0 votes

"Dancing Israelis" Arrested On 9/11 Later Sued The Govt, But Lost Their Case!

By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
November 6, 2012

http://libertyfight.com/2012/dancing_israelis_sued_the_govt_...

Remember the Israelis who were arrested by New Jersey Police on 9/11/01 as the attacks occurred?

They were arrested, interrogated, held for 71 days and eventually all sent back to Israel under suspicous circumstances.
Many researchers have documented this as evidence of Israeli complicity in the attacks. But did you know that the Israelis later sued numerous government employees for civil rights violations? This is not widely known.

There is a lot of information which outlines the initial stories of the "Dancing Israelis", including
WhatReallyHappened and KillTown. The website 911Myths, while defending the establishment's story, also has a lot of good information on the case. LibertyFight.com disagrees with 911Myths conclusions and analysis but credits them with providing links to some information that many other sites do not have.

This article will give an update on the "Dancing Israeli" situation, with new information which hasn't been reported by anyone previously, to our knowledge.
What has not been reported at all, either in the mainstream media or alternative media, is the conclusion of their civil case. The Israelis federal civil rights lawsuit was tossed out of court!

......

In the case of the Israelis arrested on 9/11, some of the documents have been made public on leagle.com. The case is KURZBERG v. ASHCROFT
619 F.3d 176 (2010)
. The document is from the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. The Docket No. of the case is 07-0542-cv. It was
argued on November 17, 2009 and decided on August 30, 2010.

To put it plainly, the case was dismissed not because of any of the issues involved or merits of the case,
but because the plaintiffs failed to serve the defendants properly as per the rules of the Federal Court. Because the plaintiffs sued Attorney General John Ashcroft along with many others working for the government, as the appeals court put it, "the plaintiffs were required to serve process on both the individual defendants and -because the individual defendants were sued for acts or omissions occurring in connection with their performance of their duties - the United States." Ashcroft early in the proceedings actually waived his right to be personally served, but the plaintiffs had to officially serve the U.S as well. As the court explained, "by its plain text, requires service both upon the individual defendant and upon the United States officially; one will not suffice for the other." They actually gave the plaintiffs numerous chances to accomplish this, which was literally as simple as going down to any post office and mailing a certified letter! As the court further explained in their ruling,

"In order to serve process on the United States, the plaintiffs were required to deliver a copy of the complaint to the United States attorney for the district in which the action was brought and also send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General. Here, the plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 4(i) because they did not effect service on the United States. The plaintiffs failed to do so despite receiving repeated reminders from the defendants that left the plaintiffs with sufficient time to complete service."

The court also noted:

"The time period for completion of service extended under Rule 4(m) elapsed without the plaintiffs serving process on the United States through service on the Attorney General by registered or certified mail. They did, however, attempt to serve the United States three days before the time period expired by sending a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail to the mailing address for the Attorney General at the Department of Justice; the attempt was insufficient because it did not make use of registered or certified mail.
After the time period granted by the court had expired, several of the defendants, including Ashcroft, moved in the district court to dismiss the action on grounds of improper service of process, including failure to serve the United States through service on the Attorney General by registered or certified mail. The district court (John Gleeson, Judge) dismissed the case with respect to all of the defendants, including those who had not raised an improper service defense by pleading or motion. See Kurzberg v. Ashcroft, No. 04 Civ. 3950, 2006 WL 2738991, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68680 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2006)...

...CONCLUSION

"Serving process on the United States through service by registered or certified mail on the Attorney General might seem, from a practical standpoint, to be nothing more than a formality inasmuch as the Attorney General, who is charged with determining whether the United States will provide representation to individual defendants, was himself an individual defendant in this lawsuit. That does not, however, excuse noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court did not err in so holding. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court."

This seems like an unbelievable and absurd thing to happen when there are at least two professional lawyers handling the case for the plaintiffs. It might be understandable if a person was trying to wade through the courts and represent themself. Federal court rules can be very complicated and burdensome to the average person not versed in the legal system. Many times, cases are thrown out even when plaintiffs do have attorneys, such as in the case of when Jesse Ventura tried to sue the TSA or the ridiculous case of when Ron Paul tried to sue a youtube user (that case was rightly tossed out). Many times, the court will dismiss a case based on what seems like a "technicality", such as "standing", "jurisdiction" "Venue", failing to respond on time, etc. Fred Rodell, Law Professor at Yale University, wrote a classic essay in 1939 on the fraud and pig-latin type jibberish used by lawyers and judges. It's titled WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS! and is an excellent, must-read treatise. (The phrase is from Luke 11:46:"But he said: Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers.")

But for a team of international lawyers in a high profile case, to let the case be tossed out literally because they failed to serve the U.S. Attorney general properly? According to press reports at the time the case was first filed in 2004, the plaintiffs' lawyer Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said: "The infamous arrest of these young Israelis on 9/11 has been used by anti-Semites worldwide as 'proof' of Israel's involvement in the World Trade Center attack. Our clients are seeking compensation for the harm they suffered in the MDC by prison officials. In addition, the law suit will serve as an important public forum to debunk the lie that Israel or the Mossad was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It will show that there was no Jewish conspiracy as the Arab world continues to claim and put an end to this racist blood libel."

If it were so important to have a public hearing and "debunk the lie that Israel or the Mossad was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks", why would the lawyers allow the lawsuit get tossed out for such an absurd and avoidable reason?! In 2004 when the suit was filed, many people across the U.S. and the world were researching and finding out the truth about 9/11. Could it be that the lawsuit was filed at a time to deflect attention away from Israeli complicity and paint them instead as the abused victims?

It was tossed out for not sending a certified letter. Do you know how simple it is to send a certified letter, with a return reciept? You can do it at any U.S. Post office for usually less than $5 bucks. Strange days indeed.

[FULL ARTICLE HERE http://libertyfight.com/2012/dancing_israelis_sued_the_govt_...

At the bottom of this page in the green section are some relevent excerpts from the Appeals Court's 2010 ruling.

Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured on LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened, Economic Policy Journal, Strike The Root, ZionCrimeFactory, FreedomsPhoenix, Rense, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, National Motorists Association, WorldNetDaily, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, BlackBoxVoting, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com



Trending on the Web