Jerry V. Leaphart #JL4468 

Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C. 

8 West Street, Suite 203 

Danbury, CT 06810 

(203) 825-6265 – phone 

(203) 825-6256 – fax 

jsleaphart@cs.com 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

DR. JUDY WOOD, on behalf of : 

The United States of America : 

 : 

Plaintiff, : ECF CASE

 : 

vs. : March 3, 2008 

 : 

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., : 07 CIV 3314 (GBD) 

et al : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

DECLARATION OF JERRY V. LEAPHART 

IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED BY 

SIMPSON GUMERTZ & HEGER, INC. and JOINED BY 

GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK, LLP

 JERRY V. LEAPHART, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of 

the State of New York and the Southern District of New York, declares that the following 

statements are true and accurate: 

1. I am the attorney for plaintiff in the above cited matter. 

2. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of plaintiff’s Opposition to the 

Motions to Dismiss filed on February 28, 2008 by Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. (“SGH”), 

Docket #52 and joined by Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP (“Gilsanz”), Docket #55 that same day. 

3. Further, this is a case that is governed by Rockwell Int’l Corp. v United States, 

127 S. Ct. 1397, 167 L. Ed. 2d 190, (2007), a factor that SGH readily acknowledged in its prior 

memorandum of law in support of a pending motion to dismiss in Reynolds v. SAIC, Case # 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 62 Filed 03/03/2008 Page 1 of 4
07 CIV 4612 (GBD). However, the memorandum of law (Docket #52) in this matter does not 

contain any references to Rockwell and, instead, reverts to analysis under now overruled or, at a 

minimum, distinguished legal precedent. For that reason, it is asserted that their motion to 

dismiss should be summarily denied. 

4. Further, to the extent the motion to dismiss of SGH and GSM require further 

rebuttal, the Memorandum of Law, Affirmation and Affidavits submitted at Docket ## 57-61 are 

hereby deemed incorporated herein by reference and deemed applicable as opposition to the 

motions to dismiss of SGH, joined by GSM. 

5. It is also noted that these defendants (SGH and GSM) stake out claims that the

complaint herein lacks sufficient “particularity” citing F.R.Civ.P. Rule 9(b), as have the other

defendants who have moved for dismissal. As noted in the memorandum of law (Docket #57), 

the claim of “particularity” is not well founded because this is a case involving fraud carried out 

on the basis of excessive reliance upon detail and upon technical data that is within the control of 

the defendants among other factors. 

6. In connection with defendant GSM, we have ascertained additional information 

not heretofore known, that further confirms the extent to which information remains in the 

control of defendants. 

7. We now have information from a February 23, 2008, newspaper article published 

in the N.Y. Times, copy annexed as Exhibit A, that defendant Gilsanz engaged in engineering

work at Ground Zero, the site of the destroyed Twin Towers, on September 11, 2001. 

Accordingly, he has first-hand information that he knew, or should have, that confirms the 

claims of plaintiff herein that the Twin Towers were destroyed by directed energy weapons. The 

declaration submitted by GSM does not reveal the fact of Mr. Gilsanz’s direct experience on 

2 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 62 Filed 03/03/2008 Page 2 of 4
September 11; accordingly, that declaration may be lacking candor. In any event the motions to 

dismiss should be denied. 

 

 /s/Jerry V. Leaphart

 Jerry V. Leaphart jl4468 

 JERRY V. LEAPHART & ASSOC., PC

 8 West Street, Suite 203 

 Danbury, CT 06810 

 (203) 825-6265 - phone 

 (203) 825-6256 - fax

 jsleaphart@cs.com

Dated: Danbury, CT 

 March 3, 2008 

3 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 62 Filed 03/03/2008 Page 3 of 4
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 3, 2008, a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s Memorandum 

of Law in Opposition of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was filed electronically and served by

mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all 

parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept 

electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing

through the Court’s CM/ECF System. 

 _ /s/ Jerry V. Leaphart_________

 Jerry V. Leaphart (jl4468) 

JERRY V. LEAPHART & ASSOC., P.C.

 8 West Street, Suite 203 

 Danbury, CT 06810 

 Tel. (203) 825-6265 

 Fax (203) 825-6256 

 jsleaphart@cs.com 

4 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 62 Filed 03/03/2008 Page 4 of 4