Jerry V. Leaphart #JL4468
Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C.
(203) 825-6265 – phone
(203) 825-6256 – fax
jsleaphart[ at[ cs.com
FILED UNDER SEAL
QUI
TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND
DOCKET NO. May 31, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF vs.
The plaintiff/relator, Dr. Morgan Reynolds,
plaintiff, by his attorney, Jerry V. Leaphart of Jerry V. Leaphart &
Assoc., P.C. alleges as follows:
13. Instead, defendants, and each and every one of them, especially
those among them who are developers of psy
ops, including by way of non-exhaustive example, SAIC and ARA, committed
fraud in seeking to have NCSTAR 1 deceive the public into not recognizing
that WTC1,2 could not reasonably or possibly have
been hit by jetliners in the manner depicted in some (but not other TV
feeds) absent the use of psy ops. Some of
the defendants knew as much; other defendants either knew or if they did
not, they should have known as it is all but obvious that hollow aluminum
cannot glide through reinforced steel. To the extent they did not knowthis,
such ignorance was willful, intentional and actionable under the False
Claims Act.
16. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this action
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345 and supplemental jurisdiction
to entertain the common law and equitable causes of action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction
over the defendants pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) because at least
one of the original defendants to this qui tam action resides or transacts
business in the Southern District of New York and because the events that
are the central component of the fraud that was committed are, or, rather,
were, located in this district. Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1407 necessarily
confers the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York over the
parties on this Court for this Multi-district proceeding.
17. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York, under 31 U.S.C.
§ 3732 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because at least one of
the original defendants to this qui tam action resides or transacts business
in that District.
18. The United States brings this action on behalf of its Department
of Commerce ("Commerce Department"), and its agency, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), which issued NCSTAR 1, one of the
source documents in which the fraud alleged hereunder is to be found.
26. Defendant DataSource, Inc. is a privately
held company that provides services in IT project outsourcing, consulting,
and project management services and systems integration. It has its principle
office at 43. The False Claims Act (FCA) provides, in pertinent part that:
* * * is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty
of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount
of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person
. . . .
44. In 2002, Congress enacted the National Construction Safety Team
Act, 15 USC @ 7301, et seq.
50. The destruction of the WTC on September 11, 2001, was caused, in
whole or in part, by the use of Directed Energy Weapons, consisting in
High Energy Lasers and or other operational, but largely secret weapons
that are, nonetheless, known to exist and known to have been deployed and/or
deployable in the year 2001, before and after. It is also clear and apparent
on its face that NIST’s explanation of the
destruction of WTC1,2, issued in or about the
month of September, 2005, is blatantly false, incomplete, misleading and
fraudulent. As earlier stated, NIST first described its mandate, in words
and substance, as that of determining what caused the destruction of WTC1,2.
Then by intentional and admitted modification and narrowing of the scope
of that stated objective and mandate, NIST openly declined to carry it
out. That modification was at the behest and with the urging, backing and/or
combined manipulative power of the defendants, acting singularly, collectively,
overtly, covertly and otherwise.
51. Several of the defendants with whom NIST contracted for services
in the preparation of NCSTAR 1 are, themselves, primarily engaged as defense
contractors in a variety of disciplines, including, without limitation,
very specific involvement in the use, development, manufacture, testing
and or assessment of usability of directed energy weapons. In other words,
NIST contracted with those who have the greatest familiarity with directed
energy weapons in order to produce a report that sought to go to any length
necessary to avoid, disguise, omit and otherwise divert attention away
from the actual, real and intended destruction of the WTC complex by use
of one device, namely directed energy weaponry, while pretending that the
cause was the result of conditions that would be impossible based on the
extent to which the NIST report, NCSTAR 1 violated both the laws of physics
and common sense. By way of one example, NIST’s
NCSTAR 1 report found no piece of steel that had been subjected to a temperature
higher than 600 degrees C, and most had not encountered a temperature of
higher than 250 degrees C; yet, NIST offered no explanation whatever for
the visual confirmation that most of the steel of the WTC complex was turned
to dust and otherwise visibly subjected to a destructive process that could
not conceivably have been caused by the effects, combined or otherwise,
of jet fuel, gravity and/or damage from jetliner impacts.
54. The various cost reports, requisitions, billing statements and/or
requests for reimbursement submitted by the defendant NIST participants
from and after 2002, through, at least, September, 2005, and, in many instances,
continuing to the present, all contained false claims for reimbursement
and made false statements to NIST concerning work performed by them and/or
consulting services rendered to NIST because the true nature and intent
was to mislead NIST and to cause a false causal statement concerning what
caused the destruction of the WTC complex to occur.
59. The United States was damaged because of the acts of defendants
in submitting or causing to be submitted of false claims, statements and
records in that it was forced to pay the NIST participants for services
rendered and related items and services that were all a part of a scheme
to submit false and fraudulent information to NIST, resulting in the publication
of a misleading, false and fraudulent report; namely, NCSTAR 1.
(False Claims Act: Presentation of False Claims) (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1))
(All Defendants)
(False Claims Act: Making or Using False Record or Statement) (31 U.S.C.
§ 3729 (a)(2)) (All Defendants)
(False Claims Act: Reverse False Claims) (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7))
(Unjust Enrichment)
(Payment by Mistake)
(Recoupment of Overpayments)
(Common Law Fraud)
3. On the Seventh Cause of Action, for common law fraud against all
defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages, together with costs
and interest, and for such further relief as may be just and proper.
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff
hereby demands a trial by jury on all the issues.
THE PLAINTIFF
Jerry V. Leaphart #JL4468
DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS on behalf of the
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.;
APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
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.;
1. The United States brings this action to recover treble damages and
civil penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33
and to recover all available damages and other monetary relief under the
common law or equitable theories of unjust enrichment, payment under mistake
of fact, recoupment of overpayments and
common law fraud.
2. These claims are based upon defendants' false claims and false statements
made in and pursuant to certain reports, meetings, decision-making procedures,
documentation, analyses of various types that resulted in accumulation
of thousands of pages of text, reports, illustrations and graphic displays
for which defendants received significant monetary compensation, all the
while having overt and direct knowledge; and/or covert and indirect knowledge,
or should have had such knowledge, that all such documentation was either
false, fraudulent, a sham and/or designed to obfuscate the true and correct
state of affairs that existed and that was hidden, as hereinafter articulated
in detail. Recommendations and other contacts made with certain specified
and otherwise duly empowered personnel and employees of that certain branch,
agency or instrumentality of the United States Department of Commerce known
as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (hereinafter generally
referred to as NIST) were misled by the defendants’ fraudulent acts and/or
omissions.
2 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GEL Document 5 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 34
3. Under and pursuant to the National Construction Safety Team (NCST)
Act, 15 USCS @ 7301, signed into law in October 2002, NIST was duly authorized
to investigate so-called building failures in the
3 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GEL Document 5 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 34
4. During the course of its investigation of the destruction of WTC1,2,
NIST caused to be issued certain “solicitations” resulting in the awarding
of certain contracts under and pursuant to which each of the said defendants
were to have provided consulting and other services that would have enabled
NIST to carryout its statutory mandate of “determining what caused the
destruction of WTC1,2.”
5. Instead, however, defendants knowingly concealed, or failed to disclose,
or caused others to fail to disclose material information in several reports
filed in the public domain along with NCSTAR 1, and that comprise various
sub-parts of NCSTAR 1, known as NCSTAR 1-1 through and including NCSTAR
1-8 and various subparts under each of the said NCSTAR 1-1 through and
including NCSTAR 1-8 that, in the aggregate, constitute several thousand
pages of text, documentation, graphical displays, simulations, charts and
other documentation, all of which purported to satisfy, but intentionally
did not satisfy, the mandate that NIST had, which was that of determining
what cause the destruction of WTC1,2. Instead, all such documentation serves
solely to mislead, obfuscate and provide a vehicle for the intended fraud;
namely, that of steering NIST away from a consideration of what caused
the destruction of WTC1,2; which, as elsewhere
elaborated upon, was the use on 9/11/01 of exotic weaponry known as directed
energy weapons.
6. Indeed, NIST, at pg. xxxv-vi of NCSTAR 1 openly admits that its
mandate was to “determine why and how WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed following
the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed”. But,
shortly thereafter and at pg. xxxvii of NCSTAR 1, NIST acknowledges that
it did not “determine why and how WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed following the
initial impacts of the aircraft and why and
4 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GEL Document 5 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 34
how WTC 7 collapsed” but, instead, NIST openly narrowed and limited
its stated mandate of NCSTAR 1 at the behest and based upon the fraud perpetrated
by defendants resulting in the inexplicable narrowing of NCSTAR 1’s mandate
as follows: “[T]he focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events
from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each
tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the
‘probable collapse sequence’, although it includes little analysis of the
structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation
were reached and collapse became inevitable”. That innocuous sounding admission
that NIST did not carry out its statutory function or mandate was caused
by fraud and deceit and is the subject of this Qui Tam lawsuit.
7. Relator, in a Request for Correction
dated March 8, 2007 (hereinafter generally referred to as March 8 RFC),
copy annexed as Exhibit A, challenged NCSTAR 1 in its entirety based on
the Data Quality Act Section 515 Public Law 106-554 and based on NIST’s
admitted failure to determine what caused the destruction of WTC1,2, and
further based on the submittal of proof that the actual cause was obfuscated
by use of false, misleading and fraudulent simulations seemingly showing
how hollow, aluminum aircraft could impact with structural steel and nonetheless,
glide right through such steel structures (WTC1,2) from nose to end of
its tail and wing to wing and leave an airplane shape, no less, all as
though this event were a cartoon much like the Roadrunner; or much like
a hot knife through butter. Such simulations violate the Data Quality Act
and the False Claims Act and relator herein
has so asserted.
8. In the March 8 RFC and in Supplement No. 1 to said March 8 RFC that
was filed with NIST on April __, 2007, Relator
indicated that fraud had been committed
5 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GEL Document 5 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 5 of 34
in that NCSTAR 1 was a fraudulent document, resulting from the acts
and omissions of NIST participants, including the defendants herein; and/or
in other respects, was fraudulent for ignoring, disregarding and/or intentionally
concealing abundant evidence confirming that the conclusions contained
in NCSTAR 1 were untenable, incomplete and
incongruent with the facts at hand; in other words: fraudulent.
9. Relator, in a Request for Correction
dated March 8, 2007 (hereinafter generally referred to as March 8 RFC),
copy annexed as Exhibit A, challenged NCSTAR 1 in its entirety based on
the Data Quality Act Section 515 Public Law 106-554 and based on NIST’s
admitted failure to determine what caused the destruction of WTC1,2, and
further based on the submittal of proof that the actual cause was obfuscated
by use of false, misleading and fraudulent simulations seemingly showing
how hollow, aluminum aircraft could impact with structural steel and nonetheless,
glide right through such steel structures (WTC1,2) from nose to end of
its tail and wing to wing and leave an airplane shape, no less, all as
though this event were a cartoon much like the Roadrunner; or much like
a hot knife through butter. Such simulations violate the Data Quality Act
and the False Claims Act and relator herein
has so asserted.
Although the March 8 RFC is a comprehensive document detailing exactly
how, in what manner and for what reasons NCSTAR 1 is fraudulent, and should
therefore be read in its entirety in conjunction with the claims of fraud
made herein, it can be said that in the main, NCSTAR 1 is fraudulent because
it intentionally conceals the fact that the buildings known as the Twin
Towers of the World Trade Center Complex, World Trade Center 1 and World
Trade Center 2 were not hit by Boeing 767 jetliners and all such claims
to that effect are glaringly and obviously blatantly false and are indeed,
a manifested psychological operation (“psy op”)
of the type that one or more of the defendants herein, including, without
limitation, SAIC, specialize in.
10. Upon information and belief, such psy
ops are and remain highly classified, secret instrumentalities of the military
apparatus of the Armed Forces of the
6 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GEL Document 5 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 6 of 34
elements that are neither responsive to or even known to the lawful
chain of command of the Armed Forces.
11. It is in that manner that some 3000 deaths were inflicted upon
the
12. In reporting as NCSTAR 1 did, that two 110 story skyscrapers, WTC1,2,
disintegrated in less than 10 seconds each, leaving a debris field that
was almost level with the ground and rarely rising more than one-story
in height and where heavy gauge, high quality steel, which quality of steel
is and was well known to some defendants, including by way of non-exhaustive
example, Underwriters Laboratories, was turned to dust before our very
eyes and to claim, as NCSTAR 1 did, that the process seen was the “inevitable”
result of plane damage, kerosene-based fire (jet fuel is a form of kerosene
with certain additives) and gravity, defies logic, common sense, and scientific
reasoning and rationale of the type that NIST was mandated to provide and
that defendants were required to assist in, based on their individual and
collective expertise, which constituted the basis for their selection as
contractors and which resulted in the receipt by them of the payments that
should not have been made and that should now be recovered, with interest
and penalties under the False Claims Act.
14. As a result of defendants' false statements and false or fraudulent
reports and other submissions issued or delivered to NIST during the course
of NIST’s investigation in the years 2002
to 2005, defendants wrongfully obtained payments from NIST which they knew
or should have known they were not entitled to receive, by virtue of the
fraud they were then and there committing.
15. The causes of action alleged herein are timely brought on the basis
of the filing of relator’s complaint in
this action within either six (6) years of the events of 9/11/01 or within
two (2) years of the issuance by NIST of its final report entitled NCSTAR
1, which was issued in or about the month of October 2005, and wherein relator
filed the March 8 RFC and the Supplement thereto in which relator
provided specific original source information concerning the nature of
the fraud committed and the capacity of certain of the defendants to have
knowingly engaged in that fraud by virtue of either their participation
in the manufacture of development of psy
op perpetuated on 9/11/01 or other areas of expertise, such as, by way
of non-exhaustive example,WJE’s knowledge of
structural steel and David Sharp’s collection and analysis of that steel,
and the lack of any identifiable aircraft debris, such that he and others
knew that what was found could not have reasonably resulted from the effects
of gravity, kerosene and/or crash impact damage. By virtue of the collective
and individual complicity of the defendants in the fraud that was perpetrated,
such as expertise in psy ops, other defendants,
like SAIC, all conspired to and did defraud both NIST and the public at
large.
III. VENUE
19. Plaintiff and relator Dr. Morgan
Reynolds is a citizen of the
20. A Disclosure Statement in text and digital form has been delivered
to the office of the Attorney General with copy to the U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of New York, containing copious data further detailing
and substantiating the assertions that the apparent airliner images are
but the manifestation of a psy op.
21. Defendant Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
is a publicly traded company which has its principle office at SAIC Headquarters,
22. Defendant Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA) is an “employee
owned” corporation having its principal office and place of business
at 4300 San Mateo Blvd. NE • Suite A-220 • Albuquerque, NM 87110 that currently
operates ARA 73 offices in the United States and in Canada, some of which
have classified computing and storage and military applications abbreviated
as:
11 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GEL Document 5 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 11 of 34
• SEI CMMI Certification
• SCIF facilities
• SIPRNET access
ARA also has:
• Manufacturing/prototyping facilities
• Laboratories
• Testing facilities
located in various states, including, without limitation, the States
of Vermont, Florida, Colorado and Texas. ARA, upon information and belief,
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, develops and/or tests DEW that
are operational in Earth orbit, at high altitude, low altitude, at sea
and on land ranging in lethality from the capacity to do great 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
op purposes.
23. Defendant Boeing is a publicly traded company that has its corporate
offices at Boeing Corporate Offices, 100 North
(http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060116c_nr.html), including,
by way of example, significant involvement in the development of the so-called
Airborne Laser (ABL) that serves as a platform for the use of High Energy
Lasers (HEL) that, upon information and belief, have the capacity to pulverize
steel, destroy buildings in mere seconds, as happened to WTC 1,2 on 9/11/01.
24. Defendant NuStats is a full-service
survey research and consulting firm, with more than 40 social scientists,
research managers and technical specialists in their
25. Defendant Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc. is a privately
held company that provides services in design and concept validation for
such areas as Stress Analysis and Heat Transfer. It has its principle office
at 1579 Straits Turnpike,
27. Defendant GeoStats, Inc. is a privately
held company which provides “highly-specialized consulting services for
transportation projects that require the collection and analysis of accurate
spatial and temporal data”. Its products include GeoLogger™,
a simple and practical in-vehicle GPS data collection solution. Its office
is located at
28. Defendant Gilsanz
29. Defendant Hughes Associates, Inc. (HAI) was founded in 1980 and
is a global company with leading fire protection consultants and engineers,
and fire investigators that specialize in fire testing, fire modeling,
and fire protection design. Through state of the art fire engineering,
modeling and testing, HAI's engineers and
consultants lead the fire safety and protection engineering industry. Headquartered
in
30. Defendants independent contractors, Ajmal Abbasi, Eduardo Kausel,
David Parks, David Sharp,
31. Defendant Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA) is a company
of fire protection and security consultants, registered with the General
Services Administration and working closely with the federal government,
providing professional engineering consulting services, products and programs.
Its corporate headquarters is located in
32. Defendant Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C.’s
president, Avenue,
33. Defendant Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. is privately held ENR
500 consulting/engineering firm that applies advanced engineering to buildings,
infrastructure and special structures. Founded in 1956, their practice
encompasses the design, investigation and performance evaluation and repair
and rehabilitation of constructed works. Their
34. Defendant S.K.Ghosh Associates, Inc., a privately held company,
is involved in the development of seismic design code provisions for national
model building codes and standards including ASCE 7 Standard for Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete. Its main office is located at
35. Defendant Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP (SOM) was founded
in 1936, and is one of the world's leading architecture, urban design,
engineering, and interior architecture firms. Its
36. Defendant Teng & Associates, Inc., a Chicago-based engineering
firm with its corporate office located at
37. Defendant Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Underwriters Laboratories
Inc. (UL) is an independent, not-for-profit product safety certification
organization that has been testing products and writing Standards for Safety
for over a century. UL evaluates more than 19,000 types of products, components,
materials and systems annually with 21 billion UL Marks appearing on 71,000
manufacturers’ products each year. UL’s worldwide family of companies and
network of service providers includes 66 laboratories, testing and certification
facilities serving customers in 104 countries. Its corporate headquarters
is located at
38. Defendant Wiss, Janney, Elstner Assoicates,
Inc.(WJE) has its principal place of business
at
39. Defendant American Airlines is a division, subsidiary and/or brand
name of AMR Corp., with a headquarters or principal office located at
40. Defendant Silverstein Properties has an office or place of business
at 250 Greenwich Street, 38th Floor New York City, NY 10007 and holds a
leasehold interest in and to the site where WTC1,2 stood. As such, this
defendant had a clear conflict of interest in steering the investigation
away from any hint, suggestion, much less conclusion that jetliners did
not impact or have any bearing upon the destruction of WTC1,2 and the rest
of the World Trade Center complex. Indeed, one anomaly that should be a
hint that something is amiss is that all buildings having an address prefix
of “
41. Defendant United Air Lines, whose parent corporation is UAL Corporation,
has its headquarters at 2 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60602, with a
mailing address of P.O. Box 66100, Chicago, IL 60666. United Airlines had
one or more aircraft that were said to have been involved in the events
of 9/11/01 and United Airlines then consulted with NIST in the preparation
of NCSTAR 1. Their individual and collective expertise, and that of their
employers, could have been, but was not, used for purposes of calling attention
to the fact that the effects seen and left by the pattern of destruction
of WTC1,2 could not have been caused by jetliner impacts. Instead, defendant
chose to use its expertise to commit fraud based on either withholding
information or manipulating information and by then accepting payment improperly.
42. Attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, is a
chart listing all parties who either contracted with or consulted
with NIST in ways that are at issue in this action, hereinafter the “NIST
participants.”
V. THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT
(a) Any person who (1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented,
to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment
or approval; (2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a
false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved
by the Government; (3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a
false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government;. . . or (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,
(b) For purposes of this section, the terms "knowing" and "knowingly"
mean that a person, with respect to information (1) has actual knowledge
of the information; (2) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity
of the information; or (3) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity
of the information, and no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.
See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) and (b).
45. During the time period relevant to this complaint, NIST paid for
consulting services on the basis of certain contracts and solicitation
and on the basis of requisitions for the NIST participants' reported costs.
46. Commerce Department is responsible for the administration and supervision
of NIST. NIST, an agency of Commerce Department, is directly responsible
for the WTC investigation program.
47. During the course of the ongoing WTC investigation, including especially
the time period of 2002 up to and including September of 2005, the NIST
participants have submitted claims for payment to NIST arising under their
various contracts and solicitations for services and/or reimbursement of
expenses. The NIST participants received and are receiving payments on
said claims.
48. Cost reports are thought to exist that contain specific financial
data relating to the payments made by NIST to the NIST participants.
49. All defendants are and were familiar with the law and regulations
governing the WTC Investigation, including requirements relating to the
submission of cost reports, accurate data, from either fraud or conflicts
of interest and without violating the False Claims Act.
VII. THE DEFENDANTS’ SCHEME
52. In point of fact, NIST, despite surrounding itself with contractors
who are at the epicenter of that part of the military industrial complex
that specializes in the production of directed energy weapons, in the dissemination
of false news, so called psychological operations (psy
ops) and who also specialize in public perception management programs,
among other disciplines and areas of expertise that enabled, contributed
to and/or facilitated the fraudulent scheme herein described and which
has succeeded, thus far, in fraudulently presenting a false and misleading,
fraudulent and illegal report on what caused the destruction on 9/11/01
of the WTC complex, and the receipt of improper payment in furtherance
thereof.
53. However, on March 8, 2007, relator,
Dr. Morgan Reynolds, caused to be submitted a Request for Correction (RFC)
that plainly stated that the WTC complex was destroyed by use of directed
energy weapons. Plaintiff, relator, Dr.
Morgan Reynolds, in so doing, placed NIST on notice that false claims had
been submitted to the government. Relator
is, then, the original source of that claim and hereby reiterates that
the WTC complex was destroyed on the basis of the use of directed energy
weapons and all defendants knew or should have known this. Many of said
defendants are involved in the manufacture of directed energy weapons as
and for their primary business function.
VIII. FALSE CLAIMS AND FALSE STATEMENTS TO NIST
55. Exhibit B contains the following information regarding the false
assertions that jetliners impacted WTC1,2:
a) Complete, nearly intact penetration of the jet liner image into
each tower and disappearance from exterior view, nose to tail (length of
the aircraft) and wingtip to wingtip (width of aircraft);
b) Nearly complete shredding and destruction of the jetliner image
into small pieces inside each tower;
c) Substantial aircraft debris exiting the building via each impact
hole and the wall opposite each entry hole;
d) No significant deceleration as each jetliner entered a tower. In
particular:
i) Flight AA 11, according to NIST, hit WTC 1 flying at an estimated
443 mph yet its tail section disappeared (767 length = 159 feet) with 0.25
seconds, implying a minimum average airspeed of 434 mph traversing the
initial 159 feet within the building, an insignificant drop of two percent
despite massive resistance from a steel/concrete building. A real jetliner
would have encountered massive steel walls and steel floor pans-trusses-reinforced
concrete floors immediately, as well as the dense steel core within 60
feet, drastically slowing the jetliner;
ii) Flight UA 175 hit WTC 2, according to NIST, flying through thin
air at an estimated 542 mph yet its tail section disappeared in 0.20 seconds,
implying a minimum average airspeed of 542 mph traversing the initial 159
feet inside the south tower, that is, airspeed did not decrease despite
resistance by the steel/concrete building. A real jetliner would have encountered
steel walls and concrete floors immediately, as well as the dense steel
core within 37 feet and slowed drastically.
56. Thus, in that manner, it is clear and apparent that NCSTAR 1 is
false and misleading, on its face and as a result of the particular information
set forth above and in Exhibit B.
57. All NIST participants, defendants, knowingly filed or caused the
filing of those false or fraudulent cost reports to get claims paid that
should not have been paid, precisely because doing so resulted in the facilitation
of the publication by NIST of a false, fraudulent and misleading causal
report; namely NCSTAR 1, occurring in or about the month of October, 2005.
58. All such submitted cost reports, invoices, reimbursement claims
and the like constitute false claims under the False Claims Act because
the defendants knew they included costs that the actual cause of the destruction
of the WTC complex was the result of the use of directed energy weapons.
60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges
each allegation in ¶¶ 1 through 58, as if fully set forth herein.
61. The defendants knowingly presented or caused to be presented false
or fraudulent claims for payment or approval to the
62. By virtue of the false or fraudulent claims made by the defendants,
the
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges
each allegation in ¶¶ 1 through 62, as if fully set forth herein.
64. The defendants, and each of them, knowingly made, used, or caused
to be made or used, false records or statements to get false or fraudulent
claims paid or approved by the
65. By virtue of the false records or statements made by the defendants,
the
(All Defendants)
66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges
each allegation in ¶¶ 1 through 65, as if fully set forth herein.
67. The defendants knowingly made, used or caused 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 United States.
68. By virtue of the false records or statements made by the defendants,
the
(All Defendants)
69. Plaintiff repeats and realleges
each allegation in ¶¶ 1 through 68, as if fully set forth herein.
70. This is a claim for recovery of monies by which the defendants
have been unjustly enriched.
71. By directly or indirectly obtaining government funds to which they
were not entitled, the defendants were unjustly enriched, and are liable
to account and pay such amounts, or the proceeds or profits there from,
which are to be determined at trial, to the United States.
(All Defendants)
72. Plaintiff repeats and realleges
each allegation in ¶¶ 1 through 71, as if fully set forth herein.
73. This a claim for the recovery of monies paid by the Untied States
to the defendants by mistake.
74. The United States, acting in reasonable reliance on the accuracy
and truthfulness of the information contained in the cost reports submitted
by defendants, paid the NIST participant defendants certain sums of money
to which they were not entitled, and defendants are thus liable to account
and pay such amounts, which are to be determined at trial, to the United
States.
(All Defendants)
75. Plaintiff repeats and realleges
each allegation in ¶¶ 1 through 74, as if fully set forth herein.
76. This is a claim for common law recoupment,
for the recovery of monies unlawfully paid by the
77. The
(All Defendants)
78. Plaintiff repeats and realleges
each allegation in ¶¶ 1 through 77, as if fully set forth herein.
79. All NIST participants defendants
made material and false representations in the cost reports they submitted
to NIST for payment and/or for reimbursement with knowledge of their falsity
or reckless disregard for their truth, with the intention that the government
act upon the misrepresentations to its detriment. The government acted
in justifiable reliance upon defendants' misrepresentations by not only
paying for the claimed services and the claimed entitlements to reimbursement,
but also by incorporating the false, misleading and fraudulent data and
conclusions into NCSTAR 1, as intended by the NIST participants defendants.
80. Had the true facts been known to plaintiff, all defendants would
not have received payment of any sum whatsoever, based on the nature and
the extent of fraud committed by the NIST participants
defendants.
81. By reason of having made such payments, plaintiff has been damaged
in an as yet undetermined amount.
1. On the First, Second, and Third, Causes of Action under the False
Claims Act, against all defendants, for the amount of the United States'
damages, multiplied as required by law, and such civil penalties as are
required by law, together with all such further relief as may be just and
proper.
2. On the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action, for unjust enrichment,
payment by mistake, and common law recoupment
against all defendants, for the damages sustained and/or amounts by which
defendants were unjustly enriched or by which defendants retained illegally
obtained monies, plus interest, costs, and expenses, for an accounting
of such monies and such further relief as may be just and proper.
Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C.
8 West Street, Suite 203
(203) 825-6265 – phone
(203) 825-6256 – fax
jsleaphart [at[ cs.com
Dated: May 31, 2007