9-11 Defendant’s Ties to Judge Ignored by U.S. Court of Appeals
July 12, 2012
This bastard judicial system is so corrupt.
– 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein handled all 9-11 wrongful death lawsuits and tort litigation. Hellerstein, however, has a conflict of interest in the 9-11 litigation: his son is an Israeli lawyer whose law firm works with the Rothschild-funded Mossad “passenger screening” company responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks. This hidden connection explains why Judge Hellerstein worked so hard to protect the Israeli culprits of the false-flag terrorism of 9-11 by preventing a trial for the victims. (NYT photo)
Ellen Mariani, the 9-11 widow who filed the first wrongful death lawsuit related to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001,filed a motion earlier this year with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York seeking to introduce materials into the court record regarding the evident conflict of interest concerning U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who handled all the 9-11 tort litigation lawsuits. The conflict of interest stems from the fact that the judge’s son Joseph lives in Israel where he works as a lawyer for the law firm representing the parent company of ICTS, the key defendant in the 9-11 litigation in Hellerstein’s court.
In a summary order handed down by a two-judge panel on June 26, Mariani’s motion to supplement the record was denied. The judges concluded that the documents that Mariani’s motion sought to introduce “do not reasonably call the district judge’s impartiality into question.”
To understand the importance of Mariani’s motion and the court of appeals decision, we need to understand that one of the key defendants in the 9-11 litigation was the Israeli-owned Huntleigh company that was responsible for passenger screening at the Boston airport on 9-11. This is the company that allowed the knife-wielding terrorists to board the two planes that smashed into the World Trade Center, at least according to the official explanation of events. If 9-11 was a false-flag terror attack, on the other hand, then the Israeli-owned ICTS and its passenger screeing company are part of the terror atrocity and the judge is protecting the true culprits of 9-11.
Judge Hellerstein’s decisions in the 9-11 tort litigation effectively protected the Israeli defendants who owned Huntleigh USA by preventing any 9-11 case from going to trial. All of the wrongful death lawsuits were settled out of court. The problem is that Hellerstein’s son Joseph works for the Israeli law firm that represents the parent company of ICTS and Huntleigh USA. That presents an obvious conflict of interest, but the Circuit Court judges Peter W. Hall and Susan L. Carney ignored the evidence and may even try to punish Mariani for having brought the motion to the court.
The summary order of Peter W. Hall and Susan L. Carney rejected the evidence of Judge Hellerstein’s conflict of interest saying the documented connection was nothing more than “personal slurs” against the judge and his family.
To understand why the court of appeals refused to accept documents that show that Judge Hellerstein is connected through his son to the Israeli defendant in the tort litigation, we need to understand who controls the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Let’s start with the chief judge for the court, Dennis G. Jacobs.
Dennis G. Jacobs is the chief judge of the court of appeals.
Jacobs (second from left) at Yeshiva University
Judge Jacobs (front row left with hand icon) participated in a “legal mission to Israel” in 2007…
where he was a “scholar-in-residence” at Hebrew University and met with Israeli politicians and “senior terrorism experts”.
That Dennis G. Jacobs would participate in a “legal mission to Israel” with American Friends of the Hebrew University to discuss the “War on Terror” and government powers, visit an Israeli military base, and meet with a “senior terrorism expert,” all suggest that Judge Jacobs is an active supporter of both Hebrew University and the state of Israel.
The three-judge panel who decided on the Mariani motion became a two-judge panel when Barrington D. Parker, Jr. recused himself from the panel. The two remaining judges were Peter Welles Hall and Susan Laura Carney.
Peter Welles Hall (center) is the former U.S. Attorney for Vermont.
Susan L. Carney, former legal counsel at Yale University, is married to Lincoln W. Caplan, a member of the New York Times editorial board and a son of the Zionist secret society, the B’nai B’rith.
Lincoln Caplan comes from a leading B’nai B’rith family from New Haven and covers the Supreme Court and judicial matters for the New York Times. Both of his parents, Lewis Caplan and Jane Spector, came from B’nai B’rith families of the Horeb Lodge of New Haven.
The decision to deny the Mariani motion and the harsh words in the summary order and the threats of sanctions against her and her lawyer suggest that there is a hidden hand controlling the judges. That is to say that the decision was made before the panel even saw her motion. Why was Mariani’s motion dismissed as “frivolous conduct” when she is simply trying to show that the judge handling the 9-11 tort litigation has an obvious conflict of interest?
While little is known about Judge Peter W. Hall, Susan L. Carney is married to Lincoln Caplan, a member of the New York Times editorial board. Caplan’s father, Lewis, and Russian-born grandfather Jacob Caplan were both members and leaders of the Zionist secret society, the B’nai B’rith. Jacob Caplan was president of the Horeb Lodge of New Haven and later president of the larger regional district for the secret society.
The B’nai B’rith, founded in New York in 1843, is a secret Jewish order like Freemasonry, which allows only Zionist Jews to be members. While it describes itself as a “service” organization, this description masks the fact that it is a highly secretive Masonic-like organization dedicated to supporting the Zionist agenda and the state of Israel. The New York Times has long been a B’nai B’rith controlled newspaper owned by one of the founding families of Lodge 1 of the B’nai B’rith. The New York Times has also played a key part of the 9-11 cover-up by ignoring the evidence that the Twin Towers were destroyed using explosives and nanothermite. As a son of the secretive B’nai B’rith (probably a member in good standing) and a member of the editorial board of the New York Times, Lincoln Caplan is also part of the 9-11 cover-up.
These two connections go a long way in explaining why the Mariani motion was denied. It was not denied because it lacked merit or failed to prove Judge Hellerstein’s conflict of interest. It was denied simply because it was being considered in a court that is anything but impartial when the subject being considered concerns the state of Israel. The chief judge of the court is an active supporter of the Zionist state and one of the judges who considered the motion is married to the state of Israel through her husband and his family’s long-standing support for the secret society that is behind the Zionist enterprise.
The 9-11 victims have been robbed of justice and the guilty parties have been protected. It was highly unlikely that the same corrupt court system that put Judge Hellerstein in charge of the 9-11 litigation would accept any evidence showing that he had a conflict of interest in the process. What the denial of the Mariani motion demonstrates most clearly is that justice for the crimes of 9-11 is not to be expected from the corrupt federal courts of New York.
Sources and Recommended Reading:
“9-11 Widow’s Motion Exposes Judge’s Ties to Israeli Defendant ICTS,” May 2, 2012
“Judge Forces Families to Settle Out of Court,” September 9, 2007
“Judge Hellerstein’s Unethical Connection to Key Defendant in 9-11 Lawsuit,” May 10, 2010
“B’nai B’rith – The Secret Society of Jews,” November 22, 2009
“The Jewish Secret Society That Controls the U.S. Media,” December 1, 2009
Note: Due to the transfer of information from the original website to this updated format, some article post dates may differ from the date they were originally published. However, most articles contain the actual publish date at the top of the article.