UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
2ND CIRCUIT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
:
10-3022
STEPHEN M. ST. JOHN,
Pro Se,
:
:
Plaintiff-Appellant
: MEMORANDUM OF LAW
: IN SUPPORT OF
: MOTION TO PROCEED
:
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
-against-
:
:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES, :
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.;
:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SDNY,
:
PREETINDER BHARARA;
:
ET ALII, JOHN AND JANE DOES ACTING AS
:
PERPETRATORS, ACCOMPLICES,
AND :
ACCESSORIES TO THE ACTS DESCRIBED IN
:
THIS COMPLAINT,
:
:
Defendants-Appellees
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
1) Pursuant to Rule
24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, I the Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen M. St. John respectfully submit to this
Court a Memorandum of Law which is my statement explaining the merits of the appeal.
2)
I the Plaintiff-Appellant ask this Court to grant to me the privilege to proceed in forma pauperis because
my need to do so is real, as demonstrated in the Financial Affidavit, and because the issues to be presented
in the brief are compelling and in the interests of both justice and our national security.
3)
My impecunious state is accurately reflected in my Financial Affidavit filed with this Court. I
add I have been living in homeless shelters since 5 April 2010 and remain without income and employment despite my best efforts
to remedy the situation.
4) The legal issue boils down to Chief
Judge Loretta A. Preska’s sua sponte finding (10-cv-3908) that I did not demonstrate actual damages resulting
from the Department of Justice’s fraud that I allege and therefore I do not have proper standing to sue.
In my brief I will argue that highly unusual circumstances obtain in this case, and that the very notion of actual
damage is therefore inadequate for the proper administration of justice.
5)
The wise advice seen on New York City subway posters to heighten security awareness - “If you see something,
say something” - goes to the heart of the matter. Herein is the essence of what promises to be a
landmark case of a solitary citizen standing at the gates of justice and shaking the nations of the earth from very strong
delusion about 9/11. But what kind of jurisprudence denies a watchman’s approach, let alone his warning?
In a very real sense all citizens who see something and say something have standing and a corresponding natural right
to a responsive government. Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States guarantee
that no law or statute or decision can deny the Plaintiff-Appellant’s right to a responsive government, let alone reasonable
relief that leads in this case to exposure of treasonous, warmongering fraud and rewards his vigilance and perseverance against
all odds.
6) Abraham Lincoln once said, “Let us
have faith that right makes might.” Where law intersects with humanity, surely the law’s natural
rigidity can give way in circumstances never before encountered or even imagined by those who write or interpret it. A
just and proper resolution of this very extraordinary case should therefore not be contingent on actual damages such as loss
of a spouse or other family member or property damage and a dollar amount attached thereto, especially when such a legal requirement
prevents discussion of far graver matters that have hitherto been unexplored. A unique and original discovery
that explodes the 9/11 Myth should not be relegated to the dust bin of history and the discoverer in effect exiled to Siberia.
Rather, this Court will serve all of mankind quite well by initiating rational, honest and open discussion about a
very troubling aspect of the official account of 9/11. As Jesus said, “And you shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free.”
7) The issues to be
presented in my brief stem from my discovery that the purported 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video surveillance tape
– used to promote the publisher’s release of the false and misleading 9/11 Commission Report in 2004
and to convict Zacharias Moussaoui in 2006 – is a total fraud. My July 2009 analysis of the video,
which I downloaded from the website of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, clearly demonstrates that
passersby in the far background of the video cast shadows from the sun which do not accord with reality or the Department
of Justice’s scenario.
8) Clearly,
certain folk in our intelligence and law enforcement communities have something to hide. The sun and its
shadows are unimpeachable witnesses, and basic geometry and astronomy give the proof with the aid of Google Earth software.
The evildoers’ video could not possibly have been made at Washington Dulles International Airport, but was made
elsewhere, at a place and time as yet unknown, and then it was falsely presented as a Dulles video first to a believing public
and then to a believing jury. A gambler’s illusion has eclipsed our national sovereignty; however, science uncovered
the deception, which this Court must uphold. A single page showing three key photos with a caption giving
a concise statement of my finding concludes this memorandum.
9) My
repeated efforts to persuade public officials to recognize and deal with the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video
have only met with what still seems to me to be a conspiracy of silence and shunning. I have often wondered
how you dare to analyze that and still keep your job at the FBI or CIA. Now I am hopefully at
the threshold of compelling a legal discovery process and achieving closure not just for me but for countless other people
around the world who have been adversely affected by the events of 9/11 and who deserve to know the whole truth and nothing
but the truth about what really happened. Isn’t the main duty of judges to prevent force and fraud?
10)
The fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud which I allege was perpetrated from within the US Department of Justice give
rise to the sensitive issue of perpetuating the very same fraud in the Southern District of New York in the event of the contemplated
trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. Therefore, I respectfully submit that it behooves this Court to adjudicate
this matter forthwith. It may well be that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was as deluded as the rest of mankind
concerning 9/11, in which case torture is a minor consideration with respect to state of mind. The Defendants-Appellees
need to choose: do they still go forward with the fraud, or do they take proper measures to deal with the
fraud and all its implications and consequences? Establishment of judicial evidence with respect to their
bogus “Dulles Airport” video surveillance tape will force them to choose one way or the other. It
is simply preposterous to hold that the Plaintiff-Appellant’s failure to demonstrate actual damages is a legal basis
to avoid an adversarial process that conduces toward discovery of an important truth about 9/11.
11) Given the colossal intelligence failures leading to 9/11, and the ominously
unfathomable intelligence apparatus that mushroomed out of control in the wake of the attacks on our nation, as reported in
July 2010 by the Washington Post, this Court will do well to consider the likelihood that confusion is the intended result
of overly secretive and compartmentalized but virtually disconnected segments of our intelligence and law enforcement communities.
Consider the following points in this most extraordinary case:
12) We have never seen any credible 9/11 video surveillance evidence of any
of the passengers – let alone hijackers – at any of the three “Category X” high security
airports from which the flights of 9/11 are said to have originated. This fact alone – and this is
just the tip of the iceberg – should have given us very good reason not to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and it should
now be the determining factor in our decision to leave these nations and start paying them restitution without any strings
attached.
13) Just
weeks after 9/11, Afghanistan’s Taliban government made a good faith proposal to deliver to us Osama Bin Laden on condition
that we show evidence of his culpability. The bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video clearly shows
why the US Government lacked the good faith required to reciprocate the Taliban’s reasonable offer.
14) Our government’s fraudulent use of the bogus 9/11 “Dulles Airport” video indicates
foreknowledge and preparation for 9/11.
15)
Foreknowledge and preparation for 9/11 are elements of the supreme international war crime which is, according to the
Nuremberg Principles, to initiate a war of aggression. Such aggressive war violates the letter and spirit
of Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations as well as our constitutionally mandated treaty obligations.
16) Foreknowledge and preparation for 9/11 also mean treason here at home.
17) Until we act to remove the strong delusion about 9/11 with an honest investigation, treason
will be double crossing liberty here and abroad.
18) Let’s pass the torch of freedom, not the cup of treason! Let the Court
establish judicial evidence with respect to the bogus “Dulles Airport” video, a major component of the 9/11 myth
that was the catalyst for unjustified invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Let the Court
order a new investigation not just of 9/11, but of the cover-up and the shock and awe doctrine and its historical origin.
19) Let the Court show the difference between a ruse of war against an enemy and a ruse to fool
people into waging war. The latter is what happened on 9/11. A high tech false flag
military intelligence operation created a pretext to put American muscle on Mesopotamian patrol in fulfillment of objectives
set by certain interest groups.
20) In
his 29 January 2002 State of the Union speech President Bush observed: “Those of us who have lived
through these challenging times have been changed by them. We’ve come to know truths that we will
never question: Evil is real, and it must be opposed.” Indeed! Surely
the chain of custody of evidence for the fraudulent “Dulles Airport” video tape will lead us directly to the Praxis
of Evil in our midst which actually pulled off 9/11 and framed certain “likely suspect” Arabs for these heinous
crimes.
DATED: 12 August 2010
SIGNED:
Stephen M. St. John
Stephen M. St. John
XXXXX
XXXXXX
Newark, CA 94560
Tel: XXX XXX XXXX
Fax: XXX XXX XXXX
Email: stephen@show-the-house.com
The
photo above is a still taken from a video surveillance tape that was presented as evidence by the US Department of Justice
at the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui in 2006. The US Government falsely said the video shows five Arabs
arriving at Washington Dulles International Airport on the morning of 11 September 2001 shortly before they boarded American
Airlines Flight 77 which they hijacked and crashed. But as Google Earth’s satellite imagery shows
right below, the parallel main runways at Dulles go north/south at 10 and 190 degree headings and ground passengers come and
go at the north face of the Main Terminal which is between the runways and directly adjacent to the traffic oval.
How, then, can one explain the sun’s shadow (a close-up appears at bottom of page) cast by a passerby in the
far background of the film? The shadow points toward the north face of the Main Terminal! This
is impossible when the sun rises in the east and casts shadows westward as it did on the morning of 9/11. Therefore,
the video is bogus in that it could not possibly have been made at Dulles, but was filmed elsewhere and then falsely presented
to a jury as a Dulles video. See www.show-the-house.com/id92.html.
UPDATE 10 June 2012:
Here is progress to report! My 5 August 2010 application to file court documents in this case electronically finally
elicited a response (below) on 7 June 2012. The wheels of justice turn slowly. Maybe in due time I will
have an explanation as to why the judges did not sign their judgment and order issued by the Clerk of the Court.
This
email is notification that your appellate court electronic filing registration
has been processed. If the ECF Filing
Status is 'Active,' you may begin filing
electronically in the court listed below.
If you have any questions,
contact the PACER Service Center at (800) 676-6856
between 8 AM and 6 PM Central Time. Please do not reply to this email,
the mailbox
is not monitored.
Username: mustashar
Circuit: U.S. Court
of Appeals, Second Circuit
Date/Time Submitted: 2010-08-05 18:22:07
Transaction ID: 6377
Request: New Registration
Transaction Status: Rejected
ECF Filing Status:
Comment: A parrty cannot register for electronic case filing. If
you wish to view case dockets, you
may register as a public interested person.
|
| | |
| |
Delete & Prev | Delete & Next
Message List
Delete
Forward
Reply
Reply All