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 11, 2008 

 : 

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

et al : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SKIDMORE, OWINGS & 

MERRILL’S REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE (DOCKET #77); OR, 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE 

REQUEST FOR HEARING PER FRE 201(e)

 I, Jerry V. Leaphart, am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before this 

and other courts and am attorney of record and Lead Counsel for the plaintiff in the above 

captioned matter. This affirmation is in support of plaintiff, Dr. Judy Wood’s (plaintiff) 

opposition to defendant Skidmore, Owings & Merrill’s (SOM) request to take judicial 

notice, submitted on or about March 7, 2008; or in the alternative, request for hearing per 

FRE 201(e).. 

1. For reference, FRE 201 states in relevant part: 

“Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 1 of 10
(a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative 

facts. 

 

(b) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to 

reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial 

jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination 

by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” 

2. The so-called facts that defendant seeks to have judicially noticed do not come 

from sources where the actual facts were even determined; rather, the language is, at

most, dicta from cases that involved issues other than whether or not 767 jetliners 

crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. Defendant’s articulation relies on 

precatory language from court decisions that did not have that issue properly before 

them. 

3. As well, the language of that which defendant seeks to have judicially noticed is 

general, does not even mention the purported details of the purported flights or even 

what type of aircraft are purportedly involved. Indeed, the submittals of SOM are not 

facts, they are cursory conclusions. 

4. Examples of what can be judicially noticed are rather clear and unambiguous and 

fall into two categories. 

The first category of facts appropriate for judicial notice are those facts that are 

generally known in the trial jurisdiction. The fact must be generally

known, not merely known by the judge. Facts in this category include such matters as 

the character of a particular neighborhood (e.g., business district, residential, rural) or 

other commonly known facts such as all police cars in the jurisdiction are blue and 

white in color.

2 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 2 of 10
The second category of facts appropriate for judicial notice are those capable of 

ready and certain verification by reference to authoritative sources. For this category

of judicial notice, the proponent of the evidence must provide the court with the 

authoritative source. Typical facts in this category include geographical facts (e.g., 

Main Street runs north and south with a 30 m.p.h. speed limit); historical facts (e.g., a 

city was incorporated on July 1, 1970), calendar facts (e.g., May 29 of last year was a 

legal holiday); and scientific facts not open to dispute (e.g., gasoline vapor is heavier 

than air). 

5. It has already been asserted that the jetliner crashes are a part of a sophisticated 

mass communications deception and the evidence in support of the claim has been 

painstakingly assembled in another case where SOM likewise sought to engage in a 

similar “judicial notice” ploy; Reynolds v. SAIC 1:07cv4612 (GBD). This is the 

reason why the opponent of evidence proposed for judicial notice has the opportunity

to be heard on the propriety of judicial notice, including the opportunity to produce 

contrary authoritative sources. Plaintiff has done that and it is respectfully submitted 

that defendant SOM’s request is, therefore, highly improper.1

6. The issue of whether or not actual Boeing 767 jetliners crashed into the World 

Trade Center on 9/11/01 is not a calendar fact. Rather, it is an unproven assertion that is 

contradicted by laws of physics that, until 9/11, were capable of being judicially noticed. 

7. The irony here is that the process of judicial notice should have been used to 

challenge the validity of the 9/11 jetliner crash assertions; not the other way around. 

 

1 See, “COMMENTARY, Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts by Prof. 

Anthony Bocchino, The National Institute for Trial Advocacy 

3 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 3 of 10
8. All of this, and more, can be properly elucidated at the hearing that plaintiff is

entitled to have. 

9. At that hearing certain facts that are capable of being judicially noticed will be

put forward. Among these are: 

10. The FAA along with the FBI, have now declared that 9/11 aircraft component 

serial number data that would confirm whether or not jetliners crashed into the WTC is 

exempt from public disclosure. http://www.faa.gov/foia/media/exemptions.pdf

4 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 4 of 10
11. The FBI's refusal to release the serial number data that might be contained in 

aircraft components collected from the 9/11 plane crash scenes has resulted in a civil 

lawsuit filed in federal court, seeking to obtain this information: 

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/FOIACourtCase.jp...

12. Per U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, all federally registered civil aircraft are to 

contain uniquely numbered components: 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=db393b5df37bdcf...

13. The cited 11/26/2007 FAA FOIA request specifically requested the following: 

"That which reveals or indicates the unique identifying information (i.e.: serial numbers, 

etc.), of the Flight Data Recorders (FDR's) and Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR's) that

were last contained within the following deregistered aircraft, used during the terrorist

attacks of September 11, 2001."

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/6392/faacvrfdrserialnumbersha1.jpg

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2224/foiafaafdrcvrke8.jpg

The cited 12/4/2007 FAA FOIA request specifically requested the following: 

"Documentation that reveals any unique identifying information (serial numbers, etc.), of 

the engines, landing gear or other components that may be deemed relevant."

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3073/foiafaaserialnumbers113ds5.jpg

5 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 5 of 10
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9117/foiafaaplanedatatg2.jpg

The federal government has released an abundance of data regarding the alleged planes 

used to carry out the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks: 

- All airline flight numbers. 

- All alleged FAA aircraft registry data. 

- All air traffic control audio recordings between ATC and said flights. 

- Aircraft flight path study data for 3 of the 4 said flights that day.

- Aircraft departure times and departure locations. 

- Crash times. 

- Total numbers and identities of passengers who perished. 

- The alleged identities of those accused of hijacking each aircraft. 

However, all of the above referenced data presuppose air crashes that are not, in fact, 

shown to exist by virtue of the data themselves. Examination of the released data all 

confirm that untested assumptions are either relied upon or presumed, but not shown to 

exist. It is well understood, for instance, that as a practical matter, the list of perished 

passengers is an element of data that carries enormous emotional significance; however, 

the list of passengers does not prove an air crash. Rather, a list of passengers presupposes 

a crash and does not confirm it as a fact. 

14. As an example of data that would confirm that a crash occurred, the FBI and now 

the FAA, has refused to reveal aircraft component serial number data said, by public 

testimony, to be in their possessions. That is the sort of data that would confirm, or not, 

6 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 6 of 10
the alleged federal registry identifications of the commercial civil aircraft said to have

been used to carry out the 9/11 attacks. 

15. By document labeled "Remarks of Carol Carmody Vice-Chairman, National 

Transportation Safety Board Leadership in Times of Crisis Seminar", it is indicated that

the director of the FBI requested that the NTSB "help identify aircraft parts" belonging to 

the said aircraft. 

http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/carmody/cc020227.htm

16. By document labeled "Testimony of Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National 

Transportation Safety Board before the Committee on Commerce, Science and 

Transportation United States Senate", it is indicated that the NTSB assisted the FBI with 

the process of "aircraft parts identification" regarding the said aircraft. 

http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/blakey/mcb020625.htm

17. A 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry of the NTSB posed the 

following question: 

"Will the NTSB refer to recovered aircraft component serial number data, to 

determine the positive ID of an aircraft following a mishap, in the absence of

other identifying data?"

18. The following e-mail response was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB

on 12/26/2007: 

7 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 7 of 10
"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of 

an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will 

record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of 

those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was 

installed upon."

Accordingly, if positive identifications of American Airlines flight 11 and United 

Airlines flight 175 airline parts are released, then, in that event, affirmative statements 

that such crashes occurred would be tenable. In the absence of such data, the fact 

remains such crashes have not been shown to have occurred. 

19. By FAA documents identified as "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events", pages 

4 and 13, it is indicated that American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA) and United Airlines 

flight 175 (N612UA) were not transmitting proper transponder identification data at the 

time of their respective destructions and that therefore, proper aircraft identification 

cannot have been obtained from this absent or erroneous data. 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

20. By documents labeled "NOTES TO CHAPTER 1", page 456, of the "Final Report 

of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (2004), it is 

indicated that "the CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found"

and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this 

absent data. 

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Notes.htm

8 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 8 of 10
21. Based upon all of the foregoing, it is quite clear and can be made clearer still, 

that the assertion that wide-body, 767 jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center on 

11 September, 2001, simply has not been reliably proven; and, instead, has been 

effectively disproven by information submitted in the case entitled Reynolds v SAIC. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/Jerry V. Leaphart__________ 

 Jerry V. Leaphart 

Dated: Danbury, CT 

March 11, 2008 

9 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 9 of 10
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 11, 2008, a copy of the foregoing Affirmation 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 

10 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 80 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 10 of 10