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United
     States of America and Armed Forces respectively, officially and
     individually, under the United States Constitution and National
     Security Act of 1947, (hereinafter "NS Act") was and continues to
     be in control of Defendant USA and all other named and unnamed
     Defendants, officially and individually. At all times relevant to
     the claims herein, all Defendants present and past federal
     employees of the USA or national security consultants have long
     had personal ties to Defendant GWB and or his family relevant to
     establish and support the RICO Act basis of this lawsuit.
     Defendant GWB is an individual who is also a citizen of the United
     States who acted with executive power as the President of the
     United States of America under Article II of the Constitution.
     Defendant GWB receives for his compensation for services payments
     from the United States Treasury to conduct his official acts in a
     faithful manner and solemnly swore he will faithfully execute the
     Office of President of the United States and will do the best of
     his ability, to preserve, protect and defend the United States
     Constitution. Defendant GWB's conduct prior to, on and after "911"
     raises serious doubt on the face of the evidence he failed to
     uphold his "oath" to protect Plaintiff's husband and our nation
     from the devastating attacks of this infamous day. Due to the
     complexity of this litigation and large number of named and
     unnamed Defendants in this matter, for clarity purposes,
     Defendants USA, et al., will mean GWB as he is solely responsible
     for all acts and omissions of all subordinate Defendants under the
     provisions of the "NS Act".[17]

          21.     Plaintiff ELLEN MARIANI is an adult individual and a
     citizen of the Defendant USA and is domiciled and a resident of
     the State of New Hampshire. On "911" Ellen Mariani and Louis Neil
     Mariani were domiciled in New Hampshire. Plaintiff is the
     surviving wife of decedent Louis Neil Mariani, who died on "911"
     as a fare-paying passenger in the crash of United Airlines Flight
     175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Plaintiff
     brings this action on behalf of herself, the Estate of Louis Neil
     Mariani [step-daughter Lauren Peters and Ellen Mariani], and all
     wrongful death beneficiaries who believe the Air Transportation
     Safety and System Stabilization Act, P.L. 107-42, Section
     408(b)(3), 49 U.S.C. Section 40101 (2002), is unconstitutional as
     ex post facto law and a ploy by Defendant GWB to silence and bury
     the truth as to the reasons Plaintiff's husband and thousands of
     other innocent people died from the attacks on "911." Plaintiff
     has a legal duty to counter fraud and any other illegal activities
     affecting her personal, financial interest, welfare, safety or
     security as a citizen of the Defendant USA and the State of New
     Hampshire, and on behalf of others similarly situated, by
     petitioning the federal judiciary for redress of grievances as
     provided for under Article(s) 4, Section 2 and 3 and as thereafter
     amended Article I, IV, V, IX, X or XIV of the United States
     Constitution to compel answers by Defendants as to how and why her
     husband and thousands of others died on "911."

                           SUMMARY OF FACTS[18]

          22.     That on January 20, 2001, Defendant GWB was sworn in
     as President of the United States of America and assumed the
     duties as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

          23.     That, the evidence will show that Defendant GWB from
     the period of July through August 2001, was provided by his
     subordinate Defendants credible intelligence information that the
     attacks against the United States of America on "911" were
     imminent. Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB both grossly and
     criminally failed to carry out his duties as President and
     Commander-in-Chief and should be held accountable to her and the
     American People as to what he knew prior to the "911" attacks. In
     the wake of "911" it was later stated by United States House of
     Representative Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, "The reports are
     disturbing that we are finding this out now." Plaintiff stands on
     her claim Defendants at the minimum were "grossly negligent" in
     acting to prevent "911" as early as two (2) months prior to the
     deadly attacks. Another lawmaker, Representative Jerrold Nadler of
     New York stated:

          "Certainly if the White House had knowledge that there was a
          danger or an intent to hijack an American airplane and did
          not warn the airlines, that would be nonfeasance in office of
          the highest order . . . That would make the President bear a
          large amount of responsibility for the tragedy that

          24.     That, on or about, August 6, 2001, Defendant GWB
     received intelligence reports that a potential attack against the
     United States of America was being planned by the use of hijacked
     civilian airliners. The American people were never warned of this
     potential threat to their health and well-being as Defendant GWB
     owed a duty to inform and warn the public as apparently high level
     cabinet members to include Defendants Rumsfeld and Ashcroft
     stopped flying commercial aircraft prior to the "911" attacks.

          25.     That, on September 10, 2001, Plaintiff and her
     husband Louis Neil Mariani spent their last day together as
     husband and wife on this earth.

          26.     That, on or about 8:00 a.m. on "911," Defendant GWB
     sat down for his Presidential Daily Briefing ("PDB")." The
     President's briefing appears to have included some reference to
     the heightened terrorist risk reported throughout the summer" but
     contained nothing serious enough to call National Security Adviser
     Defendant Rice. The briefing ends at on or about 8:20 a.m.

          27.     That, on "911" on or about and between 8:13 a.m. and
     8:20 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11, is not responding to
     Defendant FAA communications, goes off course and its transponder
     signal stops transmitting "Friend or Foe" (IFF) beacon signal. On
     or about 8:24 a.m. Defendant "FAA," by and through an unidentified
     employee at this time, hears alleged terrorist over United
     Airlines Flight 11's radio; "We have some planes. Just stay quiet
     and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move."
     At this very moment, Defendant "FAA" was mandated to alert
     Defendant NORAD to expedite immediate defensive measures to
     prevent loss of life or property damage via scrambling of American
     alert fighters to intercept Flight 11 and Defendant GWB should
     have been immediately briefed of the situation and should have by
     a simple phone call.[19]

          28.     That, on or about 8:32 a.m., eight [8] minutes after
     Defendant FAA was first alerted to the highjacking of Flight 11,
     Defendant Bush's motorcade leaves the resort en-route to Emma E.
     Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. That, it is
     believed Defendant NORAD was notified by Defendant FAA on or about
     8:36 a.m., ten [10] minutes prior to the first crash into the WTC
     that Flight 11 was hijacked.[20]

          29.     That, on or about 8:46 a.m., Flight 11 crashes into
     the North Tower of the World Trade Center (hereinafter "WTC") and
     Plaintiff husband's plane, United Airline Flight 175 transponder
     signal stops transmitting "IFF" beacon signal, as did Flight 11
     before it crashed into the WTC.

          30.     That, on or about 8:47 a.m., Defendant NORAD was
     alerted that Flight 11 crashed into the WTC and at 8:48 a.m., the
     first news broadcasts on radio and television report a plane
     crashed into the WTC.

          31.     That, on or about 8:51 a.m., Defendant GWB arrives at
     Booker Elementary and should be completely aware Flight 11's crash
     was not an accident, especially in light of the "PDB" provided him
     51 minutes earlier.

          32.     That, on or about 9:05 a.m. Andrew Card walks up to
     Defendant GWB in front of the world while Defendant GWB is
     listening to a goat story and is alleged to have whispered in his
     ear; "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is
     under attack." For approximately the next seven (7) to eighteen
     (18) minutes Defendant GWB continues to listen to the goat story
     while Plaintiff's husband was just murdered and does not
     immediately assume his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the United
     States Armed Forces.

          33.     Plaintiff believes if Defendant GWB, DOD and NORAD
     responded expeditiously as trained for and according to protocol,
     at 9:03 a.m, thirty-nine (39) minutes after being alerted to the
     highjacking of Flight 11, and Defendants acted responsibility and
     warned all U.S. Commercial aircraft captains of potential danger
     to their aircrafts, crews and passengers, Plaintiff's husband and
     thousands of other innocent people might still be alive today.

          34.     Plaintiff as previously stated, incorporates at
     Exhibit "C" a comprehensive list of "timelines" of Defendant GWB's
     acts on "911." Under this section, Plaintiff will provide the
     foundation of "pre-911" and "post-911" events that support the
     basis of this Complaint that Defendants GWB and subordinate United
     States Government officials are grossly and criminally negligent
     for failing to act upon credible evidence to prevent the "911"
     attacks and have engaged in a pattern of "obstruction of justice"
     since the "911" attacks to mislead the American People. For these
     reasons, Plaintiff possesses "standing" to bring this cause of
     action arising from the wrongful death of her husband, Louis Neil
     Mariani and does speak on behalf of others similarly situated who
     might fear bringing a cause of action arising from the evil events
     of "911" against Defendant GWB, et al., provides the following
     "Counts" in support of this cause of action:

                                  Count I

      Plaintiff asserts the Ex Post Facto "Air Transportation Safety and
    System Stabilization Act" as unconstitutional and Defendants GWB et al., 
     are exempted parties under the Act's specific `exemption' for claims 
       against Terrorists and Their Aiders, Abettors and Conspirators

          35.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
     allegations in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein at

          36.     Plaintiff asserts the Air Transportation Safety and
     System Stabilization Act, (hereinafter "Act") is unconstitutional
     and ex post facto legislation specifically intended to silence the
     truth of the true perpetrators or terrorists which have yet been
     captured or held to account for the "911" attacks which resulted
     in the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani.

          37.     Plaintiff asserts the "exclusive jurisdiction" under
     the Act mandating her to bring this claim into the United States
     District Court for the Southern District of New York due to the
     serious nature of this Amended Complaint and the fact that New
     York City was the primary target of the "911" attacks will
     prejudice her case. Plaintiff reasonably believes venue in
     Philadelphia is appropriate in the federal district wherein the
     United States Constitution was signed as the Defendants have
     tested the United States Constitution and pose the greatest threat
     to our way of life if they are not held to account for their
     actions prior to, during and after the "911" attacks. Moreover,
     Defendant GWB, the primary focus of this Amended Complaint, and a
     majority of the Defendants are employees of the United States who
     were acting within their official capacity on "911" and Plaintiff
     can bring this action in "any judicial district" predicated upon
     the fact that "a substantial part of the events and omissions
     giving rise" to this action occurred in the Commonwealth of
     Pennsylvania. Plaintiff argues, the entire United States of
     America and its Citizens were victims of "911" for that matter,
     coupled with the fact that the United States Constitution is under
     attack in of itself, merits this Amended Complaint to be tried and
     decided in the Birth Place of the Constitution and where our
     Declaration of Independence was written and signed in
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and where our battle of freedom was won
     in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Furthermore, all of the Defendants
     conduct public business and/or have offices throughout the Eastern
     District of Pennsylvania.

          38.     Plaintiff further believes Section 408(c) of the Act
     provides one critical "exception" relevant to Plaintiff's case
     being heard in this Honorable Court and venue set therein. The Act
     states in part:

               "The Southern District has `original exclusive
               jurisdiction' over all actions brought for any claim
               (including any claim for loss of property, personal
               injury, or death) resulting from or relating to the
               terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11,
               2001" with the exception of claims to recover collateral
               source obligations and claims against terrorists and
               their aiders and abettors and conspirators." (Emphasis
               added) (Act Section 408(c)).

          39.     Plaintiff asserts from the mountain of evidence that
     will be produced and based upon her RICO Act claim, Defendant GWB
     et al., are exempt from the Act's jurisdiction in New York because
     Defendants will be directly connected to their true standing in
     the "911" attacks as "aiders and abettors and conspirators" who
     intentionally and deliberately "failed to act and prevent" the
     "911 attacks on the United States of American leading to the
     murder of Plaintiff's husband Louis Neil Mariani and thousands of
     other innocent people for many years to come, to advance their
     agendas, including but not limited to an "IWOT."[21]

          40.     Plaintiff, herein also names Defendant Kenneth R.
     Feinberg, Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation
     Fund of 2001, (hereinafter "Fund") as a party for his questionable
     strong-arm tactics and hostility towards Plaintiff. Plaintiff
     asserts and alleges, Defendant Feinberg's appointment by Defendant
     Aschroft was tactical placement of a "go along to get along" move
     by Defendant GWB to ensure all "911" families joined the fund to
     prevent any questions of liability, gross or criminal negligence
     on behalf of Defendant GWB and his administration for failing to
     act and prevent the "911" attacks.

          41.     Plaintiff provides at Exhibit "D" proof of his lack
     of independence in administering the "Fund" via a letter signed by
     Defendant Feinberg to Donald J. Nolan, Esquire dated February 8,
     2002. Most notable is the handwritten statement below Defendant
     Feinberg's signature that states: "So - are you bringing your
     clients into the Fund? Give me a call. Best - K."

          42.     Plaintiff asserts Defendant Feinberg's overall
     involvement with the "Fund" and his appointment by Defendant
     Ashcroft is highly suspect and will call at trial staff members of
     the "Fund" who will expose the appropriate facts to support
     Plaintiff's claim that Defendant Feinberg's assignment is not to
     administer just compensation to the families but, a ploy to
     silence any traditional lawsuits that will expose Defendant GWB's
     failure to act and prevent the "911" attacks. Furthermore, Red
     Cross delays have in effect thrown needy families into the waiting
     arms of Defendant Ashcroft and Defendant Feinberg while also
     serving to keep the government of the United States out of the
     courtroom via what Plaintiff originally termed "the Feinberg hush
     fund." Defendant Feinberg has maintained total control over fund
     settlements while allowing the Red Cross to extend payments in the
     millions from donations to displaced renters and homeowners who
     did not even lose a family member, and also to Federal Emergency
     Management Agency (FEMA) workers, all of whom should have been
     paid from FEMA's well-established and budgeted funds approved by
     Congress. Defendant Feinberg allowed the U.S. government to use
     Red Cross funds specifically donated to the families who lost
     their loved ones, said funds given to other parties, which only
     helped to extend and intensify the financial difficulties of
     victims family members, as many just decided to give up and submit
     to Defendant Feinberg's fund while also absolving the government
     of the United States of all future accountability.

          43.     Plaintiff, reasonably believes, Defendants are hiding
     behind arbitrary legislation such as this "Act" [Air
     Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act] and the
     Patriot Act to silence Americans such as herself from obtaining
     the truth as to how and why "911" ever occurred. To protect and
     preserve the United States Constitution Plaintiff's Amended
     Complaint merits judicial redress and all extraordinary relief for
     the good of our nation.[22]

                                  Count II

   Defendant "GWB's" Official Version of "911" and refusal to cooperate with 
    his "911 Commission" demands judicial scrutiny in this cause of action

          44.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
     allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein at length.

          45.     Plaintiff asserts from the timelines as set forth in
     the "Summary of Facts" Defendant GWB's behaviors, both officially
     and individually are highly suspect. Plaintiff, a reasonable
     person with "standing" seeks to find the truth of "911" and
     questions why it has taken almost two (2) years for Defendant GWB
     to establish the "911 Commission."

          46.     Plaintiff believes from the substantial
     investigations and news reports from around the world, Defendant
     GWB must be compelled to answer the claims and assertions in her
     lawsuit as it has been over two (2) years since her husband's
     death and yet to date, no "terrorists" have be held to account.

          47.     Plaintiff deserves her day in court in this matter
     for many reasons, most specifically to challenge Defendant GWB's
     purported fact that the "terrorist" responsible for the "911"
     attacks and its mastermind is "OBL." Defendant GWB has not
     released to the public intelligence reports or statements to
     remove suspicion regarding his own good faith efforts to find the
     terrorists responsible for "911." Moreover, why are several
     alleged terrorists named by Defendant GWB who allegedly died in
     the "911" attacks still alive?

          48.     Plaintife asserts and alleges Defendant GWB's
     behaviors on the morning of "911" upon being informed the nation
     was under attack to include but not limited to his continued
     reading of a children's story when he should have expeditiously
     carried out his joint duties as President and Commander-in-Chief
     to order air defenses to prevent continued attacks against our
     Nation, in of itself, calls into question his stability and
     motives to carry out this nation's top public office.

          49.     Plaintiff seeks to find and obtain the answer as to
     why her husband was murdered on "911" and to date, political
     reasons and "obstruction of justice" by Defendant GWB in failing
     to release intelligence reports and to fully cooperate with the
     "911 Commission" provide Plaintiff with no other option but to
     proceed with this cause of action. In light of the fact that
     Defendant Ashcroft is a party to this litigation, this Honorable
     Court must provide Plaintiff justice by issuance of subpoenas and
     by affording Plaintiff discovery to support her claims regarding
     Defendant GWB failing to act and prevent the deadly attacks on
     "911." Moreover, the fact that the only federal employee who has
     the power to seek prosecution of the murders responsible for
     "911," namely Defendant Ashcroft who has spent more time
     advocating for his Patriot Act than seeking the "terrorists"
     responsible for the "911" attacks is yet another bona fide issue
     which advances Plaintiff's right to judicial review in this

                                 Count III

   Defendant "USA" and "DOD" for Twenty-Five (25) Years had prior knowledge
          American Airspace was vulnerable to terrorist attacks via 
                     highjacking of Commercial Airliners

          50.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
     allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein at length.

          51.     Plaintiff's basis for alleging Defendants had prior
     knowledge "terrorists" could highjack commercial aircraft and
     attack the United States is not only due to Defendant GWB's
     continued withholding of facts and public records necessary for
     the "911 Commission" to perform its public duty, but, supported by
     the sworn affidavit of Timothy Stuart McNiven, former United
     States Army participant in a 1975 Congressional funded military
     study which purpose was to "identify security lapses and submit
     corrective actions" to Congress. (See Exhibit "B").[24]

          52.     Based upon review of Affiant McNiven's sworn
     statement Plaintiff asserts Defendant USA, et al., charged with
     defending America had prior knowledge before "911" that the events
     of this infamous day in American history could take place and did.
     Hence, Defendant USA's failure to implement the findings of the
     study was grossly/criminally negligent and Defendant's "failing to
     prevent" the attacks of "911" raises other serious national
     security and public trust matters important for Plaintiff to
     obtain justice in this case. Affiant McNiven's testimony and the
     chilling similarities of the study's scenarios to the actual
     events of "911," support a basis Defendants were
     grossly/criminally negligent in failing to prevent "911." Affiant
     McNiven's testimony also provides the "nexus" to include Defendant
     George H. Bush, Sr., (hereinafter "Defendant GHB") as a critical
     party to this litigation as Defendant GHB as CIA Director at the
     time of the study and reasons for its not being implemented are
     very relevant for Plaintiff to find the answers as to why her
     husband was murdered on "911." Plaintiff believes, Defendants' GWB
     and his father, GHB, hold the answers for the entire nation to be
     informed of the truth as to "911" and why it occurred and was not

          53.     Plaintiff asserts the facts and circumstances as set
     forth in Affiant McNiven's statement provide the foundation to
     call into question all Defendant GWB's official and private
     national security advisors' apparent ill-willed "advice" which
     once full discovery is achieved, will prove not only that
     Defendants were grossly negligent in failing to prevent the "911"
     attacks, they were also criminally negligent wherein this Court,
     for the good of the nation, must grant any and all declaratory and
     injunctive relief to hold Defendants' accountable for all crimes
     proven in this civil action. For these reasons, Defendant GWB
     cannot and must not be afforded "Executive Privilege" or any other
     governmental immunity from defending this lawsuit as the "national
     security" interests of Plaintiff and the American People outweigh
     the "national security" interests of "individual Defendants" in
     this matter.[26]

          54.     In sum, on July 25, 2003, a report by a joint panel
     of House and Senate Intelligence Committees concluded that 9/11
     resulted from C.I.A. and F.B.I. "lapses." Defendant GWB is solely
     responsible as President of the United States of America for the
     "lapses" that resulted in the murder of Plaintiff's husband Louis
     Neil Mariani and must be held to answer by this Court to explain
     his failure to act and prevent the attacks of "911."

                                  Count IV

    Defendant GWB and his Administration were provided ample warning the
               "911" attacks were Imminent and Failed to Act

          55.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
     allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein at length.

          56.     Plaintiff asserts Defendant GWB received and ignored
     advance warnings of an imminent plan to hijack passenger airplanes
     and fly them into buildings in the United States and will be
     further supported by the actions of high cabinet officials who
     stopped flying commercial airliners leading up to the "911"

          57.     Plaintiff through reason and belief maintains the
     cloud of "secrecy" Defendant GWB and his subordinate advisors
     continue to engage in by not being forthright and honest with the
     United States Congress, its "911" hearings and now, the "911
     Commission" support her claim Defendants were provided ample
     warnings to prevent the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani.

          58.     Plaintiff believes and upon discovery and compelling
     of the release of Defendant CIA's July 2001, "Presidential Daily
     Briefing (PDB)" will clearly demonstrate Defendant GWB's lack of
     swift and decisive action during his story telling session at the
     school on the morning of "911" occurred for one reason --
     Defendant GWB knew the attacks would occur.[27]

          59.     Plaintiff asserts perhaps the single most damning
     indictment of Defendant GWB and all Defendants who failed to
     protect our nation on "911" was the failure of Defendants
     DOD/NORAD to follow normal military protocol to be followed as
     standard procedure. The following testimony of "911" victim family
     member Mindy Kleinberg, presented on March 31, 2003 before the
     "911 Commission" is so articulate that it stands with Plaintiff's
     "open letter" to Defendant GWB as cited at "A" and to support this

          "Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave
          clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything
          from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings. These
          `protocols' were in place and were practiced regularly for a
          good reason -- with heavily trafficked air space; airliners
          without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or
          calamities waiting to happen.

          Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency,
          the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes
          place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble
          fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter
          of routine procedure for fighter-jets to `intercept'
          commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the

          If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS
          (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was
          several days into a semi-annual exercise known as `Vigilant
          Guardian.' This meant that our North East Air Defense system
          was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the
          operation battle center, `fighter jets were cocked, loaded,
          and carrying extra gas on board.'

          Lucky for the terrorists that none of this mattered on the
          morning of September 11th. Let me illustrate using just
          flight 11 as an example:

          American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston's Logan
          Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between
          ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between
          8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground
          control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had
          deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter,
          transponder contact was lost -- (although planes can still be
          seen on radar -- even without their transponders).

          Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called
          American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of
          weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and
          crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that
          Flight 11 was an emergency.

          Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not
          contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the
          fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32
          minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

          Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was
          there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this
          possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the
          ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

          Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of
          delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets.
          Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this
          time, already hit the World Trade Center.

          Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets
          were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For
          example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were
          scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather
          than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result,
          Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning
          of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11 minutes
          after the first plane hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77
          crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles
          away. Why?

          So the hijackers' luck had continued. On September 11th both
          the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating
          procedures. Who were the people that delayed the
          notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the
          interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their
          maximum speed.

          "Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their
          maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached
          NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment,
          intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit
          their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives."

          60.     From the above public statement of Mindy Kleinberg,
     Plaintiff does not stand alone in her belief that Defendant GWB's
     and all subordinate Defendants in this action should be held to
     account for the worst attacks on our nation since Pearl Harbor
     leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including
     Plaintiff's husband Louis Neil Mariani. Mrs. Kleinberg has also
     voiced her support for Plaintiff in this cause of action and will
     be called as a favorable witness on behalf of Plaintiff at trial.

          61.     Plaintiff, with the assistance of other concerned
     Americans are actively involved in assisting with the production
     of facts and circumstances to set a prima facie case proving
     Defendant GWB knew of and failed to prevent the "911" attacks. The
     following "Pre-911" facts and circumstances provided by
     independent researcher Allan Duncan, a Citizen of the State of
     Pennsylvania are hereby provided verbatim to support Defendant
     GWB's pre-"911" knowledge the attacks would take place:

            A. Explicit warnings from foreign sources

                 1. 1999. The U.S. was warned by British intelligence
                    two years prior to "911" that terrorists were
                    planning to use airplanes in unconventional ways,
                    perhaps as bombs

                    In 1999, Britain's intelligence agency, M16, warned
                    the U.S. in a classified report that al Qaeda was
                    planning to use airplanes in an unconventional
                    manner to attack U.S. interests. No targets were
                    specified. The Times of London quoted a British
                    senior Foreign Office source saying, "The Americans
                    knew of plans to use commercial aircraft in
                    unconventional ways, possibly as flying bombs."
                    (cited in AFP 6-9-2002)

                 2. April to May 2001. U.S. government received
                    `specific' threats of terrorist attacks against
                    U.S. targets or interests

                    Condoleezza Rice admitted that the U.S. government
                    had received "specific" threats that "al Qaeda
                    attacks against U.S. targets or interests . . .
                    might be in the works. There was a clear concern
                    that something was up, . . . but it was principally
                    focused overseas. The areas of most concern were
                    the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula and Europe."
                    (cited in CNN 5-16-2002 "Timeline: Events leading
                    up to September 11") She did not elaborate on where
                    the intelligence originated, but the Independent of
                    London, reported that the information had been
                    relayed to Washington by British intelligence
                    sources. (Bennetto and Gumbel 5-18-2002)

                 3. June 6, 2001. German intelligence warned CIA

                    The German intelligence agency, the BND, warned
                    both the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern
                    terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial
                    aircraft to use as weapons to attack important
                    symbols of American and Israeli culture." This
                    intelligence reportedly came from Echelon, a
                    high-tech electronic surveillance system used by
                    the intelligence agencies of several nations to
                    glean through electronic communications for certain
                    keywords. It was first reported by the German daily
                    newspaper, Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung on
                    September 13. Its sources were reportedly from the
                    BND itself. (Stafford 9-13-2001; Thomas 5-21-2002)
                    According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002) of Global -
                    Intel, the original source of information actually
                    came from Israeli Mossad agents operating in the
                    U.S. who had infiltrated al Qaeda. According to his
                    account the Mossad also informed British and
                    Russian intelligence about the attacks, who then in
                    turn notified the CIA. Thomas's sources are
                    allegedly informants within the Mossad itself.

                 4. July 16, 2001. British intelligence sent a report
                    to Tony Blair warning of imminent attacks. The
                    report was also sent to Washington

                    The British Cabinet Office Joint Intelligence
                    Committee (JIC) sent a memo authored by the heads
                    of British intelligence agencies, MI6, MI5 and
                    GCHQ, to Tony Blair and other cabinet ministers,
                    warning that al Qaeda was in the final stages of
                    preparing for a terrorist attack. The memo
                    suggested that the attacks would likely be aimed at
                    American or Israeli targets. The report did not
                    indicate however that the agencies had any
                    knowledge with regards to the "timings, targets and
                    methods of attack." According to the Times of
                    London, the warning was "based on intelligence
                    gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US
                    agencies, including the CIA and the National
                    Security Agency, which has staff working jointly
                    with GCHQ." [Emphasis added] The newspaper added,
                    "The CIA sometimes has a representative on the JIC.
                    The contents of the July 16 warning would have been
                    passed to the Americans, Whitehall confirmed."
                    (Evans 6-14-2002)

                 5. June 23, 2001. Arabic News Network reported that
                    bin Laden had predicted a `severe blow' to the
                    United States.

                    "According to the June 23rd AirlineBiz.com report,
                    the Arabic satellite television network MBC claimed
                    that `the next two weeks will witness a big
                    surprise.' An MBC reporter who had met with bin
                    Laden in Afghanistan on June 21st predicted that `a
                    severe blow is expected against U.S. and Israeli
                    interests worldwide. There is a major state of
                    mobilization among the Osama bin Laden forces. It
                    seems that there is a race of who will strike
                    first. Will it be the United States or Osama bin
                    Laden?'" (Grigg 3-11-2002)

                 6. Summer 2001. Jordan's General Intelligence Division
                    (GID) warned Washington of an attack planned on the
                    U.S. mainland using aircraft.

                    According to John Cooley (5-21-2002), author of the
                    book, Unholy Wars: America, Afghanistan, and
                    International Terrorism, Jordan's intelligence
                    agency, GID, intercepted al Qaeda communications
                    indicating that a terrorist operation, code-named
                    `Al Ourush al Kabir' or `The Big Wedding,' was
                    being planned for within the U.S. and would involve
                    aircraft. Cooley confirmed the validity of this
                    warning. (see also Bubnov 5-24-2002)

                 7. Summer 2001. Iranian man warned U.S. authorities of
                    a planned terrorist attack during the week of
                    September 9, 2001

                    Online.ie reported "German police have confirmed an
                    Iranian man phoned US police from his deportation
                    cell to warn of the planned attack on the World
                    Trade Centre" during the week of September 9. He
                    reportedly called several times. Very little
                    information was given about the `Iranian man' other
                    than the fact that he was 28-years old. No other
                    news agencies independently reported the incident.
                    (Online.ie 9/14/01; cited in Anova 9-14-2001;
                    Ruppert 11-2-2001; 11-24-2001; 4-22-2002)

                 8. August 2001. Moroccan intelligence warned
                    Washington about "large scale-operations in New
                    York in the summer or autumn of 2001"

                    According to reports published in November 2001 by
                    a French magazine and a Moroccan newspaper,
                    Morocco's royal intelligence informed Washington
                    that one of its agents, who had penetrated al
                    Qaeda, learned that bin Laden's organization was
                    preparing "large operations in New York in the
                    summer or autumn of 2001." The agent, who is said
                    to be presently in the U.S. helping its
                    intelligence agencies, also informed Moroccan
                    intelligence that bin Laden was `very disappointed'
                    with the first WTC bombing which failed to bring
                    the two towers down. John Cooley (5-21-2002), who
                    reported this in the International Herald Tribune
                    wrote that as of 5-21-2002, he had not
                    independently verified this warning. (see also
                    Bubnov 5-24-2002)

                 9. August 2001. Israel warned U.S. about large-scale
                    attacks on the U.S. mainland

                    Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned
                    their counterparts in the United States last month
                    that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly
                    visible targets on the American mainland were
                    imminent." (Jacobson and Wastell 9-16-2001; Davis
                    9-17-2001; Stafford 9-13-2001; Serrano and
                    Thor-Dahlburg 9-20-2001; Martin 1-5-2002; Martin
                    1-16-2002) According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002),
                    this information was based on intelligence gleaned
                    from Israeli Mossad agents who had penetrated or
                    were spying on the al Qaeda operatives. Thomas's
                    sources are allegedly informants within the Mossad

                10. August 2001. Intelligence sources warned Argentine
                    Jewish leaders of imminent attacks

                    According to Argentine Jewish leaders, the Jewish
                    community in that country "received a warning about
                    an impending major terrorist attack against the
                    United States, Argentina or France just weeks
                    before September 11. Forward quoted Marta
                    Nercellas, a lawyer for the Delegación de
                    Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas, or DAIA,
                    Argentina's main Jewish representative body: "It
                    was a concrete warning that an attack of major
                    proportion would take place, and it came from a
                    reliable intelligence [source]. And I understand
                    the Americans were told about it." [Emphasis added]
                    (Forward 2-5-2002)

                11. August 24, 2001. Russian intelligence warned of
                    possible hijacking

                    Russian intelligence warned the CIA that 25
                    terrorist pilots were specifically training to
                    crash airliners into planned targets. This was
                    reported by the Russian Izveztia on September 12
                    and translated for From The Wilderness Magazine by
                    a former CIA officer. (cited from Ruppert
                    11-2-2001; see also Ruppert 11-24-2001; 4-22-2002;
                    Martin 1-5-2002; Martin 1-16-2002) According to
                    Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002) Russian intelligence
                    received this information from the Israeli Mossad.

                12. August 31, 2001. Egyptian president warned U.S.
                    that something was brewing

                    Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned the U.S.
                    that "something would happen" 12 days before the
                    terrorist attacks. (AP 12-7-2001; MacFarquhar and
                    Tyler 6-4-2002; Martin 1-5-2002). Egypt had also
                    warned the U.S. on June 13. (Martin 1-16-2002). The
                    U.S. intelligence denied that they had received
                    this information soon before the attacks and
                    instead alleged that the only warnings that had
                    been given to them from Egypt occurred between
                    March and May of 2001. (MacFarquhar and Tyler

                13. September 1, 2001. Russian intelligence warned the
                    U.S. again about `imminent attacks'

                    "Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian
                    intelligence to warn the U.S. government `in the
                    strongest possible terms' of imminent attacks on
                    airports and government buildings" (We do not have
                    a reference to the original source. See Ruppert
                    11-2-2001; 4-22-2002 based on MS-NBC interview with
                    Putin, September 15. See also Martin 1-16-2002;
                    Thomas 5-21-2002) According to Gordan Thomas
                    (5-21-2002) Russian intelligence received this
                    information from the Israeli Mossad.

                14. Early September 2001. Mossad chief warned CIA of
                    possibility of attacks

                    According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002), Mossad
                    Chief Efraim Halevy warned both the CIA and FBI of
                    the possibility of near term attacks. George Tenet
                    presumably thought that it was "too non specific."

                15. September 5-6, 2001

                    Commenting on the U.S. intelligence failure, the
                    French Le Monde reported: "The first lapse has to
                    do with the processing of intelligence items that
                    come out of Europe. According to our information,
                    French and American officials did in fact hold
                    important meetings in Paris from the 5th to the 6th
                    of September, that is, a few days prior to the
                    attacks. Those sessions brought representatives of
                    the American Special Services together with
                    officers of the DST (Directorate of Territorial
                    Security) and military personnel from the DGSE
                    (General Overseas Security Administration). Their
                    discussion turned to some of the serious threats
                    made against American interests in Europe,
                    specifically one targeting the U.S. Embassy in
                    Paris. During these talks, the DST directed the
                    American visitors' attention to a Moroccan-born
                    Frenchman who had been detained in the United
                    States since August 17 and who was considered to be
                    a key high-level Islamic fundamentalist. But the
                    American delegation, preoccupied above all with
                    questions of administrative procedure, paid no
                    attention to this `first alarm,' basically
                    concluding that they were going to take no one's
                    advice, and that an attack on American soil was
                    inconceivable. It took September 11 for the FBI to
                    show any real interest in this man, who we now know
                    attended two aviation training schools, as did at
                    least seven of the kamikaze terrorists." (cited in
                    Ridgeway 5-28-2002)

                16. September 7, 2001. Mossad chief warned CIA a second
                    time of possible attacks

                    According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002), Mossad
                    Chief Efraim Halevy sent another alert to the CIA
                    warning of possible terrorist attacks. The message
                    was received in Washington on September 7.

                17. September 3-10, 2001. Anonymous caller informed a
                    radio talk show that Osama bin Laden's organization
                    would be launching imminent attacks against the

                    "MSNBC reports on September 16 that a caller to a
                    Cayman Islands radio talk show gave several
                    warnings of an imminent attack on the U.S. by bin
                    Laden in the week prior to 9/11." (We do not have a
                    reference to the original source. See Ruppert

                18. September 10, 2001

                    U.S. intelligence intercepted conversations from al
                    Qaeda that were extremely specific. USA Today,
                    reported "Two U.S. intelligence officials,
                    paraphrasing highly classified intercepts, say they
                    include such remarks as, `Good things are coming,'
                    `Watch the news' and `Tomorrow will be a great day
                    for us.'" [Emphasis added] This information was
                    contained with 13,000 pages of material from the
                    National Security Agency that was handed over to
                    the Congressional 9-11 inquiry. It is unclear when
                    these intercepts were reviewed by U.S.
                    intelligence. They may not have been reviewed until
                    after 9-11. (Diamond 6-3-2002)

                19. September 11, 2001. Employees at Odigo Inc,
                    received warnings predicting the attacks hours
                    before they happened

                    The Israeli company, Odigo, Inc. was apparently
                    warned two hours before the attacks. Odigo CEO
                    Micha Macover told the Ha'aretz that `two workers
                    received the messages predicting the attack would
                    happen.' The FBI was quickly notified but it is
                    presently not clear if U.S. authorities are still
                    investigating the incident. The company's offices
                    in Israel are located suspiciously near the Israeli
                    Institute for Counter Terrorism which broke story
                    of the insider trading scam on 9-11. (McWilliams
                    9-28-2001; Seberg 9-28-2001; Ruppert 2-11-2002;

            B. Evidence that U.S. authorities were concerned

                 1. 1994. FBI videotaped an informant being recruited
                    as a suicide bomber by two men, one of whom was
                    linked to Osama bin Laden

                    Summarizing a letter written by former FBI Special
                    Agent James Hauswirth, the Los Angeles Times wrote,
                    "The 27-year FBI veteran said in the letter
                    reviewed by the Los Angeles Times that the Phoenix
                    office had evidence of Islamic potential terrorists
                    operating in the region as far back as 1994. That
                    year, two men were videotaped by FBI agents
                    recruiting a Phoenix FBI informant as a suicide
                    bomber, the letter says. One of those men,
                    according to a source, was linked to a terrorist in
                    the 1993 World Trade Center bombing." (Los Angeles
                    Times 5-27-2002)

                 2. 1996-2001. The FBI was investigating suspected
                    terrorists enrolled in flight schools

                    In 1996, after the Philippine police had discovered
                    the 'Bojinka' plot (see above), US officials began
                    investigating al Qaeda terrorist suspects who were
                    training in U.S. flight schools. "Since 1996, the
                    FBI had been developing evidence that international
                    terrorists were using US flight schools to learn to
                    fly jumbo jets. A foiled plot in Manila to blow up
                    U.S. airliners and later court testimony by an
                    associate of bin Laden had touched off FBI
                    inquiries at several schools, officials say."
                    (cited in Fairnaru and Grimaldi 9-23-2001; Martin
                    1-16-2002; Shelon 5-18-2002)

                 3. 1996 or 1997. FBI Counter terrorist specialist John
                    O'Neil warned of terrorist capabilities

                    Soon after the late John O'Neil had become head of
                    the FBI's New York unit, he warned, "A lot of these
                    groups now have the capability and the support
                    infrastructure in the United States to attack us
                    here if they choose to." (Loeb 9-12-2002) John
                    O'Neil, who was described as one of the FBI's `most
                    pugnacious' agents, resigned from the FBI shortly
                    before 9-11. He subsequently took a position as
                    head of the WTC security, where he is believed to
                    have died on the day of the attacks while
                    attempting to rescue other people in the towers.
                    September 11 had been his first day on the job.
                    (Loeb 9-12-2002) John O'Neil had complained that
                    the Bush administration had impeded his
                    investigations into suspected Saudi terrorists.
                    (Brisard and Dasquie 2001 in Godoy 11-16-2001;
                    Marlowe 11-19-2001)

                 4. 1997. FBI was investigating Middle Eastern flight
                    school students in Phoenix

                    Summarizing a letter written by former FBI Special
                    Agent James Hauswirth, the Los Angeles Times wrote:
                    "In 1998, the office's international terrorism
                    squad investigated a possible Middle Eastern
                    extremist taking flight lessons at a Phoenix
                    airport, wrote Hauswirth, who retired from the FBI
                    in 1999." (Los Angeles Times 5-27-2002)

                 5. 1998. The FAA issued a warning that al Qaeda may
                    attempt to hijack commercial airlines

                    Federal Aviation Administration warned airlines to
                    be on a `high degree of alertness' against possible
                    hijackings by members of Osama bin Laden's
                    organizations. (AP 5-26-2002). May 18, 1998. FBI
                    memo observed that an `unusually' large number of
                    Middle Eastern men were attending flight schools.
                    The memo revealed that an Oklahoma FBI pilot had
                    warned his supervisor "that he has observed large
                    numbers of Middle Eastern males receiving flight
                    training at Oklahoma airports in recent months."
                    The FBI pilot further observed, "This is a recent
                    phenomena and may be related to planned terrorist
                    activity." (Washington 5-30-2002)

                 6. 199? - 2001. According to anonymous sources it was
                    widely known that important warnings were being

                    The New American magazine interviewed three federal
                    law enforcement agents who confirmed that the FBI
                    had foreknowledge of the attacks. They spoke only
                    on conditions of anonymity, although two of them
                    told the magazine that they would be willing to
                    testify to Congress. One agent stated that it was
                    widely known "all over the Bureau, how these
                    [warnings] were ignored by Washington . . . All
                    indications are that this information came from
                    some of [the Bureau's] most experienced guys,
                    people who have devoted their lives to this kind of
                    work. But their warnings were placed in a pile in
                    someone's office in Washington . . . In some cases,
                    these field agents predicted, almost precisely,
                    what happened on September 11th. So we were all
                    holding our breath . . . hoping that the situation
                    would be remedied." [Emphasis added] (cited in
                    Grigg 3-11-2002)

                 7. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 2001 report

                    The New York Times reported, "The Federal Aviation
                    Administration published a report called Criminal
                    Acts Against Aviation on its Web site in 2001
                    before the hijackings that said that although Osama
                    bin Laden 'is not known to have attacked civil
                    aviation, he has both the motivation and the
                    wherewithal to do so.' It added, `Bin Laden's
                    anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him
                    and his followers a significant threat to civil
                    aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation'."
                    (Martin 1-16-2002; Sanger and Bumiller 5-17-2002)

                 8. Early 2001. Court proceedings revealed that al
                    Qaeda operatives were training in American flight

                    In early 2001, the trial of four men accused of
                    being involved in the embassy bombings in Kenya and
                    Tanzania revealed that members of bin Laden's
                    network had received flying lessons in Texas and
                    Oklahoma. (USA vs. Usama bin Laden et al.; Foden
                    9-13-2001; Martin 1-16-2002)

                 9. January-February 2001. Case of Hani Hanjour

                    During his attendance at an Arizona flight school,
                    Hani Hanjour arose the suspicion of flight
                    instructor Peggy Chevrette, who felt that Hani both
                    lacked the skill and English for the pilot license
                    he already had. She repeatedly called FAA
                    authorities, who sent one of their inspectors, John
                    Anthony, to look into her concerns. In spite of the
                    fact that FAA guidelines clearly stipulate that
                    fluency in English is required for a U.S.
                    commercial pilot's license, the FAA inspector,
                    according to Chevrette, suggested Hanjour be
                    provided with a translator. Even after Anthony had
                    visited the school, the flight instructor continued
                    calling the FAA twice more with concerns that he
                    didn't have the skills needed to have a license.
                    Hani Hanjour left the school before completing the
                    program. (MSNBC 5-10-2002) The flight school,
                    JetTech, closed after September 11. Sources did not
                    explain why. In addition to the suspicion that he
                    arose at the flight school, he also caught the
                    attention of an FBI informant. Aukai Collins told
                    ABC news that he was an FBI informant for four
                    years. He claims that in 1996, he provided the FBI
                    with very specific information about Hani,
                    including "his exact address, his phone number and
                    even what car he drove." While the FBI admitted
                    that Collins had been an informant, they
                    `emphatically denied' that he had tipped the agency
                    off to Hani Hanjour. (ABC News 5-23-2002)

                10. February 2001. Warning from George Tenet: bin Laden
                    and al Qaeda are the most serious threat to the
                    U.S. and they intend to inflict mass casualties

                    In February of 2001, CIA Director George Tenet
                    warned that bin Laden should be considered the
                    "most immediate and serious threat" to the U.S. and
                    added, "As we have increased security around
                    government and military facilities, terrorists are
                    seeking out `softer' targets that provide
                    opportunities for mass casualties." (cited in CNN
                    5-16-2002 "Timeline: Events leading up to September
                    11"; Cornwell 5-25-2002)

                11. Summer 2001. Former chief investigative counsel
                    warned U.S. Justice Department that FBI believed
                    terrorists were planning to attack lower Manhattan

                      a. David Shippers, a Chicago attorney who had
                         been the chief investigative counsel in the
                         attempted impeachment of Clinton, warned the
                         U.S. Justice Department that a massive
                         terrorist attack had been planned for lower
                         Manhattan based on what FBI agents from
                         Chicago and Minnesota had told him. His
                         warning was shunned by officials, one of which
                         stated, "We don't start our investigations at
                         the top." (cited in Grigg 3-11-2002)

                      b. During an October 10, 2001 radio interview, he
                         revealed that he had warned "Attorney General
                         John Ashcroft and Speaker of the House Dennis
                         Hastert that he had proof from a credible
                         source (that he has still not revealed) about
                         a plot to use hijacked commercial airliners to
                         ram the White House and Capitol." (Chin

                      c. On May 30 2002, one of Shipper's sources in
                         the FBI, Special Agent Robert Wright disclosed
                         in a testimony broadcasted on C-SPAN that FBI
                         officials and other agents had `stymied' his
                         own investigations into suspected terrorists.
                         (Horrock 5-30-2002)

                12. Summer 2001. The `threat assessment'

                    On July 26 2001, CBS News reported that Attorney
                    General John Ashcroft was no longer using
                    commercial airliners to travel -- even for personal
                    business -- because of a "threat assessment" issued
                    by the FBI. Instead Ashcroft was using a chartered
                    jet that cost taxpayers $1,600/hr to fly. The news
                    network further reported: "Neither the FBI nor the
                    Justice Department, however, would identify what
                    the threat was, when it was detected or who made
                    it." (CBS News 7-26-2001)

                13. June 2001. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
                    June circular

                    According to ABC sources the FAA distributed a
                    circular in June of 2001 that stated, "Although we
                    have no specific information that this threat is
                    directed at civil aviation, the potential for
                    terrorist operations, such as an airline hijacking
                    to free terrorists incarcerated in the U.S. remains
                    a concern." (ABC 5-17-2002; Hersh and Isikoff
                    5-27-2002) According to Newsweek's sources, 10-12
                    such circulars were issued to U.S. airports between
                    June 11 and September 11 (Hersh and Isikoff
                    5-27-2002). One of the circulars reportedly warned
                    of possible hijackings on flights originating from
                    East Coast airports. (Salant 5-26-2002)

                14. June 9, 2001. Internal FBI memo

                    Special Agent Robert Wright wrote a memo on June 9
                    warning the FBI that the Bureau's failure to take
                    decisive action against known terrorist suspects
                    operating within the country would likely result in
                    the loss of American lives. Parts of the memo read,
                    "Knowing what I know, I can confidently say that
                    until the investigative responsibilities for
                    terrorism are transferred from the FBI, I will not
                    feel safe. The FBI has proven for the past decade
                    it cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism
                    against the United States and its citizens at home
                    and abroad. Even worse, there is virtually no
                    effort on the part of the FBI's International
                    Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected
                    international terrorists living in the United
                    States. Unfortunately, more terrorist attacks
                    against American interests -- coupled with the loss
                    of American lives -- will have to occur before
                    those in power give this matter the urgent
                    attention it deserves." (cited in Johnson

                15. July 2, 2001. FBI memo

                    FBI issued a memo stating, "There are threats to be
                    worried about overseas. While we cannot foresee
                    attacks domestically, we cannot rule them out."
                    (cited in CNN 5-16-2002 "Timeline: Events leading
                    up to September 11")

                16. July 3, 2001. Federal investigators learned
                    significant intelligence from Ahmed Ressam, and al
                    Qaeda operative who had planned to bomb Los Angeles

                    Newsweek reported, "After he was convicted in the
                    spring of 2001, Ressam started giving investigators
                    detailed information on Al Qaeda's designs in the
                    United States. He left no doubt that U.S. airports
                    were a prime target "because an airport is
                    sensitive politically and economically," as Ressam
                    said in Court on July 3. (Hirsh and Isikoff

                17. July 10, 2001. Internal FBI memo warned that men
                    with suspected ties to terrorist groups were
                    training in Arizona flight schools

                      a. On July 10 of 2001, FBI agent Kenneth Williams
                         in Arizona sent a memo from the Phoenix FBI
                         office to the radical fundamentalist
                         anti-terrorism unit (which was aware of the
                         Moussaoui case -- see below) in the Bureau's
                         Washington headquarters warning that several
                         Arab men with suspected ties to terrorist
                         groups were training at Embry-Riddle
                         Aeronautical University in Arizona. (Solomon
                         5-3-2002; Risen 5-4-2002; Johnston 5-15-2002;
                         Hersh and Isikoff 5-27-2002; Johnston and van
                         Natta 5-21-2002; Cornwell 5-25-2002; Lumkin

                      b. Interestingly, the memo mentioned Osama bin
                         Laden by name and speculated that his
                         organization may be attempting to infiltrate
                         the U.S. aviation industry with pilots,
                         security guards, and maintenance workers.
                         (Johnston 5-15-2002). Williams had associated
                         the flight school students with al Qaeda based
                         on a link he had established between several
                         of the students and the London-based militant
                         Muslim group, al-Muhajiroun, whose leader was
                         an open supporter of bin Laden (Seper
                         5-23-2002; AP 5-23-2002). One Senator who had
                         read the memo told reporters, "I will tell
                         you, though, that although he didn't come up
                         with the exact Sept. 11 scenario, what he
                         presents in that memo was so close to the fact
                         pattern that emerged on Sept. 11 that, as you
                         read it, it just takes your breath away." (De
                         la Garza 5-23-2002). William's concerns were
                         spurned in part with interviews he had
                         conducted with the Arab students who had
                         demonstrated extreme anti-American views
                         (Johnston and van Natta 5-22-2002; Mitchell

                      c. The memorandum also made some suggestions
                         about possible recourses of action. It stated,
                         "Phoenix believes that the F.B.I. should
                         accumulate a listing of civil aviation
                         universities/colleges around the
                         country.F.B.I. field offices with these types
                         of schools in their area should establish
                         appropriate liaison. F.B.I. HQ should discuss
                         this matter with other elements of the U.S.
                         intelligence community and task the community
                         for any information that supports Phoenix's
                         suspicions." No action was taken. (cited in
                         Solomon 5-3-2002; Risen 5-4-2002)

                18. July 18, 2001. FBI memo

                    The memo stated, "We're concerned about threats as
                    a result of the millennium plot conviction. . . .
                    There's no specific target, no credible info of
                    attacks to U.S. civil aviation interests, but
                    terror groups are known to be planning and training
                    for hijackings, and we ask you therefore to use
                    caution." (cited in CNN 5-16-2002 "Timeline: Events
                    leading up to September 11")

                19. August 6, 2001. Memo ("The Smoking Gun RICO Act
                    Obstruction of Justice Claim") (emphasis added).

                      a. On August 6, President George Bush received an
                         intelligence briefing, titled "BIN LADEN
                         DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE U.S." that warned
                         that bin Laden may attempt to hijack airplanes
                         and that the Saudi millionaire's terrorist
                         organization wanted "to bring the fight to
                         America." This information was relayed to Bush
                         after he had previously been supplied with
                         intelligence of a more generalized quality
                         that had indicated that al Qaeda was planning
                         to attack the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.
                         (Eggen and Woodward 5-18-2002; CBS News
                         5-16-2002; Boncombe 5-19-2002).

                      b. An intelligence officer told CBS News
                         (5-16-2002) that a hijacking "was among the
                         many things that we talked about all the time
                         as a potential terrorist threat. But when we
                         talked about hijackings, we talked about that
                         in the traditional sense of hijackings, not in
                         the sense of somebody hijacking an aircraft
                         and flying it into a building. We talked about
                         concern about the general noise level about al
                         Qaeda planning and we were trying to figure
                         out what they would do. We never had specifics
                         about time, place, MO (method of operation)."

                      c. Dan Eggen and Bob Woodward (5-18-2002; see
                         also Buncombe 5-19-2002) of The Washington
                         Post revealed that according to their sources,
                         the August 6 briefing had been a result of
                         Bush's request for "an intelligence analysis
                         of possible al Qaeda attacks within the United
                         States, because most of the information
                         presented to him over the summer about al
                         Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets
                         overseas." Furthermore they noted that the
                         content of the memo, as described by their
                         sources, "was focused primarily on a
                         discussion of possible domestic targets." This
                         stands in stark contrast with what Condoleezza
                         Rice had told reporters when she said that the
                         memo had focused primarily on threats to U.S.
                         interests abroad. Additionally, the two
                         reporters questioned the truthfulness of a
                         statement given by Ari Fleischer. Whereas The
                         Washington Post's sources insisted that the
                         title of the memo was "Bin Laden determined to
                         strike in America," Fleischer had stated that
                         the title was "Bin Laden determined to strike
                         America." The source of the terrorist threats
                         contained in the August 6 memo reportedly came
                         from British intelligence. (Bennetto and
                         Gumbel 5-18-2002)

                      d. Commenting on the disturbing revelation, The
                         New York Times pondered, "It was not clear
                         this evening why the White House waited eight
                         months after the terrorist attacks in New York
                         and Washington to reveal what Mr. Bush had
                         been told." (Sanger 5-16-2002)

                20. August 2001. The Case of Zacarias Moussaoui

                      a. In August of 2001 the FBI was warned by a
                         flight instructor in Oklahoma that an Arab
                         student he was training could be a terrorist.
                         The FBI responded to the lead only after
                         receiving repeated calls from the instructor.
                         He was arrested, but not intensely
                         investigated until after 9-11, at which point
                         it was discovered that he would have taken
                         part in the 9-11 hijackings had he not been

                      b. During the summer of 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui
                         enrolled in a Pan Am flight school in Eagon,
                         Minnesota. He paid his $6,300 tuition in cash.
                         (Eggen 1-2-2002; Martin 5-27-2002) After a
                         short period of taking flight lessons at the
                         school, it became obvious to the instructor
                         that Zacarias had little hope of becoming a
                         pilot. Additionally, the student's odd
                         behavior arose suspicions. He was notably
                         unfriendly and insisted on training to fly a
                         Boeing 747 despite the fact that he had little
                         experience with even small planes. (Eggen
                         1-2-2002; Barnett et al. 9-30-2001; Martin
                         1-5-2002; Martin 5-27-2002) The instructor
                         notified the FBI, conveying his suspicions
                         that Moussaoui might be a terrorist. It is not
                         clear how quickly and competently the FBI
                         responded because the accounts vary.

                      c. On August 16, Moussaoui was detained for
                         immigration violations. Here are some
                         important aspects of the investigation that

                           1. FBI was immediately suspicious.
                              Investigators immediately suspected that
                              Moussaoui was a terrorist. (Rowley
                              5-21-2002; Eggen 1-2-2002)

                           2. French intelligence revealed that
                              Moussaoui was possibly an al Qaeda
                              operative. The FBI contacted the CIA and
                              requested that a background check be
                              performed on Moussaoui. On August 26,
                              French intelligence informed the CIA that
                              Moussaoui had radical Islamic beliefs and
                              indicated that his friend had fought in
                              Chechnya with a group known to have ties
                              to Osama bin Laden. The CIA relayed this
                              information to the FBI. (Rowley
                              5-21-2002; United Press International
                              9-14-2001; Gordon 12-21-2001; Eggen
                              1-2-2002; Margasak 5-24-2002; Risen
                              5-25-2002; Ridgeway 5- 28-2002)

                           3. Investigators discovered he had
                              previously trained at the same flight
                              school where another known terrorist had
                              attended. Investigators learned about his
                              lessons at the Airman Flight school in
                              Norman, Oklahoma where he had been deemed
                              such a poor pilot that he had not been
                              allowed to fly the small planes by
                              himself. (Eggen 1-2-2002; Martin
                              1-5-2002) This is the same flight school,
                              where Abdul Hakim Murad had trained in
                              preparation for an attack on the CIA
                              headquarters. This plan had been revealed
                              in 1996 when Murad testified in Court
                              during the trial of Ramzi Ahmed Yusef,
                              the man who had been behind the 1993
                              bombing of the WTC. After 9-11,
                              authorities discovered that several of
                              the 9-11 hijackers had trained there.
                              (Martin 1-5-2002; Shelon 5-18-2002; Lewis

                           4. Personal notes written by a Minneapolis
                              agent had speculated that perhaps
                              Moussaoui was planning to "fly something
                              into the World Trade Center." Newsweek
                              reported, "When agents learned, from
                              French intelligence, that he had radical
                              Islamic ties, they sought a
                              national-security warrant to search his
                              computer -- and got turned down. From his
                              e-mail traffic they found he wanted to
                              learn to fly a 747 from London's Heathrow
                              to New York's JFK. The agents held
                              `brainstorming' sessions to try to figure
                              out what targets might be en route. The
                              agents were `in a frenzy,' `absolutely
                              convinced he was planning to do something
                              with a plane,' said a senior official"
                              (cited in Isikoff 5-20-2002; see also
                              Johnston 5-15-2002) During this
                              brainstorming session, one of the agents
                              wrote in the margins of his notes that
                              perhaps Moussaoui was planning to
                              "fly-something into the World Trade
                              Center." (cited in Isikoff 5-20-2002; see
                              also Johnston 5-15-2002; Cloud, Fields,
                              and Power 5-20-2002) His notes were
                              included in an internal report that did
                              not leave the Minnesota office. (Cloud,
                              Fields, and Power 5-20-2002)

                           5. Investigators were denied a warrant to
                              search Moussaoui's computer hard drive.
                              The request for a search warrant was
                              handled by lawyers at FBI headquarters
                              and other FBI officials, who denied the
                              request citing insufficient evidence.
                              (Rowley 5-21-2002; Cloud, Fields, and
                              Power 5-20-2002; Eggen 5-27-2002) At the
                              same time the FBI was trying to secure a
                              warrant, the U.S. attorney's office was
                              also attempting to receive permission to
                              access Moussaoui's hard drive from the
                              Justice Department, which also turned
                              down the request. (Gordon 10-3-2002) Even
                              more interesting, the FBI office that was
                              communicating with Minneapolis was the
                              same one that had received the July 10
                              `Phoenix memo.' (CNN 5-27-2002; Martin
                              5-27-2002) According to a 13-page letter
                              sent by senior FBI agent and general
                              counsel in the Minneapolis office,
                              Colleen Rowley, senior officials at FBI
                              headquarters provided a formidable
                              barrier to further investigating the
                              Moussaoui. (Rowley 5-21-2002; Risen and
                              Johnston 5-24-2002; Martin 5-27-2002;
                              Meyers 5-28-2002; Eggen 5-27-2002) In
                              fact the Minneapolis agent went so far as
                              to accuse headquarters of altering the
                              search warrant application. The New York
                              Times reported, "Officials who have seen
                              Ms. Rowley's letter say it accuses the
                              supervisor of altering the application to
                              play down the significance of information
                              provided by French intelligence officials
                              about Mr. Moussaoui's links to Islamic
                              extremists," making "it all but
                              impossible to convince the F.B.I.'s
                              national security lawyers to pursue court
                              authorization for the search." (Rowley
                              5-21-2002; Risen 5-24-2002; see also
                              Lumkin 5-25-2002; Martin 5-27-2002; Eggen

                           6. The Minneapolis FBI office went behind
                              the backs of their superiors to the CIA
                              for help investigating Moussaoui. The New
                              York Times reported, "Ms. Rowley
                              contended. Ms. Rowley said Minneapolis
                              agents became so frustrated by inaction
                              at F.B.I. headquarters at one point that
                              they went directly to the Central
                              Intelligence Agency for help in building
                              their case against Mr. Moussaoui. Going
                              behind the backs of their superiors was a
                              breach of bureau protocol, and officials
                              at headquarters reprimanded the
                              Minneapolis agents, the officials said."
                              (Risen and Johnston 5-24-2002; see also
                              Risen 5-24-2002; Cornwell 5-25-2002;
                              Oliphant 6-2-2002) The AP received
                              excerpts of Ms. Rowley's letter, which
                              read, "When, in a desperate 11th-hour
                              measure to bypass the FBI HQ roadblock,
                              the Minneapolis division undertook to
                              directly notify the CIA's counter
                              terrorist center, FBI HQ personnel
                              chastised the Minneapolis agents for
                              making the direct notification without
                              their approval." (Rowley 5-21-2002; cited
                              in Margasak and Solomon 5-24-2002; Martin

                           7. After the attacks, authorities searched
                              his hard drive, which had important
                              information. Immediately after the
                              attacks the warrant was granted.
                              Interestingly, the FBI was granted the
                              search warrant based on information that
                              did not include the intelligence that had
                              been supplied by France (Rowley
                              5-21-2002). The files on the hard drive
                              revealed information about jetliners,
                              crop dusters, and wind currents (Eggen
                              1-2-2002; Martin 1-5-2002). Within hours,
                              Moussaoui was traced to bin Laden (Gordon
                              5-19-2002) and linked to Khalid Almihdhar
                              and Nawaf Alhazmi, two other 9-11
                              hijackers. (Gordon 5-19-2002; Isikoff and
                              Klaidman 6-10-2002)

                           8. Minneapolis FBI agent, Colleen Rowley,
                              took issue with Mueller's assertion that
                              had the Minneapolis office received the
                              warrant that nothing could have been done
                              to prevent the attacks. In her letter to
                              Mueller, she wrote: "The official
                              statement is now to the effect that even
                              if the FBI had followed up on the Phoenix
                              lead to conduct checks of flight schools
                              and the Minneapolis request to search
                              Moussaoui's personal effects and laptop,
                              nothing would have changed and such
                              actions certainly could not have
                              prevented the terrorist attacks and
                              resulting loss of life. With all due
                              respect, this statement is as bad as the
                              first! . . . I don't know how you or
                              anyone at FBI Headquarters, no matter how
                              much genius or prescience you may
                              possess, could so blithely make this
                              affirmation without anything to back the
                              opinion up than your stature as FBI
                              Director. The truth is, as with most
                              predictions into the future, no one will
                              ever know what impact, if any, the FBI's
                              following up on those requests, would
                              have had. Although I agree that it's very
                              doubtful that the full scope of the
                              tragedy could have been prevented, it's
                              at least possible we could have gotten
                              lucky and uncovered one or two more of
                              the terrorists in flight training prior
                              to September 11th, just as Moussaoui was
                              discovered, after making contact with his
                              flight instructors. It is certainly not
                              beyond the realm of imagination to
                              hypothesize that Moussaoui's fortuitous
                              arrest alone, even if he merely was the
                              20th hijacker, allowed the hero
                              passengers of Flight 93 to overcome their
                              terrorist hijackers and thus spare more
                              lives on the ground. And even greater
                              casualties, possibly of our Nation's
                              highest government officials, may have
                              been prevented if Al Qaeda intended for
                              Moussaoui to pilot an entirely different
                              aircraft. There is, therefore at least
                              some chance that discovery of other
                              terrorist pilots prior to September 11th
                              may have limited the September 11th
                              attacks and resulting loss of life."
                              (Rowley 5-20-2002; Martin 5-27-2002;
                              Eggen 5-27-2002; Oliphant 6-2-2002) After
                              the publication of a significant portion
                              of Rowley's letter, Robert Mueller III
                              admitted that had the FBI responded
                              differently to the warnings, the 9-11
                              attacks might have been averted. (Lewis
                              5-30-2002; Oliphant 6-2-2002)

                           9. Immediately after the attacks,
                              Minneapolis agents `joked' that FBI
                              headquarters must have spies or moles
                              working for Osama bin Laden. In the
                              endnotes of her letter, Colleen Rowley
                              explained: "During the early aftermath of
                              September 11th, when I happened to be
                              recounting the pre-September 11th events
                              concerning the Moussaoui investigation to
                              other FBI personnel in other divisions or
                              in FBI HQ, almost everyone's first
                              question was `Why? -- Why would an FBI
                              agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case?'
                              (I know I shouldn't be flippant about
                              this, but jokes were actually made that
                              the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies
                              or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were
                              actually working for Osama Bin Laden to
                              have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)"
                              (Rowley 5-21-2002; Martin 5-27-2002;
                              Meyer 5-28-2002).

                21. August 23, 2001. CIA memo: the case of Kahlil
                    Almihdar and Nawaf Alhamzi

                    On August 23, the CIA issued an urgent alert that
                    put two men known to have ties to al Qaeda, Khalid
                    Almihdar and Nawaf Alhamzi on a `watch list.' Post
                    9-11 investigations revealed that the CIA had long
                    been aware that these two hijackers were connected
                    to al Qaeda and had entered the U.S. in January of
                    2000. It was further revealed that the CIA did not
                    notify the FBI, INS, or the State Department at
                    that time, but instead waited until just 19 days
                    before the terrorist attacks. Here is a timeline of
                    events relating to these two men:

                      a. Late December of 1999. The CIA discovered
                         through communications surveillance on an al
                         Qaeda safe house in Yemen that Muslim radicals
                         with ties to al Qaeda, including Kahlil
                         Almihdar and Nawaf Alhamzi, would be meeting
                         together in a condo in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
                         The safe house was owned by the Yemeni bin
                         Laden supporter, Ahmed al-Hada, who was the
                         father-in-law of Kahlil Almihdar. The CIA
                         notified Malaysian intelligence, the Special
                         Branch, and requested that an agent follow and
                         take pictures of the men during their stay in
                         Kuala Lumpur. (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002;
                         Becker and Johnston 6-3-2002; Scotsman
                         6-3-2002; Price 6-3-2002; Eggen and Pincus

                      b. January 15, 2000. On January 15, shortly after
                         the January 6 meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Nawaf
                         Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar (Almihdhar had
                         obtained a multiple-entry visa) arrived at New
                         York's JFK airport. While the CIA was
                         immediately aware of Almihdhar's arrival, they
                         reportedly did not learn of Alhazmi's presence
                         until March 2000 when they received word from
                         a foreign intelligence agency (Isikoff and
                         Klaidman 6-10-2002; Becker and Johnston
                         6-3-2002; Scotsman 6-3-2002). Though the CIA
                         reportedly passed on this intelligence to the
                         FBI via e-mail (Risen 6-3-2002; Eggen and
                         Pincus 6-4-2002), the correspondence left out
                         key information, such as the fact that the two
                         men had been linked to the Cole bombing and
                         that they had visited the U.S. Moreover, the
                         information was never relayed to the INS or
                         the U.S. State Department (Risen 6-3-2002).
                         The CIA just let them breeze right into the
                         U.S. despite the fact that "as 2000 dawned,
                         U.S. law-enforcement agencies were on red
                         alert, certain that a bin Laden strike
                         somewhere in the world could come at any
                         moment." And once these two men were safely in
                         the country, no government agency monitored
                         their activities or their whereabouts (Isikoff
                         and Klaidman 6-10-2002).

                      c. January 15, ???? Malaysian authorities
                         continued to monitor the Kuala Lumpur condo,
                         but notably, the CIA lost interest. Newsweek
                         reported that had the CIA followed up in
                         events in Malaysia, they would have been led
                         to Zacarias Moussaoui. The magazine reported:
                         "Had agents kept up the surveillance, they
                         might have observed another beneficiary of
                         Sufaat's charity: Zacarias Moussaoui, who
                         stayed there on his way to the United States
                         later that year. The Malaysians say they were
                         surprised by the CIA's lack of interest
                         following the Kuala Lumpur meeting. `We
                         couldn't fathom it, really,' Rais Yatim,
                         Malaysia's Legal Affairs minister, told
                         NEWSWEEK. `There was no show of concern.'"
                         (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002)

                      d. September 2000. "Alhazmi opened a $3,000
                         checking account at a Bank of America branch.
                         The men also used their real names on driver's
                         licenses, Social Security cards and credit
                         cards. When Almihdhar bought a dark blue 1988
                         Toyota Corolla for $3,000 cash, he registered
                         it in his name. (He later signed the
                         registration over to Alhazmi, whose name was
                         on the papers when the car was found at Dulles
                         International Airport on September 11.)"
                         (Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002)

                      e. October 2000. In the aftermath of the Cole
                         bombing the subsequent investigations led to a
                         one-legged al Qaeda fighter by the name of
                         Tawfiq bin Attash. When the CIA pulled a file
                         on him they "discovered pictures of him taken
                         at the Kuala Lumpur meeting. In one of the
                         shots, he is standing next to Almihdhar . . .
                         yet the agency still did nothing and notified
                         no one" with regards to Almihdhar whom the CIA
                         knew had been in the U.S. (Isikoff and
                         Klaidman 6-10-2002; Eggen and Pincus 6-4-2002)

                      f. Mid-to late 2000 until July 4, 2001. Almidhar
                         left the U.S. and spent the next few months in
                         the Middle East and Southeast Asia. When it
                         came time for him to return, his visa had
                         already expired. This apparently was not a
                         problem. He simply went to a consulate in
                         Saudi Arabia and received a new one and on
                         July 4, 2001 he returned to the U.S., arriving
                         in New York City's JFK Airport. (Isikoff and
                         Klaidman 6-10-2002; Drogin, Lichtblau, and
                         Krikorian 10-18-2002; see also Martin
                         1-18-2002; Price 6-3-2002)

                      g. Early 2001. After two unsuccessful experiences
                         at two California flight schools, Alhazmi went
                         to Phoenix for additional training. While in
                         Phoenix, he met up with Hani Hanjour, another
                         9-11 hijacker. (Isikoff and Klaidman

                      h. August 23. Presumably spurred into action by
                         the numerous explicit and implicit warnings of
                         imminent terrorist attacks, CIA Director
                         George Tenet had his staff look through the
                         files for any possible terrorists. It was
                         immediately discovered that both Almihdhar and
                         Alhazmi were in the U.S. (Isikoff and Klaidman
                         6-10-2002; Becker and Johnston 6-3-2002;
                         Scotsman 6-3-2002; Price 6-3-2002) By that
                         time, the two were confirmed to have links to
                         Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives (Drogin,
                         Lichtblau, and Krikorian 10-18-2002).
                         According to Newsweek, that same day, the CIA
                         "sent out an urgent cable, labeled IMMEDIATE,
                         to the State Department, Customs, INS and FBI,
                         telling them to put the two men on the
                         terrorism watch list (Isikoff and Klaidman
                         6-10-2002; Becker and Johnston 6-3-2002;
                         Scotsman 6-3-2002). Although the FBI denied
                         that the cable was labeled urgent, agents
                         quickly set out on the trail to locate the two
                         men, which of course they failed to do. As it
                         turned out, both of the men had been living in
                         San Diego and Alhazmi's real name was listed
                         in the phone book. The Los Angeles Times
                         reported, "that a simple check of public
                         records and addresses from the California
                         Department of Motor Vehicles would have shown
                         the FBI that Almihdhar and Alhazmi had been
                         living at a series of addresses in the San
                         Diego area." (Drogin, Lichtblau, and Krikorian
                         10-18-2001; Isikoff and Klaidman 6-10-2002;
                         see also Martin 1-18-2002; Scotsman 6-3-2002).
                         A Newsweek article concluded:

                              "The FBI's claim that it could have
                              unraveled the plot by watching Alhazmi
                              and Almihdhar, and connecting the dots
                              between them and the other terrorists,
                              seems compelling.

                              The links would not have been difficult
                              to make: Alhazmi met up with Hanjour, the
                              Flight 77 pilot, in Phoenix in late 2000;
                              six months later, in May 2001, the two
                              men showed up in New Jersey and opened
                              shared bank accounts with two other
                              plotters, Ahmed Alghamdi and Majed Moqed.
                              The next month, Alhazmi helped two other
                              hijackers, Salem Alhazmi (his brother)
                              and Abdulaziz Alomari, open their own
                              bank accounts. Two months after that, in
                              August 2001, the trail would have led to
                              the plot's ringleader, Mohamed Atta, who
                              had bought plane tickets for Moqed and
                              Alomari. What's more, at least several of
                              the hijackers had traveled to Las Vegas
                              for a meeting in summer 2001, just weeks
                              before the attacks. "It's like three
                              degrees of separation," insists an FBI

                22. September 7, 2001. State Department memo

                    On September 7, 2001, the State Department issued a
                    memo warning that Americans "may be the target of a
                    terrorist threat." It is not clear what exactly
                    prompted the State Department to issue this
                    warning. While several federal agencies claimed
                    that they received no word of this warning, there
                    is evidence that at least one airport may have been
                    informed of the memo. According to the San
                    Francisco Chronicle, "someone in the airport
                    security section knew of it and passed word of the
                    warning onto Mayor Willie Brown when he called to
                    check on the status of flight he was planning to
                    take to New York." (Matier and Ross 9-14-2001)

            C. Evidence that, prior to 9/11, U.S. intelligence had
               knowledge that terrorists might use commercial airliners
               as weapons.

                 1. 1993 book mentioned possibility of suicide air

                    In 1993, Yoseff Bodansky (1993), director of the
                    congressional Task Force on Terrorism and
                    Unconventional Warfare, wrote the report, Target
                    America: Terrorism in America, in which he claimed
                    that there were airport-training camps in Iran
                    dedicated to hijacking and suicide air bombings.
                    (see also Gul 11-8-2001; McCarthy 2-1-2002; Chin
                    5-19-2002) Here are some selected quotes from that

                      a. "The training of suicide pilots started in the
                         Busher air base in Iran in the early 1980s
                         with some 90 Pilatus PC-7 aircraft purchased
                         from Switzerland."

                      b. "The leading terrorists are known as
                         `Afghans,' having been trained with the
                         mujahadeen in Pakistan. Some fought in
                         Afghanistan. Muslim volunteers from several
                         Arab and Asian countries were encouraged to
                         come to Pakistan and join the Afghan Jihad."

                      c. "According to a former trainee in Wakilibad (a
                         base for the training of kamikaze pilots), one
                         of the exercises included having an Islamic
                         Jihad detachment seize (or hijack) a transport
                         aircraft. Then trained air crews from among
                         the terrorists would crash the airliner with
                         its passengers into a selected objective"
                         (cited in Chin 5-19-2002)

                 2. 1993 DOD brainstorming session raised possibility
                    of suicide hijackings

                    In 1993, the Defense Department's Office of Special
                    Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict held a
                    conference to brainstorm on possible terrorist
                    attack scenarios. According to Air Force Colonel
                    Doug Menarchik the results of the study were not
                    published out of fear that it might inspire
                    potential terrorists. One of the possibilities
                    discussed was the use of planes to bomb national
                    landmarks. (Steven and Warrick 10-2-2001; Martin

                 3. 1994. Terrorism expert raised possibility of
                    suicide bombings

                    In 1994, the terrorism expert Marvic Cetron,
                    submitted a report to the Pentagon warning of the
                    possibility of terrorists using hijacked airplanes
                    to bomb American targets. He told ABC News, "We
                    knew that was going happen and we were scared." ABC
                    news (2-18-2002) reported, "But Cetron said
                    Pentagon officials told him to delete the warning
                    from the report. ``I said, `It's unclassified,
                    everything is available,' and they said, `We don't
                    want it released because you can't handle a crisis
                    before it becomes a crisis, and no one is going to
                    believe it anyhow,'' Cetron said. Even with the
                    warnings of an airborne attack deleted, the report
                    was not released to the public."

                 4. 1994. A man flew a small plane into tree in front
                    of White House

                    In September of 1994, a man stole a small plane and
                    crashed it into a tree in front of the President's
                    bedroom at the White House. (Wald 10-3-2001; Martin

                 5. 1994. Terrorists intended to crash a hijacked
                    airliner into Eiffel tower

                    In December of 1994, hijackers attempted to carry
                    out a plan to crash an Air France plane into the
                    Eiffel tower. They were thwarted in Algiers when a
                    French swat team stormed their plane as they waited
                    for it to be filled with three times the needed
                    fuel for the short flight to Paris. (Wald
                    10-3-2001; Martin 1-16-2002; Los Angeles Times

                 6. 1995. Project Bojinka: plans were uncovered by
                    Philippine authorities to crash hijacked plane into
                    CIA headquarters

                      a. In January of 1995, Filipino police uncovered
                         a plan referred to as "Project Bojinka" to
                         blow-up eleven [11] planes simultaneously in
                         the air and crash another plane into the CIA
                         headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Another
                         plane was to be flown into the Pentagon. One
                         report that was issued by the Filipino police
                         stated, "Murad's idea is that he will board
                         any American commercial aircraft pretending to
                         be an ordinary passenger, then he will hijack
                         said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it
                         at the CIA headquarters. There will be no bomb
                         or any explosive that he will use in its
                         execution. It is a suicidal mission that he is
                         very much willing to execute." The informant,
                         Abdul Hakim Murad, had himself trained at a
                         flight school in Norman, Oklahoma. According
                         to the AP, "Murad, who later claimed he was
                         tortured during his interrogations, detailed
                         to Filipino authorities how he and a Pakistani
                         friend crisscrossed the United States,
                         attending flight schools in New York, Texas,
                         California and North Carolina on his way to
                         earning a commercial pilot's license." (cited
                         in Gomez and Solomon 3-5-2002; see also Baker
                         et al. 10-23-2001; Fainaru and Grimaldi
                         9-23-2001; Ressa 9-18-2001; Martin 1-16-2002;
                         Grigg 3-11-2002; Shelon 5-18-2002; Hersh and
                         Isikoff 5-27-2002; Public Information Center

                      b. Some time during 1995, a suspect in the 1993
                         bombing of the World Trade Center, Ramzi Ahmed
                         Yousef, revealed information about the same
                         plan. (Public Information Center 5-2002;
                         Martin 1-16-2002; Grigg 3-11-2002)

                      c. After the above revelation, "FBI agents
                         descended upon the flying schools in 1995, and
                         returned to some of those locations
                         immediately after Sept. 11." (Gomez and
                         Solomon 3-5-2002)

                 7. 1996. U.S. officials considered possibility of
                    terrorists hijacking a commercial airliner and
                    slamming it into the Olympic games in Atlanta

                    In 1996, U.S. officials considered the possibility
                    of terrorists using hijacked airliners or crop
                    dusters to stage an attack on the Olympic games in
                    Atlanta a realistic threat. In order to prevent
                    such a scenario, the authorities patrolled the
                    skies with Black Hawk Helicopters and US Customs
                    service jets. (Feinman and Pasternak 11-17-2001;
                    Martin 1-16-2002)

                 8. September 1999. A report commissioned by government
                    mentioned possibility that terrorists could hijack
                    commercial jets, load them with explosives and
                    crash them into the Pentagon, CIA or White House

                    In September of 1999, the author of a report
                    prepared by the Federal Research Division of the
                    Library of Congress surmised that "Suicide
                    bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaeda's Martyrdom
                    Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with
                    high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon,
                    the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency
                    or the White House." (Hudson 2-1999; cited in
                    Solomon 5-17-2002; ABC News 5-17-2002; Eggen and
                    Woodward 5-19-2002)

                 9. Security officials for 2000 Olympic games in Sydney
                    considered possibility of terrorists crashing a
                    hijacked jet into the opening ceremony

                    Officials in charge of security at the 2000 Olympic
                    games in Sydney had considered the possibility of a
                    terrorist attack involving "a fully loaded, fuelled
                    airliner crashing into the opening ceremony before
                    a worldwide television audience."(cited in Magnay
                    9-20-2001; Martin 1-16-2002)

                10. October 24-26, 2000 Pentagon officials carry out a
                    "detailed" emergency drill based upon the crashing
                    of a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon

                    "You get to see the people that we'll be dealing
                    with and to think about the scenarios and what you
                    would do," Sgt. Kelly Brown said. "It's a real good
                    scenario and one that could happen easily."
                    (Military District of Washington News Service,
                    11/03/00) The Pentagon is such an obvious target
                    that, "For years, staff at the Pentagon joked that
                    they worked at "Ground Zero", the spot at which an
                    incoming nuclear missile aimed at America's
                    defenses would explode. There is even a snack bar
                    of that name in the central courtyard of the
                    five-sided building, America's most obvious
                    military bulls eye." (Telegraph, 9/16/01)

                11. Summer 2001. U.S. officials were concerned that
                    terrorists might crash a commercial airliner into
                    Genoa Summit

                    In the summer of 2001, U.S. officials were warned
                    of a planned attack using an airplane to
                    assassinate Bush during the Genoa Summits. The Los
                    Angeles Times (9-27-2001) reported, "U.S. and
                    Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic
                    terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and
                    other leaders by crashing an airliner into the
                    Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials
                    said Wednesday. Italian officials took the reports
                    seriously enough to prompt extraordinary
                    precautions during the July summit of the Group of
                    8 nations, including closing the airspace over
                    Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the
                    city's airport."

                12. Dates unknown "Prior to 9-11" NORAD had considered
                    the possibility that hijackers might crash a jet
                    into a target on American soil

                    General Ed Eberhart of North American Aerospace
                    Defense Command (NORAD) admitted that NORAD had
                    practiced responding to such a scenario where
                    terrorists hijack a plane and attempt to crash it
                    into a target in the U.S. (Shuger 2-16-2002)

                13. Dates unknown

                    Buried within some 350,000 pages of documents
                    handed over by the CIA to the Congressional 9-11
                    investigation, were "Reports discussing the
                    possibility of suicide bombings, plots to fly
                    planes into buildings and strikes against the
                    Pentagon, World Trade Center and other high-profile
                    targets." (cited in Diamond 6-3-2002).

          62.     Plaintiff asserts the above documented facts which
     will be confirmed through discovery and upon testimony at trial,
     has established a prima facie case that Defendant GWB was fully
     knowledgeable the events of "911" were going to happen, failed to
     act and prevent and is accountable under the RICO Act for his
     wrongful acts and omissions.

                                  Count V

   Defendant GWB's Administration's failure to act and warn the American People
    caused Plaintiff unimaginable mental, emotional, physical and financial
            injury as a result of the Wrongful Death of her husband

          63.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
     allegations in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein at

          64.     Defendant GWB, et al., as early as August 2001, was
     warned by Israelis and will be proven by GWB's intelligence
     briefings and other credible information prior to "911" which
     could have prevented the attacks which lead to the death of her
     husband and thousands of other innocent lives. If the Defendants
     acted in the best interests of the national security of the United
     States of America, her husband and thousands of other innocent
     lives would have been saved.

          65.     During the period of time in which the terrorists
     seized control of the aircraft, the passengers suffered physical
     personal injuries, pain and suffering, extreme emotional distress,
     terror, property damage, and other damage, including Louis Neil
     Mariani, during the seizure and subsequently while the aircraft
     was violently controlled by the terrorists in unexpected
     directions, subjecting the passengers to unusual G-forces.

          66.     Thereafter, the aircraft crashed into the South Tower
     of the World Trade Center, as a result of the deliberate acts of
     the terrorists who seized physical control of the aircraft,
     resulting in further damages and injuries to Louis Neil Mariani,
     and damage to the personal property of Louis Neil Mariani, which
     ultimately resulted in the untimely death of Louis Neil Mariani.

          67.     As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of
     Defendants herein, and each of them, a measurable and significant
     period of time from the first trauma causing injury to decedent
     and/or the time Louis Neil Mariani was otherwise first injured
     before Louis Neil Mariani's death such that Louis Neil Mariani
     consciously suffered injuries and damages for a measurable period
     of time before death.

          68.     As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of
     Defendants, Louis Neil Mariani's death, Louis Neil Mariani's
     personal property, and the use thereof, were damaged, destroyed,
     and tortuously interfered with, all to the damage of Louis Neil
     Mariani, according to proof.

          69.     As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of
     Defendants, Louis Neil Mariani died and his wrongful death
     beneficiaries have been, and continue to be, deprived of Louis
     Neil Mariani's future services, support, and other economic
     losses, according to proof.

          70.           As a direct and proximate result of the
     misconduct of Defendants, Louis Neil Mariani died and his wrongful
     death beneficiaries have suffered, and continue to suffer,
     non-economic damages which include, among other things, loss of
     comfort, care, society, love, affection, guidance, presence,
     attention, companionship, and protection, according to proof.

          71.     As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of
     Defendants, and each of them, Louis Neil Mariani died, and Louis
     Neil Mariani's wrongful death beneficiaries have incurred funeral,
     burial, travel, and related expenses and property damage,
     according to proof.

                                  Count VI

    Defendants' Intentional, Deliberate, Willful Wrongful Acts and Omissions
     constitute an "on-going pattern of criminal activity and obstruction of 
           justice" for Plaintiff to support a Civil Claim under the
        Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)[28]

          72.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
     allegations in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein at

          73.     Plaintiff asserts and will produce at trial, bona
     fide evidence showing Defendants have engaged in a long "pattern
     of criminal activity" and on-going pattern of "criminal
     obstruction of justice" constituting continual, long-term criminal
     modus operandi that have the same or similar purposes, results,
     participants, and victims and the threat of continuing activity,
     interrelated by distinguishing characteristics. Plaintiff believes
     the attacks of "911" that resulted in the murder of her husband
     and the magnitude of the crisis is readily apparent by noting that
     "911" serves as a pretext for a never-ending war against the
     world, including preemptive strikes against defenseless, but
     resource rich countries. It also serves as a pretext for draconian
     measures of repression at home, including the cabinet level
     Department of Homeland Security and Patriot Act I and its sequel
     and once the truth is exposed in this matter, the primary
     beneficiaries of "failing to act and prevent" the "911" attacks on
     America include Defendant GWB, his family, "political supporters"
     and Defendant friends who have made hundreds of millions off the
     "IWOT" as of this date.

          74.     Plaintiff will establish a prima facie case under the
     RICO Act and due to her "standing" and the courage to put a halt
     to this destructive course Defendant GWB's has set our Nation on
     by his illegal IWOT, deserves this Court's attention for the good
     of the American People and for Plaintiff to seek personal justice
     for the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani.

          75.     The following "patterns of criminal activity" and
     "obstruction of justice" based upon Defendant GWB and his
     Administrations and family's complicity in "911," namely Defendant
     GHB will set the foundation for this RICO claim and historical
     reforms to restore America's honor and integrity once again and to
     show the people of the world, not only have they been betrayed,
     but, so have the majority of Americans who fear even speaking
     their minds due to the Patriot Act and other tactics of the GWB
     Administration, to include engaging America in an illegal war with

          76.     Plaintiff will establish beyond any doubt that
     Defendant GWB and his father Defendant GHB have long held ties
     with alleged mastermind of the "911" attacks "OBL" and his family
     and these ties remain on-going "behind the scenes" to date. And
     that the history of these ties deserve extreme scrutiny to
     understand the Defendants' inexplicable behavior before, during,
     and after the events of "911"[30]

          77.     Plaintiff, through the assistance of former federal
     employees as with the attached sworn affidavit of Tim McNiven will
     establish through discovery and trial testimony the critical ties
     between the OBL and Bush families to provide the foundation to
     support this cause of action and specifically this RICO Act claim.
     The bottom line sinister fact to support Plaintiff's Complaint and
     assertions in her "open letter" to Defendant GWB is the fact that
     members of Defendant GWB's administration to include Defendant GHB
     profiting financially and/or politically from the evil events of
     "911." Due to the nature and serious charges made herein,
     Plaintiff reasonably believes upon the ability to obtain this
     Honorable Court's subpoena power the fact that Defendants GHB,
     Cheney and their associates and supporters are making billions of
     dollars from the illegal "IWOT;" the truth of "911" will finally
     be told and it will be up to this Court to ensure justice for
     Plaintiff and all victims of "911" is administered for the good of
     the Nation. The nexus with Defendant GHB and the "Carlyle Group"
     and Defendant Cheney's Halliburton and Bin Laden family
     connections go to the heart of this RICO Act claim.[31]

          78.     Plaintiff will prove to a jury of her peers and for
     the good of her Nation, the events of "911" could have and should
     have been prevented by Defendant GWB and his top cabinet members.
     However, the truth of the matter is that Defendants long before
     they obtained control of the White House, planned the takeover of
     Iraq and to achieve their personal goals and agendas allowed "911"
     to happen to create an "IWOT."

          79.     Plaintiff will prove Defendants have engaged in both
     intentional and deliberate violations of the RICO Act and the
     following are several examples of a long train of abuses directly
     by Defendant United States of America and specifically the Bush

               a.    Plaintiff will show, the plans for global
     domination developed by those of Project for the New American
     Century, a neoconservative think tank formed in the Spring of
     1997, are also a matter of public record.These plans included
     specifics for taking military control of Central Asia, including
     regime change in Iraq. The primary architects of these plans
     include Defendants Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Richard Cheney
     and Donald Rumsfeld, all part of the first Bush administration
     ousted by Bill Clinton and now back in power with Defendant George
     W. Bush.

               b.    Plaintiff will prove, the "911" attacks came at an 
     extremely fortuitous time for the Bush administration, the Pentagon,
     the CIA, the FBI, the weapons industry, and the oil industry, all of
     which have benefited immensely from this tragedy.

               c.    Plaintiff will demonstrate as Hitler was able to 
     play the anti-communist card to win over skeptical German
     industrialists, the Bush family is not a newcomer to melding
     political and business interests. As history and evidence proves,
     the Bushes got their start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott
     Bush, father of George Bush Sr., was Hitler's banker and
     propaganda manager in New York, until FDR confiscated his
     holdings. Defendant George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega as a
     scapegoat, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians in the
     process of re-establishing U.S. control over Panama. It is also
     widely believed that Defendant George W. Bush administration
     knowingly misled the people about the war in Iraq.

               d.    Plaintiff will prove there are precedents for these
     kinds of acts of complicity and fabrications to support the RICO 
     Act basis of this Complaint such as; (1), the contemplation of 
     terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens by the CIA is a matter of public
     record by release of previously classified "Operation Northwoods" 
     documents. These documents reveal that in 1962, the CIA seriously 
     considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks 
     against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were 
     never implemented, but were given approval signatures by all the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan included several options, including
     killing Cuban defectors or U.S. soldiers, sinking ships, and
     staging simulations of planes being shot down done to blame on 
     Castro as a pretext for launching a war against Cuba. The plan 
     specifically stated, "Casualty lists in US newspapers would create 
     a helpful wave of national indignation." Other factual matters of 
     democracies being hoaxed include the sinking of the Maine, Pearl 
     Harbor bombardment, which President Roosevelt is believed to have 
     known about beforehand, and the hoax of the Gulf of Tonkin 
     provocation. Furthermore, as of recent history, namely, Gulf War I,
     the very Defendants who make up Defendant George W. Bush's 
     administration were the key players, minus Defendant George H. 
     Bush, Sr. who supplied Iraq with its Weapons of Mass Destruction 
     (MWD) and then went to war to destroy the evidence while still, 
     hundreds of thousand of Gulf War I veterans and their families 
     suffer from known toxic exposures yet to be addressed by the very 
     Defendants in this lawsuit.

          80.     Plaintiff understands the claims and assertions made
     herein might prove to be extremely shocking to most Americans who
     could not imagine that their government officials could have any
     complicity in the "911" attacks but all available evidence
     indicates this appears to be truth and the truth must finally be
     conclusively investigated and disclosed in this Honorable Court.
     Plaintiff further asserts, the wanton acts of Defendants to allow
     the "911" attacks to profit personally and politically from the
     ensuing emergency and war is hardly a new phenomenon in history.
     Similar pretexts have been exploited since the Roman era and in
     more recent times have been used to launch the US-Mexican War, the
     Spanish-American War, Hitler's invasion of Poland, the Tonkin Gulf
     resolution, the Argentinean Falkland War, etc. The Defendants have
     merely revived this proven stratagem for their own ends and
     benefit at the cost of American lives including Plaintiff's
     husband Louis Neil Mariani.

          81.     Plaintiff believes it is noteworthy to close this
     RICO Act Count with the observations of Canadian social
     philosopher John McMurtry:

          "To begin with, the forensic principle of 'who most benefits
          from the crime?' clearly points in the direction of the Bush
          administration . . . The more you review the connections and
          the sweeping lapse of security across so many coordinates,
          the more the lines point backwards [to the White House]."

                                 Count VII

      Wrongful Death - Negligence, Negligence Per Se; Reckless Conduct,
    Conscious Disregard for the Rights and Safety of the American Public
                          Warrant Punitive Damages

          82.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior
     allegations in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

          83.     At all times pertinent to the highjacking of United
     Airlines Flight 175, Defendants owed a duty to Louis Neil Mariani,
     to at least make an attempt to prevent his untimely and wrongful
     death. Defendants' failure to do so, was a direct and proximate
     result of Plaintiff Louis Neil Mariani's wrongful death and
     compensatory and punitive damages against all Defendants
     officially and in their individual capacities is warranted in this
     matter and falls within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

          84.     Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Estate of
     Louis Neil Mariani, deceased, is entitled to bring this cause of
     action for such damages, which survive his death outside the
     unconstitutional jurisdiction of the "Stabilization Act" and
     possesses standing for all other declaratory and injunctive relief
     the Court deems appropriate in the search of truth as to how and
     why the attacks of September 11, 2001, occurred.

          85.     Plaintiff asserts all Defendants, acting both
     officially and individually are exempted from "immunity" and the
     RICO Act, minus any arguments of the Defendants is the exclusive
     jurisdiction due to the grave national security and public trust
     matters presented herein.

          86.     Plaintiff asserts, her tax money and that of her
     fellow citizens should not be used to silence the truth by the
     Department of Justice (DOJ), but to find the truth and responsible
     "terrorists" and Defendant Ashcroft's failure to prosecute any
     alleged terrorist(s) to date provides even more merit for this
     matter to be judicially reviewed.

                              REQUESTED RELIEF

          87.     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ELLEN M. MARIANI, Individually,
     and as Administratrix of the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani, prays
     this Honorable Court will grant judgment against Defendants as
     hereinafter set forth:

            a. For general damages in an amount according to proof at

            b. For economic damages according to proof at trial;

            c. For property damage and loss of use of property
               according to proof at trial;

            d. For funeral, burial, transportation, and related
               expenses according to proof;

            e. For damages for the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani for
               survival damages;

            f. For punitive damage and all treble damages based on
               compensatory damages per RICO statute as allowed by law
               according to proof;

            g. For prejudgment interest as allowed by law;

            h. For all compensatory damages for pain and suffering,

            i. For all costs of suit, including attorney fees,
               investigators and other related fees and costs pursuant
               to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or/and the Private Attorney General
               Act according to proof incurred herein;

            j. For all special damages in the amount of $911 million
               according to proof; and

            k. For such other and further extraordinary declaratory and
               injunctive relief as this Honorable Court may deem just
               and proper on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly
               situated and to preserve the United States Constitution
               and national security of the United States of America.


          Plaintiff Ellen Mariani's Complaint under the RICO Act is
     unique wherein the facts and circumstances giving rise to this
     action are daily being played out and the "obstruction of justice"
     by Defendant GWB is an ongoing pattern of misconduct to silence
     the truth of "911." In the wake of the murder of her husband and
     the mountain of evidence that shows Defendant GWB, et al., have
     lied and betrayed the American People as a whole and the truth of
     "911" must be found in this Honorable Court.

          Plaintiff asserts and concludes, for far too long in our
     Nation's history federal employees such as Defendants in this case
     have lied, betrayed and abused their constitutional oaths and the
     public's trust for personal gain and/or political motives.
     Defendants must be held to account for their actions prior to and
     after "911" for the good of our Nation and our security. Anything
     less, will render the United States Constitution and our leaders'
     ritual vows "to preserve and protect our Constitution against all
     enemies foreign and domestic" meaningless. This matter for
     historical reasons must be venued in the City of Philadelphia,
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where the United States Constitution
     was written and signed and specifically attacked in of itself on

          Plaintiff asserts, on "911" Defendants engaged her nation in
     a "preventable" war on international terrorism for self-gain and
     personal agendas. In the interests of justice and to preserve our
     constitutional freedoms and democratic way of life, Defendants
     must be held to defend this Amended Complaint so the "truth" is
     presented to all Americans and to show behind the cloak of
     "national security" and "executive privilege" Defendant USA et
     al., specifically the Bush Family and cronies have abused their
     public powers with little regard for life, liberty and what is
     best for her nation. Defendants have betrayed us all and this
     Amended Complaint rises above any defenses based upon immunity as
     the murder of her husband and thousands of other innocent victims
     on "911" must not and cannot be silenced in the only
     constitutional venue to find the truth in this matter, this
     Honorable Court.

          Plaintiff's Complaint rises above and crosses all political
     party lines and is a direct call upon the federal courts to uphold
     the "separations of powers" clause under the United States
     Constitution. It must be emphasized that no one in the Federal
     Government has ever been held accountable, civilly, criminally or
     through military dereliction of duty, for the events of "911." It
     is simply hard to imagine on "911" thousands of innocent people
     were murdered and to date, not even one terrorist or federal
     employee has been brought to justice for the worst attacks against
     the United States of America in our history.

          Accountability, disclosure of the truth as to how and why
     "911" occurred and responsibility to preserve our constitutional
     system of government now rests with this Honorable Court. For
     these historic purposes, no other case, past, present or future
     will matter if Plaintiff Ellen Mariani is not afforded her
     inalienable constitutional right to be heard and compel Defendant
     George W. Bush to answer why he failed to act and prevent the
     murder of her husband, Louis Neil Mariani. Plaintiff asserts, it
     is quite obvious now that even the most outspoken of critics such
     as former "911 Commissioner" Senator Max Cleland who once called
     the "911" White House deal with the Commission to provide limited
     access to Defendant "PDB's" [Presidential Daily Briefings] "a
     national scandal," has now accepted a position by Defendant George
     W. Bush to serve on the Import-Export Bank thus removing him from
     the "911" Commission's search for the truth, which will only be
     found through litigation of this matter. Plaintiff's success in
     uncovering the truth surrounding the "911" attacks will be a
     victory for all Americans who cherish their freedom and our
     Constitutional system of government. No more can so few control so
     many for self gain and personal agendas as will be proven at trial
     in this historic case which will ultimately ensure "checks and
     balances" on power in our federal government.

                                    Respectfully submitted,

     Dated: 11-26-03                      /s/

                                    Philip J. Berg, Esquire
                                    706 Ridge Pike
                                    Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-1711
                                    Attorney for Plaintiff
                                    (610) 825-3134; Fax (610) 834-7659


       1. Plaintiff has reasons to believe once her cause of action is
          set for trial the facts, circumstances and substantial
          evidence will meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
          Procedure, Rule 23, "Class Actions" as this matter is
          representative of a numerous class of Americans wherein its
          claims, questions of law and fact are common and Plaintiff
          will represent all parties fairly and adequately who are
          compelled to join this civil action and are similarly

       2. Bush, (hereinafter "Defendant GWB"), as President of the
          United States of American and Commander-in-Chief of the
          United States Armed Forces under the provisions of the United
          States Constitution and National Security Act of 1947,
          entered into force on September 19, 1947, has exclusive
          oversight of the official and individual willful and
          ill-intentioned misconduct of all named and unnamed federal
          employees Defendants in this cause of action.

       3. Defendant "CFR" et. al, associated with this organization at
          all times relevant to the claims giving rise to this cause of
          action are believed to have provided Defendant GWB, et al.,
          while acting under color of federal law with critical
          national security advice not believed to be in the best
          interests of the Plaintiff and the American Public. Defendant
          "CFR" and its members have long held positions of power in
          the United States Government and their involvement and
          knowledge of the pre-"911" national security matters are very
          much relevant for Plaintiff to obtain judicial vindication in
          this matter.

       4. Defendant George H. Bush's long involvement in the United
          States Government and his known business relations with the
          Bin Laden family and presence with Defendant Dick Cheney on
          "911" at the White House provides solid justification to
          support Plaintiff's basis and nexus to support her bona fide
          and provable Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
          Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1964(a)(c) claims against "The
          Bush Family."

       5. Defendants as cited by name in the caption of this lawsuit
          are also responsible for various agencies; agents and
          relevant individuals believed to be liable to Plaintiff and
          will be cited in appropriate areas as necessary in the body
          of this amended complaint and further identified during
          discovery. Specifically, NORAD under DOD and FAA under DOT
          jurisdiction respectively, are key Defendants in this matter
          to support Plaintiff's claim Defendants "failed to act and
          prevent" the pre-known potential attacks on her country
          leading to the murder of her husband.

       6. Plaintiff commenced this civil action on September 12, 2003,
          by filing of complaint with this Honorable Court. Since
          Plaintiff's initial filing and the "firestorm" surrounding
          Defendant GWB's refusal to comply with the "911 Commission,"
          and other relevant additional facts and evidence arose
          requiring the Complaint to be amended before serving Summons
          and Complaint as initially filed. Plaintiff still satisfies
          the Rule 4(m) to serve Defendants within the 120-day
          requirement. At the time of filing of this Amended Complaint
          Defendants have yet to file and serve any responsive
          pleadings in this matter.

       7. The Commission is tasked with "providing an authoritative
          account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and [making]
          recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the
          future." More specifically, the commission is mandated to
          investigate "facts and circumstances relating to the
          terrorist attacks," including those relating to intelligence
          and law-enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration,
          nonimmigrant visas and border control, the flow of assets to
          terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of
          congressional oversight and resource allocation and other
          areas determined relevant by the commission.

       8. Under Civil RICO Plaintiff is afforded a four (4) year
          statute of limitation to bring this cause of action.
          Plaintiff's Complaint is timely filed as the events giving
          rise to this action occurred on September 11, 2001, therefore
          filed well in advance of the September 11, 2005, expiration
          of statute of limitations. Plaintiff further requests of this
          Honorable Court that Defendants be compelled to provide a
          responsive pleading to this Amended Complaint and that
          Plaintiff be afforded an evidentiary hearing prior to any
          decision to dismiss or in the alternative, summary judgment
          being granted in this matter.

       9. There are significant business ties that will be proven
          between Defendants and OBL's family which raise serious
          conflict of interest and other matters wherein "failing to
          act and prevent" the "911" attacks have benefited Defendants.
          Reports have emerged and will confirmed through discovery
          that the Carlyle Group, the giant U.S. defense contractor
          until recently employed Defendant and former President GHB.
          Hence, the "Bush Family" and other Defendants financial
          profiting by war goes to the heart of Plaintiff's RICO Act
          claim. Defendant GHB ironically resigned from the Carlyle
          Group after the War in Iraq commenced. For the record,
          Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), submitted in the
          Congressional record specific financial profiting with regard
          to Defendant Cheney's stock in Halliburton and these matter
          are serious public trust questions as to "intent and motive"
          to go to war in Iraq and to declare an never ending "IWOT."

      10. Plaintiff will prove these serious "RICO Act" based claims
          are bona fide and genuine as provided for under Count II
          which will provide specific timelines Defendants knew, or
          should have known, the attacks of "911" were imminent.

      11. It is obvious from American and international media sources
          and investigations, Plaintiff's claims herein carry great
          merit and justice demands Plaintiff be afforded her day in
          court to redress the wrongful death of her husband. Further
          facts at the time of this amended complaint show the "911
          Commission" is bowing down to Defendant GWB's stonewalling
          and refusing to turn over critical intelligence reports to
          show what he knew prior to the attacks of "911." The statute
          mandating the "911 Commission" full and unfettered access to
          the full body of Defendant Bush's daily intelligence
          briefings is being resisted by Defendant GWB and Plaintiff
          through discovery will obtain the truth as to the reasons
          "911" occurred to find who is responsible for her husband's

      12. There was sufficient evidence that the "911" attacks were
          known well in advance . . . hence the unprecedented volume of
          put options sold on both American and United Airlines during
          the week preceding "911" raises serious public trust
          questions whether "cash for lives" and another RICO Act

      13. Plaintiff argues there is a serious conflict of interest and
          public trust factor with Defendant DOJ being a primary
          Defendant in this case. Due to this fact, Plaintiff's RICO
          Act basis is the exclusive appropriate jurisdiction, as
          Plaintiff would further pursue justice at the International
          Criminal Court (ICC) against Defendant GWB et al., if the
          United States was subject to its jurisdiction.

      14. Defendant GWB's private consultants, Plaintiff believes these
          Defendants are directly connected, specifically, Defendant
          GHB with critical intelligence and national security advice
          that warrants discovery in this cause of action.

      15. Plaintiff intends to call at trial, former federal employees
          with firsthand knowledge and expertise to support her bona
          fide RICO Act challenge against Defendant GWB et al.
          Plaintiff having the courage to bring this "unique" cause of
          action will support its Counts with Amicus Briefs and other
          Declarations of private American Citizens and former federal
          employees in support of this Amended Complaint. For example,
          Exhibit "C" is the sworn affidavit of Tim McNiven, former
          federal employee who has established Defendant USA and
          Defendant GHB for 25 years prior to "911," knew or should
          have known "terrorists" could use commercial airliners as
          weapons to kill innocent people and destroy property. This
          affidavit, at the very least, establishes a prima facie case
          of "gross or criminal negligence" in this cause of action.

      16. Defendant USA, pursuant to the United States Constitution
          Article I, II and III, establishes the legislative powers,
          executive power and the judicial power of the United States
          respectively. Plaintiff alleges under the Constitution, the
          Legislative Branch establishes various departments of the
          Federal Government including the Department of Defense
          ("DOD"), Department of Justice ("DOJ"), and the various
          sub-entities therewith and acting in concert therewith. On
          information and belief, Defendant GWB as an individual, (and
          sometimes referred to as the "Bush Family"), or under color
          of authority and office under the powers of Article II of the
          Constitution, utilized the aforesaid departments, agencies
          and entities to shield his personal negligent acts and
          omissions in concert with all named and unnamed Defendants
          who owed Plaintiff' a duty to act and prevent the "911"

      17. Plaintiff cites the NS Act to provide the foundational
          argument Defendants prior to "911" and afterwards have not
          acted in "good faith" with regard to the facts and
          circumstances leading to the "911" attacks. Moreover, the NS
          Act is being invoked to silence Defendants' connections with
          alleged terrorists, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, based
          upon claims of "national security" and "executive privilege."

      18. The "Summary of Facts" will set the foundation to support
          Plaintiff Counts as set forth herein. However, a complete
          highly researched timelines of "911" by American Citizen Mark
          R. Elsis who has agreed to testify to his research on behalf
          of Plaintiff, and believed to be one of the "most
          comprehensive minute by minute accounts of the events of
          "911"" is also attached hereto as Exhibit "C."

      19. If proper procedures were followed by the Defendants FAA and
          NORAD, the horrific events of "911" could have been very well
          avoided. Defendant NORAD had approximately twenty-two (22)
          minutes from the first notification of Flight 11's
          highjacking, until it crashed into the North Tower at 8:46
          a.m. to intercept, thus raising serious questions of
          "dereliction of duty" at a minimum, for which no federal
          employee has been held accountable to date.

      20. At this very moment, Defendant NORAD was grossly negligent in
          failing to inform their boss, Defendant GWB that a national
          emergency just developed. To date, no NORAD member has been
          official charged with dereliction of duty, a court martial
          offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ).
          Even more astonishing, Defendant Rumsfeld and his
          subordinates NORAD and NEADS were several days into a
          semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian." Senior
          officers involved in Vigilant Guardian were manning NORAD
          command centers throughout the United States and Canada,
          available to make immediate decisions to respond and
          intercept the hijacked airplanes that could have prevented
          the absolute destruction of lives and property on "911."

      21. On July 24, 2002, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States
          District Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued
          an Order that all actions for wrongful death, personal
          injury, property damage or business loss currently pending or
          to be filed pursuant to the Air Transportation Safety and
          System Stabilization Act, Pub.L. No. 107-42 Section
          408(b)(3), 49 U.S.C. Section 40101 (2002) against any airline
          and/or airline security company, be consolidated for purposes
          of pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff's Complaint is exempted as
          the RICO Act is the foundational basis of her pursuit of
          justice and to hold Defendants accountable for allowing the
          "911" attacks against her nation to occur to profit
          personally and politically from an illegal war on
          international terror. This assertion in of itself is very
          easily provable and probably well known to this Honorable
          Court at this time.

      22. Plaintiff further believes upon successful prosecution of
          this cause of action, the evidence gathered during discovery
          and trial will lead to substantial evidence to warrant
          criminal indictments against Defendants. Plaintiff will seek
          extraordinary relief by the Court to compel the United States
          Congress to appoint "special counsel"to investigate
          Defendants for criminal violations under the provisions of
          the RICO Act.

      23. As facts do show at the time of this civil action, the only
          alleged "terrorist" in the custody of the United States
          Government being tried is Zacarias Moussaoui and from all
          indications Defendant Ashcroft will not prosecute this
          individual on claims of "national security" concerns. It is
          this specific type of questionable government act or
          in-action based upon invocation of the "NS Act" which
          Plaintiff intends to pursue in this Complaint. Moreover, to
          prove and support the claims in this cause of action,
          Plaintiff intends to subpoena Mr. Moussaoui as a favorable
          witness on her behalf.

      24. Further provided at Exhibit "C" is a certified "polygraph
          examination" of Affiant McNiven, including his military
          DD-214 honorable discharge separation papers. The polygraph
          exam was conducted by John R. Weller, President of Pacific
          Polygraph Services (PPS) Ltd., and retired Canadian Army
          Officer who was trained by the U.S. Army as a Military
          Polygraph examiner.

      25. Plaintiff herein is challenging the honesty and
          forthrightness of Defendant GWB due to his present refusal to
          cooperate with the "911 Commission" and believes Defendant
          GHB's long term involvement in her government as CIA director
          from (1976-1977), his terms as Vice President (1980-1988) and
          President (1989-1992) and his subsequent business
          relationships hold the answers and will provide additional
          basis for her RICO Act claim against Defendants.

      26. At Exhibit "D" see Attorney of Record Berg's confirmation
          letter with "PPS" President John L.R. Weller that the
          information of sworn affidavit and contents of Mr. McNiven's
          have been verified to be genuine.

      27. Defendant CIA Director George Tenet will be called upon to
          divulge who in the GWB White House was provided the July 2001
          PIB. According to Newsweek, a source said one of the
          recipients of the still-unpublicized July briefing that
          foretold the 9/11 attacks was Bush himself. Moreover, Senate
          Intelligence Committee Staff Director, Eleanor Hill, a former
          federal prosecutor and Pentagon Inspector General will be
          called to testify as to who blocked her at the last minute
          from divulging precisely who in the White House received the
          classified July 2001 briefing of Defendant CIA Director
          George Tenet. Plaintiff has reason to believe, once the
          congressional intelligence report is obtained through
          discovery, the names, dates, and substantial new information
          about the handling of many other crucial intelligence
          briefings -- including one in early August 2001, provided to
          National Security Advisor, Defendant Condoleezza Rice
          discussed Al Qaeda operations within the United States and
          the possibility that the group's members might seek to hijack

      28. Plaintiff upon successfully proving Defendant GWB, et al.,
          were responsible for failing to prevent the attacks of "911"
          in conspiracy to benefit from an "IWOT" as will be proven
          during discovery and trial, extraordinary injunctive and
          declaratory relief deemed appropriate by the Court is
          therefore requested to hold Defendants criminal responsible
          and accountable to the American People for their crimes
          against Plaintiff and the nation as a whole.

      29. On November 19, 2003, Mr. Perle, a key member of the
          Defendants Bush and Rumsfeld's "Defense Policy Board", which
          advises Defendant Rumsfeld, stated in part: "international
          law . . . would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein
          alone and this would have been morally unacceptable." (The
          Guardian 10/23/03). Plaintiff asserts and supports in her
          "open letter" to Defendant GWB that more "morally" unaccepted
          and a nexus to this RICO Act claim is countless American
          service members will continue to lose their lives for the
          personal agendas and financial motives of Defendants. Under
          Title 18, U.S.C. Chapter 91, "Racketeering activity" includes
          but not limited to; any act or threat involving murder. When
          Plaintiff prevails in this cause of action, the facts will
          show Defendants are both liable under criminal and civil RICO
          for the murders of all "911" victims and the honorable men
          and women of the United States Armed Forces who yet fully
          understand they are being used not to make a world a safer
          place by removing Saddam Hussein, but for the ill-willed
          conspiracy of Defendant GWB et al., to engage American in a
          never ended "IWOT" for which Defendants are already
          benefiting financially. (18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (d))

      30. It is well known to many in the World that Defendant USA,
          namely, Defendant GHB as CIA Director and Vice-President had
          close working relationship with OBL during the Iran-Iraq War
          and further with Saddam Hussein when Defendant GHB was a
          critical player in providing Iraq with the Weapons of Mass
          Destruction (WMD) through and leading up to the 1991 Gulf War
          for which he was President of the United States. What really
          occurred on "911" can be compared to a RICO nexus with the
          so-called Italian Mafia family wars. However, the entire
          American People have been pawns in this deadly and evil
          mixture of the Bush and Bin Laden Regimes.

      31. Defendant Cheney, for example, is still "holding 433,333
          Halliburton stock options. . . . The total value of these
          shares right now is over $26,674,990." (Source: Ohio Rep.
          Marcy Kaptur, Congressional Record, October 29, 2003)
          Halliburton has outperformed the Standard & Poor's Index by
          nearly 40% over the last year; largely on the strength of
          hundreds of millions in unbid DOD contracts for work in Iraq
          and Afghanistan. Given the consequent appreciation of his
          stock options over the same period, Defendant Cheney has
          personally netted millions from "IWOT" and the aftermath of
          "911". Defendant GHB's share in the Carlyle Group's defense
          related profits will show similar margins of appreciation
          since his son launched "IWOT" "in response" to "911."

      32. On Friday, November 21, 2003, just days prior to the filing
          of this Amended Complaint, Retired Army General Tommy Franks
          the former commander of the military's Central Command
          warned, that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of
          mass destruction (WMD) against the United States or one of
          our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences
          for our cherished republican form of government. Frank
          further stated; if the United States is hit with a weapon of
          mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the
          Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military
          form of government. (NewsMax). On "911" Plaintiff and her
          nation were hit by weapons of mass destruction and to date no
          one based upon "hard evidence" has been held responsible and
          Plaintiff holds standing to find and bring to account those
          responsible parties and through discovery and trial testimony
          Defendant GWB, et al., will provide Plaintiff and the People
          of the United States of America the who, what, why and how
          "911" occurred. Plaintiff asserts her willingness to find the
          truth will in the end, preserve our constitutional system of
          government if only afforded the right to be heard in this
          matter and to call credible and other concerned American
          Citizens to prove this Amended Complaint, its basis and
          claims are bona fide and will prevent destruction of our way
          of life through accountability by this Honorable Court.

     For Further Information Contact:
     Philip J. Berg, Esquire
     706 Ridge Pike, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-1711
     Cell (610) 662-3005, (610) 825-3134
     (800) 993-PHIL, Fax (610) 834-7659
     [email protected]

Email this article to a friend


To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text and title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.caThe active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article and the author's copyright note must be clearly displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.) For publication of CRG articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] .

© Copyright 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.