An Interview with 9/11 Counselor Jerry V. Leaphart Reynolds: To fast forward this a little bit, in all three cases, well, I know in Judy’s case and mine, they werevery well argued, I was very impressed with the documentation and of course I hoped the defendants would be put under oath and, oh my goodness, what a field of joy that would have been, but we didn’t get there. In fact, Judge Daniels dismissed our cases with prejudice and while I wasn’t surprised, it was very disappointing of course. Then Dr. Wood’s case was taken to the Appellate level, and you were able to argue orally, at least in brief, and then it was rejected. It was apparently listened to by the court with respect, but it was rejected there and then you took it to the Supreme Court where it was denied the writ of certiorari, and that was only in January 2010, so you’ve had a chance to reflect on these cases, and you’ve already given us summaries. I think we had to try this. It was a wonderful battle if you will, and we certainly did not get really close, but comment on the quality of Judge Daniels’ decision which I was very disappointed with, it was very dismissive and prejudicial and, as I understood it from you, the Court was supposed to treat our positive facts as acceptable or correct until found otherwise and proceed on the basis of law, whether there was jurisdiction and the like. Leaphart: I certainly am not going to…nothing I say is to be heard or understood as criticism of either the court or judge per se. Suffice it to say that we considered that the judge’s decision was legally incorrect and that is why in the case of Dr. Wood, it was appealed. Now what we also need to point out here, Morgan, is that the judge consolidated the three cases, yours, that of Dr. Judy Wood and that of Edward Haas, essentially into one case or one decision. And he did that on his own. That is not treatment that was requested, the court just did that sui sponte, the legal phrase used that means that the court is doing something on its own volition and not at the request of one or the other of the parties. So basically, and ultimately a decision was made to craft one appeal and Dr. Wood’s case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals and then as you noted ultimately to the US Supreme Court. Now legally speaking, I’m going to just ask that it be understood that I’m giving a very brief summary here and not addressing the underlying, more technical legal issues associated either the decision or the appeal. The court records are a matter of public record. I know that a lot of the documents have been posted up on various websites and various discussion forums. One of the things a lot of people look for was whether or not these cases would be treated as frivolous and therefore would result in sanctions or penalties being imposed upon either of the parties or the attorney representing the party. And what I can tell you is that while that outcome does sometimes happen in connection with activist cases, and perhaps in some cases that sought to challenge the explanation of 9/11, I can tell very fully and clearly that the defendants in cases that you, Dr. Wood and Ed Haas brought, actively sought to get sanctions and sought to require you and us to be held liable for expenses but the court denied all of those motions. And at the end of the day, we were found to have, at least passed muster, in presenting meritorious claims. You do not have to win a lawsuit to have a meritorious claim. In fact, your case was not determined on its merits. As you noted, we could have made a tremendous lot of progress in unravelling 9/11 had we been given the opportunity to take depositions of SAIC and ARA personnel. That is what we were seeking to do. Small wonder, then, that SAIC and ARA defended their cases so vigorously. In any event, we did not get to that stage, which literally means the merits of the cases simply was not decided one way or another by the court. And, as I said Morgan, you were not required to pay a penny of expense because the defendants’ attempts to get sanctions or to get the cases to be considered sufficiently frivolous so that you would be required to pay their expenses were all denied, every step of the way. https://nomoregames.net/2010/10/22/an-interview-with-911-counselor-jerry-v-leaphart/

Just how much thermite will be needed for each tower? The controlled demolition of the thermite & nuke theory Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-controlled-demolition-of-thermite Expanded: The controlled demolition of the 9/11 thermite theory People are so easily led by perceived "experts". Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/expanded-the-controlled-demolition Refutation of the 9/11 "truther" narratives A special presentation - https://911revision.substack.com/p/refutation-of-the-911-truther-narratives Buy me a coffee: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=PY6VVHSD4DP6U