Source: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Wood_Decision.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:14:00+00:00

Document:
Does this look like a collapse?
In separate actions,1 three different plaintiffs, who are all represented by the same attorney, commenced individual lawsuits attempting to challenge the investigative findings, of the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), as to how and why the World Trade Center buildings collapsed on 9/11. The focus of the NIST investigation was on the sequence of events "from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower." Plaintiffs claim that a terrorist attack was not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex ("WTC"). According to plaintiffs, the evidence demonstrates that the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers was caused by a United States secret military "directed energy weapon."2 Plaintiffs' attorney argues that "the defendants knowingly participated in the fraud of furthering the false claim that two wide-body jetliners hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/01."3 (Reynolds Opp'n Mem. at 1).
1 The three related cases that are pending before this Court are: Wood v. Applied Research Associates, Inc., et al, 07 CV 3314 (GBD); Reynolds v. Science Applications Int'l, et ql, 07 CV 4612 (GBD) and Haas v. Gutierrez, et al, 07 CV 2623 (GBD).
2 Plaintiffs also claim that there is significant evidence that the cause of the destruction of World Trade Center building number 7 was a controlled demolition.
3 Reynolds argues that "[t]his case involves the fraud perpetrated by the jetliner crash hoax." (Reynolds Opp'n Mem. at 6).
Wood refers to "... the expressed myth of 9/11 that 19 Arabs did it with box cutters." (Wood Opp'n Mem. at 13). Haas contends that "World Trade Center building number 7 (WTC7) ... was not damaged in any way by any jetliner impact..." "There is evidence of a controlled demolition ... that NIST is overtly seeking to squelch ..." (Haas Opp'n Mem. at 14).
("WTC7").4 On October 16, 2005, NIST issued its "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center;" which report is referred to as "NCSTAR 1." NIST's investigation into the collapse of WTC7 is still proceeding.
("The authorities and restrictions applicable under this chapter ... shall apply to the activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.").
5 Plaintiffs Wood and Reynolds sued the following twenty-seven defendants: Science Applications International Corp.; Applied Research Associates, Inc.; Boeing; NuStats; Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.; DataSource, Inc.; GEOSTAATS, Inc.; Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP; Hughes Associates, Inc.; Ajmal Abbasi; Eduardo Kausel; David Parks; David Sharp; Daniele Venezano; Josef Van Dyck; Kaspar William; Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.; Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C.; Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.; S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc.; Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP; Teng & Associates, Inc.; Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.; Silverstein Properties; American Airlines and United Airlines.
Plaintiff Reynolds subsequently dismissed his action against Silverstein Properties, American Airlines and United Airlines.
moved to dismiss the lawsuits as being frivolous, and for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), respectively. The motions to dismiss are granted and all three complaints are dismissed with prejudice.
automatically substituted for his predecessor, William A. Jeffrey); Dr. Shyam Sunder, NIST's Lead Investigator; Dr. Theresa McAllister, NIST's Research Structural Engineer; and Catherine Fletcher, Chief of NIST's Management and Organization Division. Haas also named as defendants "John Doe I-V, Contractors Employed by NIST," as well as three defendants, who were also sued by plaintiffs Wood and Reynolds, to wit, Silverstein Properties, Applied Research Associates, Inc., and Science Applications International Corp.. In plaintiff Haas' proposed second amended complaint, he only names the Secretary of Commerce and NIST officials as defendants.
7 Plaintiffs' lawsuits make no allegation with regard to the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in a field just outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, or the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.
damage such as that of destroying the World Trade Center Twin Towers in less than 10 seconds each, as occurred on 9/11/01, down to and including imposition of a disabling stun on human beings for crowd control and/or other psy ops [psychological operations] purposes." (Wood Am. Compl. H 23; Reynolds Compl. ]f 22; Haas Am. Compl. ]f 25).
(7) knowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government[.] 31 U.S.C. € 3729(a)(l-2), (7).
intentionally disseminating contradictory information to the public and concealing the existence of a controlled demolition event at WTC7.10 The aim of the Information Quality Act is to assure that the information publicly released by a federal agency is of the highest quality. It requires the dissemination of true and accurate information, and a mechanism for individuals, affected by that information, to seek and obtain a correction of false or inaccurate information. None of plaintiffs' asserted legal claims can withstand defendants' motions to dismiss.
2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153, published at 44 U.S.C. € 3516, note. It further requires that each federal agency "establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued" by the OMB. Id.
10Plaintiff Haas submitted a "Request for Correction" to NIST claiming that a statement appearing in a December 12, 2006 NIST document was contrary to a statement in the NCSTAR 1 report. Although both documents indicate that there was no "evidence" of a controlled demolition event, the NCSTAR 1 report further refers to the lack of "corroborating" evidence that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Haas argued to NIST that the phrase '"corroborating evidence,' by definition, indicates that there was some evidence of controlled demolition ..." (Haas Am. Compl. Ex. A, at 26). Unable to secure a forbearance agreement from NIST, Haas commenced the instant action seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining NIST from continuing its investigation until the outcome of his request for correction was known. NIST has since denied his application, and Haas now seeks leave to file a second amended complaint claiming NIST should be enjoined from continuing its technical investigation until: (1) valid information is dissemination to the public; and (2) a criminal investigation into the controlled demolition of WTC7 is initiated and the outcome thereto is known. (Haas Opp'n Mem. at 18; Haas Aff d Iffl 18-19).
information, unless the individual bringing the action is an "original source" of the information.11 To be an "original source" of publicly disclosed information, a plaintiff must have direct and independent knowledge of information on which the lawsuit's allegations are based, and have voluntarily provided such information to the Government prior to filing the action. See, € 3730(e)(4)(B); Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, - - U.S. - -, 127 S.Ct. 1397, 1407 (March 27, 2007). To even attempt to assert this type of lawsuit, plaintiff must possess and be an original source of at least the substantive information publicly disclosed about the particular fraud. See, United States ex rel. Smith v. Yale Univ., 415 F.Supp.2d 58, 72 (D.Conn. 2006) (quoting United States ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 944 F.2d 1149, 1160 (3d Cir. 1991)). A party lacks direct and independent knowledge "if a third party is 'the source of the core information' upon which the ... complaint is based." United States v. New York Med. Coll., 252 F.3d 118, 121(2d Cir. 2001) (quoting United States ex rel. Kreindler & Kreindler v. United Techs. Corp., 985 F.2d 1148, 1159 (2d Cir. 1990)).
No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administration or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information. 31 U.S.C. € 3730 (e)(4)(A) (footnote omitted).
simply rely upon their own theoretical examination of information already within the public domain. Plaintiffs' attempted analysis of that information constitutes pure speculation that the NIST participants were involved in a cover-up to conceal the true cause for the towers' collapse. They merely disagree with NIST's investigative findings, and specifically wish to reject the basic factual premise that terrorist destroyed the Twin Towers using passenger-filled airplanes as missile-like weapons. Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams. Their personal hypothesis about what should be concluded from publicly disclosed information does not qualify either of them as an original source of information in order to sustain an individual FCA claim on behalf of the Government. See, Kreindler, 985 F.2d at 1159; see also, New York Med. Coll., 252 F.3d at 121-22. Federal jurisdiction over a private FCA action is not created simply by arguing that the review of publicly disclosed information spurs plaintiffs to advance a different theory. Such an argument, based solely on publicly available information, could no more support a federal lawsuit to advance an alternative theory regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, or whether men ever actually landed on the moon.
services of one of its employees, Kevin Ryan, who called attention to [the] incongruity of causal explanation." (Wood Am. Compl. ]f 39; Reynolds Compl. ]f 37). Prior to the commencement of the cases at bar, Kevin Ryan filed suit against UL claiming he was wrongfully discharged because he had sent an e-mail to NIST indicating that: UL had conducted WTC-related metallurgical testing; the official explanation for the destruction of the WTC was not supported by a scientific analysis of the evidence; and there was substantial evidence that all three buildings collapsed from explosive devices. (Ryan v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., No. 06-1770 (S.D.Ind. filed Nov. 16, 2006). Thus, the information at the heart of the Wood and Reynolds litigation "was publicly disclosed because it was available to anyone who wished to consult the [Ryan] court file." Kreindler, 985 F.2d at 1158.
of action for unjust enrichment, payment by mistake, recoupment of overpayment, and fraud.13 However, as plaintiffs' attorney acknowledges, the Congressional grant of private standing to sue in FCA cases does not extend to common law causes of action. See, United States ex rel. Phipps v. Comprehensive Cmty. Dev. Corp., 152 F.Supp.2d 443, 451-52 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); see also United States ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F.Supp.2d 10, 14 (D.D.C. 2003), aff'd sub nom. Rockefeller ex rel. United States v. Washington TRU Solutions, LCC, 2004 WL 180264 (D.C.Cir. Jan. 21, 2004). Plaintiffs asserted these common law claims in a representative capacity on behalf of the United States Government. Neither plaintiffs claim to be personally aggrieved or damaged as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing. All common law claims are, therefore, dismissed for lack of standing. Accordingly, plaintiffs Wood and Reynolds' actions are barred for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
13 Plaintiff Wood asserted these common law causes of action in her original complaint.
In her amended complaint, she indicates that her action is being brought "under the common law or equitable theories of unjust enrichment, payment under mistake of fact, recoupment of overpayments and common law fraud." (Wood Am. Compl. ]f 1). Nevertheless, no basis for any common law claims are specifically pled in her amended complaint.
14 The implausabily of plaintiffs' theories warrants no further consideration by this Court beyond the insufficiency of the legal claims upon which plaintiffs attempt to advance those theories in their lawsuits.
"must create the possibility for a right to relief that is more than speculative."15 Spool v. World Child Int'l Adoption Agency, 520 F.3d 178, 183 (2d Cir. 2008). Although complaints generally "do[ ] not need detailed factual allegations, [ ] plaintiff[s'] obligation to provide the grounds of [their] entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. - -, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (May 21, 2007) (internal citations, quotation marks and original brackets omitted). Plaintiffs' theories about the cause of the 9/11 disaster completely fail to state a cognizable claim for relief.
15 The sufficiency of the pleadings is determined by examination of the complaint, the exhibits attached thereto, and matters incorporated by reference therein. Other independent submissions made by the defendants, with regard to the jurisdictional challenge, were not considered in assessing the legal adequacy of the complaints.
F.Supp.2d 822, 833 (W.D.Mich. 2000), aff'd 24 Fed.Appx. 491 (6th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs have pled no factual allegations to support a reasonable inference that defendants knowingly sought payment from the government to which they were not entitled. Plaintiffs wish to reach the conclusion that no compensation was owing to defendants by relying on the other self-serving conclusion that the services they rendered were worthless. In plaintiffs' view, defendants would only be entitled to compensation if NIST had acknowledged plaintiffs' theory that directed energy weapons, and not a terrorist attack, was responsible for the destruction of the WTC. Seeking payment for services rendered to NIST is not unlawful simply because the plaintiffs themselves disagree with NIST's investigative findings. See generally, Mikes v. Straus, 274 F.3d 687, 703 (2d Cir. 2001) ("In a worthless services claim, the performance of the service is so deficient that for all practical purposes it is the equivalent of no performance at all."). Even purported errors based on flawed reasoning, mathematic calculations, or scientific judgments are not false for purposes of the FCA. See, Pfingston v. RonanEng'gCo., 284 F.3d 999, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002); Wang, 975 F.2d at 1421; United States ex rel. Taylor v. Gabelli, 345 F.Supp.2d 313, 329 & n.87 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
States ex rel. Bahrani v. Conagra, Inc., 465 F.3d 1189, 1194-95 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting S.Rep. No. 99-345, at 18, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5283 (1986)). Plaintiffs cannot identify any existing financial obligation any of the defendants owed to the Government, nor can they identify any specific false record or statement that a defendant made to avoid such a purported obligation. The pleadings are therefore also insufficient to state a reverse false claims cause of action.
Twin Towers' collapse. (Id. at 36). Such general and conclusory pleadings fall far short of Rule 9(b)'s pleading standard.
Plaintiffs vaguely allege that, for a number of years, all defendants wrongfully sought payment for services performed in bad faith.16 They do not cite to a single identifiable record or billing submission that they claim to be false, or give a single example of when a purportedly false claim was presented for payment by a particular defendant at a specific time. Additionally, plaintiffs' general attribution, to the defendants, of the purported false statements published in the NCSTAR 1 report is untenable to support a particularized pleading of fraud. Defendants are not the authors of the report, and plaintiffs point to no specific factual assertion relied upon in the report that was allegedly falsely provided by defendants to NIST.
16Both the Wood and Reynolds complaints allege, in pertinent part: The various cost reports, requisitions, billing statements and/or requests for reimbursements submitted by the defendant NIST participants ... all contain false claims for reimbursement and made false statements ... because the true nature and intent was to mislead NIST and to cause a false causal statement concerning what caused the destruction for the WTC complex to occur. *** All such submitted cost reports, invoices, reimbursement claims and the like constitute false claims under the False Claims Act because the defendants knew ... that the actual cause of the destruction of the WTC complex was the result of the use of directed energy weapons. (Wood Am. Compl. Iffl 56, 59-60; Reynolds Compl. Iffl 54, 57-58).
every invoice fraudulent because of an underlying conspiracy to submit fraudulent claims fails to satisfy Rule 9(b)); United States ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1002 (9th Cir. 2002) ("The False Claims Act [ ] focuses on the submission of a claim, and does not concern itself with whether or to what extent there exists a menacing underlying scheme.").
Plaintiff Haas' complaint, for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. € 551 et seq, is also insufficiently pled.17 His claim is premised on NIST's failure to suspend its investigation while his request, seeking a change of information, was under consideration. Because that request has since been denied by NIST, his causes of action, relating to the existence of a pending request, no longer even presents a live controversy for which relief would be available, and is therefore moot. See, White River Amusement Pub, Inc. v. Town of Hartford, 481 F.3d 163, 167-68 (2d Cir. 2007).
17 The complaints also state that Haas is suing, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violations of his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. The complaints, however, fail to contain any factual allegations to support such a claim, and no constitutional cause of action is specifically pled.
(Haas Opp'n Mem. at 18). Plaintiffs proposed alternative legal theory is unavailing. The Information Quality Act does not create any legal rights, enforceable by unrelated third parties, to information or its correctness. See, Salt Inst, v. Leavitt, 440 F.3d 156, 159 (4th Cir. 2006); Ams. for Safe Access v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2007 WL 2141289, at *4 (N.D.Cal. July 24, 2007); In re Operation of the Missouri River Sys. Litig., 363 F.Supp.2d 1145, 1174 (D.Minn. 2004), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds 421 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2005). Neither the Information Quality Act, nor the Administrative Procedure Act, create a private right of action upon which plaintiff may independently pursue this litigation.
argues that NIST's "technical investigation [should be] halted until the outcome of the criminal investigation is determined." (Id. \ 18).
19The non-governmental defendants' motions for sanctions, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. € 3730(d)(4) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, are denied. A belief, no matter how incredible, that the WTC was destroyed using secret exotic weaponry, does not give rise to even a colorable claim for relief. All plaintiffs, as well as the attorney for the plaintiffs here, are hereby warned that filing further successive untenable actions may result in the imposition of monetary or other serious sanctions. See, Catanzano v. Wallenstein, 142 Fed.Appx. 540 (2d Cir. 2005); Iwachiw v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 126 Fed.Appx. 27, 29-30 (2d Cir. 2005); Pentagen Techs. Int'l Ltd. v. United States, 172 F.Supp.2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd 63 Fed.Appx. 548 (2d Cir. 2003).
The defendants' motions to dismiss, filed in each of these three eases, are granted. All three complaints are dismissed with prejudice.2'1 The Wood v. Applied Research Associates. Inc.. et ai. 07 CV 3314 (GBD); Reynolds v. Science Applications Int'l.et a!.. 07 CV 4612 (GBD). and Haas v. Gutierrez, et al. 07 CV 2623(GBD) actions are hereby closed.
20 Dismissal is appropriate as to all defendants, including those who have yet to be served. See, Eisenstein. 4 Fed.Appx. at 26 n.2 ((/noting Lconhard v. United States. 633 F.2d 599. 608 (2d Cir. 1980)).
I would like to know your thoughts on the above decision. You may leave a brief anonymous message, a contact source and/or a time/method to contact you. 500 character limit. You may also specify a particular recipient.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.