Date: March 3, 2008
Danbury CT
Cases entitled:
Wood v ARA 1:07cv3314 (GBD)
Reynolds v SAIC 1:07cv4612 (GBD)
Claims:
Qui Tam plaintiffs claim 9/11 fraud by several companies, led by Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA) and Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in the preparation of the "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (NCSTAR 1)" under contracts with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Key issue:
The first step in Qui Tam cases involves determining whether court has proper jurisdiction over the claims, not their validity. One case claims that No Planes hit the Twin Towers. The other case claims that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) destroyed the Twin Towers and that some of the effects are ongoing.
How cases came about:
ARA, SAIC and other defendants were contracted by NIST to investigate what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. NIST issued "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (NCSTAR 1)" in September, 2005, at a cost of some $16 million, much of it paid to the defendants in the cases. Plaintiffs seek recoupment of that money, plus statutory damages on behalf of the United States. If successful, a portion of money recovered would be paid to plaintiffs, per the provisions of the False Claims Act that has been in use since the Civil War to combat governmental fraud.
Qui Tam relators, Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds, claim NCSTAR 1 was fraudulent and challenged NCSTAR 1 in March, 2007, by submitting detailed, written Requests for Correction (RFC) under the Information Quality Act.
NIST responses to those RFCs did not overtly admit fraud, but did explicitly admit NIST did not investigate actual collapses of the Twin Towers and also admitted NIST relied on 'computer models' regarding the challenge to the jetliner crash claims.
Several defendants have appeared in the cases and some have filed motions claiming the cases are frivolous, but those claims will not be heard or dealt with until the jurisdictional questions are resolved, per Judge Daniels' order. Then and only then would there be a basis for determining whether the motions involving claims of frivolity will have to be addressed, according to plaintiff's counsel.
Legal Steps Taken by Plaintiffs:
Plaintiffs have responded to the jurisdictional challenges to their Qui Tam Lawsuits pending in NYC Federal Court.
