On our most recent episode of 9/11 Free Fall, attorneys Mick Harrison and Dave Meiswinkle of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry joined host Andy Steele to give listeners an in-depth look at the anticipated grand jury proceeding related to the petition they filed earlier this year reporting unprosecuted federal crimes at the World Trade Center on 9/11.
We are pleased to make this special episode of 9/11 Free Fall available as a transcribed interview to go along with the podcast. If you prefer to listen on SoundCloud, please make use of the SoundCloud player below.
To support the Lawyers’ Committee and AE911Truth’s joint project to ensure a thorough and successful grand jury investigation, visit AE911Truth.org/grandjury.
Andy Steele (Host): Alright, I am joined by two people who are going to be part of a very important endeavor. On November 7th, the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry received the following letter from Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney.
It says, “We have received and reviewed the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions.”
So, with those very simple words, those two sentences, 9/11 Truth is going to have its day in court. And these are the two gentlemen that are going to be involved with this case, who are responsible for making this development happen.
First, we’re joined by Mick Harrison. He’s a public interest attorney. He graduated summa cum laude from the University of the District of Columbia School of Law. He has a national practice focused on cases that involve whistleblower protection, government accountability, corporate fraud and false claims, and dangers to the public health or the environment. Over the last 25 years, he has worked in partnership on such cases with the Government Accountability Project, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Chemical Weapons Working Group, the National Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Vietnam veterans’ organizations, among others.
He is joined by David Meiswinkle, who is a criminal defense attorney and a retired police officer of 23 years. He is also a former U.S. Army veteran. He founded the New Brunswick Taxpayers and Tenants Association and The New Brunswick Reporter, which is a community newspaper. His activism and articles outlining municipal corruption brought federal authorities into New Brunswick, New Jersey, and led to major criminal investigations and arrests and indictments and convictions of prominent local politicians.
So these guys have been in the arena. And they’re going to be stepping into probably, what I believe, is going to be one of the most important cases of this century. And it’s going to be going before the grand jury, as we said before. So guys, thank you for what you’re doing and welcome to 9/11 Free Fall.
Mick Harrison: Thank you, Andy. Good to be here.
David Meiswinkle: Thank you, Andy.
Steele: So, I’m always aware that we’re picking up new audience members all the time. There’s new people waking up to the evidence here and there, and may even have woken up to the issue because of the press release that was sent out about this latest development.
Starting with Mick, tell us why the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry was founded and what its mission essentially is.
Harrison: Well, the mission of the Lawyers’ Committee is transparency and accountability regarding 9/11. And that relates to what happened on the day of 9/11, the events leading up to 9/11, and the events that resulted from 9/11. So we’re hoping to bring the full truth out through a variety of mechanisms, one of which we’ll be talking about today. And we’re hoping to eventually get accountability for those who are responsible for all of the crimes of 9/11.
Meiswinkle: And, Andy, the official story, as your listeners no doubt know, is that office fires, typical office fires, brought the World Trade Center complex down. And the evidence that is being presented to the grand jury is that explosives and bombs, incendiaries and controlled demolition, was involved. So the presentation of the amazing — not amazing, but the very important evidence, which is amazing because it’s the first time it’s being presented in 17 years, a lot of that has to do with the Architects & Engineers, and their scientists, documenting what we’re presenting.
Steele: Well, this is a moment that we have been waiting for, an important step toward getting justice. Now, the evidence has been out there for a number of years. It’s very difficult, I’m sure as you guys know, to proceed on an issue like this. Luckily, you guys have the expertise needed to push this issue forward and do what is necessary. And we’re going to be getting into the grand jury process today so that our audience understands exactly what is happening. Because God knows the corporate media doesn’t help us; we’ve got to do the job for them. And I want our supporters to be along for the ride with us as much as humanly possible for every step. I want them to know exactly what is happening. And I want the citizen journalists listening out there to write about it and cover it in their own blogs and own YouTube videos — to get the word out about what is happening. This is important historical stuff.
So I want you guys just to briefly elaborate on your background, because I read off your previous work. But there’s lots of lawyers in the United States. And you would wonder, “Why don’t we just pick this one over the other one?” What is it about your background and your experience that makes you guys the ones to push this issue and to carry the evidence into the courtroom? We’ll start with Mick.
Harrison: Well, first of all, I think we’re open to getting help. We wouldn’t describe ourselves as the “Dream Team” on this. But we both — Dave and I are public interest-minded lawyers. I think our concern about integrity in government and our early experiences led us, in part, to become lawyers. I was a teacher before I became a lawyer. Dave was a police officer before he became a lawyer. So I think we have the dedication that not all lawyers start with. But you really need a dedication to the public interest and you need to be willing to sacrifice to achieve the goal and keep your eyes on the prize. And not just Dave and I, but I think all of our colleagues on the board of the Lawyers’ Committee and all those helping us have shown that dedication. I’m honored to work with these folks.
And we have a lot of experience. Our combined experience is considerable. You know, I’ve done a lot of whistleblower retaliation cases where I’ve gotten the inside view on corruption in government and corporations. And that is certainly a valuable experience for what we’re doing now. And I’ll let Dave talk about his experiences, which complement mine.
Meiswinkle: Sure, thank you. I think, for me, Andy, I try to put things in a context, and, historically, put our country in that context. And freedom is really a rare experience for the world, for the most part. In the United States, I guess going back thousands of years, there’s not been a country that’s had as much freedom. And yet we’re at the precipice of losing it. And a lot of it can be pinpointed to what happened on 9/11 in the towers there.
Approaching it from the police perspective, it seemed like there was an improper or incompetent investigation, without a doubt. And looking at it as an attorney, and dealing with, basically, the other side, with people that are arrested, and where their constitutional rights have been violated, it causes me to really appreciate the Constitution.
I look at this incident as a litmus test for the feasibility or the integrity of our system. If we cannot address a crime and at least investigate it, which has never been done before, and properly investigate it — the murder of 3,000 people — we have a problem. And we do have a problem.
And it’s the first time now we’re allowed to start out with this evidence, hopefully. As I mentioned, a lot of it gathered by Architects & Engineers. And we’re praying, and very hopeful, that this will be presented to grand jurors, and that they will get for the first time the opportunity to look at the evidence and begin a proper investigation. And I’m hoping that this will be a turnaround. And again, in the bigger context, this is really about the freedom of people in the United States, but the whole world will have their eye on this.
Steele: I know the 9/11 Truth Movement does. And I think that once this picks up steam, especially when we get past the grand jury process, all eyes will be on this case. I’m sure the corporate media will do everything they can to look past it or try to prejudice coverage of it. But that doesn’t really matter. They’re completely marginalized, I believe, in the minds of regular people — of people who have known exactly what Dave just said, that these buildings were brought down with explosives. For me the case is already closed.
It’s sort of a reality that people have had to come to grips with over the last 17 years. And you see no justice happening. You see this allowed to be swept under the rug, for life to go on as normal, which is not very good here in the post-9/11 world. We’ve seen a lot of consequences from the United States’ reaction to September 11th. And people have chosen to continue their activism. Now this happens. A ray of hope. And, again, you guys are going to be leading us into battle. And we’re going to need the help of the entire 9/11 Truth Movement. We’re going to be getting to that later on in the show.
But I want our audience to understand exactly what is going to happen. I know for me, up until you guys started doing this work, “grand jury” was just a word I would hear on the news whenever some high profile person was being indicted for a crime. But I never really understood what it meant, because I didn’t need to. I need to now, and so does our audience.
So Mick, beginning with you — and, Dave, feel free to chime in — what is a grand jury? How is the process going to work from here on out?
Harrison: Well, we’re talking about a “special grand jury.” It’s a term of art. It’s a federal grand jury that is established in the bigger districts in the country on an ongoing basis and can be established in other districts when there’s a need. It originated, I think, with the need to combat organized crime.
And the role of the grand jury is independent of the other three branches of government. The grand jury is essentially independent of all of those three branches of government and controls what happens in the grand jury process. And the grand jury is 18 to 23 regular people, selected like the normal petite juries are for criminal trials that people are accustomed to being called to serve on.
So its job is to investigate crimes that are reported, determine if a crime was committed, and, if a crime was committed, determine who committed that crime — or at least who there is evidence committed a crime so that an indictment can be returned and the U.S. Attorney can begin a prosecution. This process of the grand jury is mostly investigative, and it’s mostly done in secret — some folks don’t understand that. What goes on before the grand jury cannot be talked about by the grand jurors while that process is going on. And the U.S. attorneys cannot even talk about happens before the grand jury. There are a couple exceptions: If we, the Lawyers’ Committee, for example, or Architects & Engineers, are called to come before the grand jury, we can tell the public what we testified about. But we don’t have access to everything else that happened before the grand jury.
So the key here is this is a preliminary investigation leading, potentially, to an indictment, which then leads to a prosecution.
Steele: That’s right. Now, I was doing some research last night, and this is what I was able to put together from that research. And I’m going ask you guys to verify this for me in case I’m wrong. But there’s no defense lawyer at a grand jury. You’re not going to have a representative of the people indicted arguing against the U.S. Attorney. Isn’t that correct?
Harrison: I believe it is. But be clear, the indictment will not have happened until the end of the process, if it happens at all. But during the investigation, you’re correct, if the defense lawyers don’t show up, it is allowed, if the U.S. attorney is willing or the grand jury requests, for other parties and their attorneys, such as the Lawyers’ Committee, to be invited to testify — not, of course, as potential indictees, but as persons who may be helpful in guiding the grand jury’s investigation. That is one thing we’re hoping to accomplish.
Meiswinkle: And, Andy, the grand jury is 23 people. And in order to get the indictment there, you need a quorum of 16. So if you have 16 people and you have 12 of them — at least that’s my understanding, the ones who charge someone — you can do that. We’ve let the U.S. Attorney know that we’d be willing to assist, and we want to assist in any way we can, including making presentations, if they’ll allow that.
Steele: Now, just for historical record, grand jury has been used in the past here in U.S. history for very important cases. Thomas Jefferson used it to get an indictment of Aaron Burr. I guess he went through several grand juries before he got it, to go after Aaron Burr for treason. Burr was eventually found not guilty. It was also used in Watergate to indict the five burglars. And also one was used to indict Nixon’s aides. And Nixon actually had to appear before a grand jury after he resigned from office. It was also used in the whole Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal; he had to appear before a grand jury. So, this is the way to go when you’re going after high-profile government figures, high-profile cases involving government corruption. In a sense, it’s kind of like the fourth branch of government. It’s a protection for the people to go after matters when government is not doing its proper due diligence in this case, and you have this kind of corruption going on.
Now, when the U.S. Attorney says he’s going to comply with the provisions of the code regarding the petition you filed, what specifically now is he required to do?
Harrison: Well, the first step is to report to the special grand jury the crimes that are articulated in the Lawyers’ Committee’s 50-some-page petition that involve the use of explosives to destroy the World Trade Center buildings — the two Towers and Building 7 — on 9/11. So those crimes have to be reported to the special grand jury.
The second thing is the U.S. Attorney has to share who it was that reported these crimes to the U.S. Attorney, which, of course, in this case is the Lawyers’ Committee. So the grand jury will be informed that the Lawyers’ Committee reported these crimes.
Now, our reading of the special grand jury statute, the 18 U.S.C. § 3332, that you referenced, in addition, the U.S. Attorney has a mandatory duty — non-discretionary — to give the grand jury all the evidence, all the information provided in the petition regarding the crimes, so the grand jury can be informed in proceeding with a decision on whether and how to investigate. So those would be the immediate steps, which may have already been taken — we don’t know yet. But those steps may have already been taken. And then, I don’t know, Dave, if you want to talk to what may or may not happen after that.
Meiswinkle: Yeah, just to go over what Mick said. The code, I’ll read it. Andy, you probably already looked at it, 18 U.S.C. § 3332. It’s Powers and Duties. “It shall be the duty of each such grand jury empaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.” And then it says: “Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States with a presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.”
Now, what we’ve done — and Mick was a major drafter of the petition; the Lawyers’ Committee, we all reviewed the material, we all had input, but Mick was the major drafter — but originally [when] we filed the petition, on April 10, the major crime that was enumerated there was the federal law criminalizing bombings of places of public use and government facilities. We amended it to make it stronger on July 30. And the crimes charged now were, in addition, a federal law criminalizing acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, federal law criminalizing providing support to terrorists, and federal law criminalizing the killing of federal government agents and/or employees. There were a few FBI personnel that were killed. So that just puts it in, I guess, some of the legal jargon there — those crimes, when we’re talking about what the grand jury will be looking at as far as what we’re saying in the petition. Now, the petition was 52 pages, and then there exhibits — powerful exhibits — 57 exhibits. And they will have an opportunity — that’s what we believe, and that’s what the prosecutor, the U.S. Attorney, should be doing — allowing them to have access — this is the grand jury — to have access to the petition, and to have access to all those exhibits.
Now, we have also planned to supplement what we’ve done. And Mick might want to talk about that, or I’ll follow up on that. But we hope to have some kind of interaction with them at some level so that — you know, we’re here to assist them.
Harrison: Well, it’s an important concept. It hasn’t gotten a lot of publicity for good reason, because it’s kind of a sensitive topic. But, what we have submitted to the U.S. Attorney to give to the grand jury is our petition and amended petition. Those documents, even though they’re very detailed and somewhat voluminous, are focused on the crimes that were committed, proving the crimes were committed.
They do not, however, focus on evidence regarding who may have committed those crimes — what we call the “whodunit” portion. There are supplements that we are contemplating to help guide the grand jury in its work, including on the questions of who would have had means, motive, opportunity — questions like that regarding the “whodunit” part. And our goal is here, as Dave said, is to be helpful to both the grand jury itself and the U.S. Attorney in conducting a thorough inquiry. And there are a number of things that we’re doing and planning to do to be supportive of the grand jury’s work, which may lead us into our discussion of our work with Architects & Engineers.
Steele: Absolutely, and we’re going to get into that, because AE911Truth, of course, provides the technical information. And we’re going to be letting people know far and wide exactly what’s going on here with the Lawyers’ Committee and all the great work you’re doing.
I just want to know, to what extent can the U.S. Attorney go beyond that? I mean, what is the possible range of what to expect from the U.S. Attorney regarding this petition?
Harrison: Hmm, well, good question. Some aspects are discretionary, and some are not. And our petition is focused on the mandatory aspect, not the discretionary aspect. So, in our view, the U.S. Attorney really has no choice under the law but to do what the U.S. Attorney has just agreed to do in their November 7 letter, which is to give this information about these crimes to a special grand jury. Now, what the U.S. Attorney does after that, one of the things the U.S. Attorney can do under the statute is to tell the special grand jurors what he thinks about this particular body of evidence and these crimes, who may have done it, and even if this is worth an investigation. So we don’t know yet whether we’re going to get active inquiry from the U.S. Attorney on this or whether the U.S. Attorney is going to sort of downplay the evidence and attempt to persuade the grand jurors to not look into it. We’re assuming and hoping for the best, certainly, on this, which would be an investigation by the U.S. Attorney as well as the grand jury. But we are also preparing some backup plans, preparing for the worst in case we don’t get that level of commitment from the U.S. Attorney.
Meiswinkle: Andy, it’s our understanding that at least, at the minimum, there is an obligation for the U.S. Attorney to present the petition and the attachments or the exhibits. That’s at least the minimum. That’s at least my understanding of that. Is that your understanding, Mick?
Harrison: Yes. I mean, the U.S. Attorney can do a lot beyond the minimum. He has to give this information to the grand jury. But he could, himself, issue subpoenas. He could offer witnesses immunity. He could do his own very active investigation in support of the grand jury’s efforts, and I suspect that’s what Dave is thinking about.
Steele: Well, I’m glad you guys are on this topic, because this actually leads into the next question I had for you. And please don’t disclose anything. I’m all about operational security, so if you feel that any kind of secret plans would jeopardize the case, don’t share it. But to the extent that you can share, what steps can and are you taking to prevent a bad faith presentation of the evidence?
Harrison: Well, I’ll start on that, and Dave may want to supplement. I guess there are two categories: One would be things that we’re doing now, and the second category would be things we’re preparing to do later should this process break down.
What we’re doing now is more of hoping for the best strategy, which is we’re going to be communicating with the U.S. Attorney’s office. We already have started that process. Dave and I have emailed a letter to the U.S. Attorney and also called. And we’re hoping to start a dialogue. One of the things we hope to achieve is to have a sit-down meeting with the Assistant U.S. Attorney who’s actually working with the grand jury and to do our best to sort of guide them through the evidence we have presented and also to offer that we would be willing to present this evidence directly to the grand jury. There’s no better way to quality control what gets presented than to do it yourself. So we’re hoping to have that opportunity. That is something the U.S. Attorney could do for us.
So we are going to have some — I guess you’d call it “advocacy” with the U.S. Attorney’s office. But we’re really meaning to be supportive and helpful. And if the U.S. Attorney chooses not to invite us in to the grand jury, or if the grand jury chooses not to invite us in, then we’re going to help the U.S. Attorney as best we can to be prepared to present this evidence fully to the grand jury itself. So that’s one of the things we’re doing.
If the U.S. Attorney sort of drops the ball on this, we do have this mandamus lawsuit option, which is a federal court lawsuit to force a federal official to do their duty. And we’re holding that in the wings and hoping not to have to file it.
Meiswinkle: So, as Mick said, hopefully we have some sort of contact from them shortly, and maybe we can have some kind of relationship where we can assist. But the fallback, at least in part, is that we’re prepared to file, as Mick said, a mandamus. And this is an action that would come before the courts now. And we would be asking a judge to rule that the U.S. Attorney indeed has an obligation — and it’s mandatory — to make this presentation to the grand jury. So hopefully we don’t have to do that, but certainly we’re prepared to do that.
Steele: Right. And, of course, we hope for the best and that people are going to be fair and look at the evidence — give it the proper treatment that it should.
Now, if I’m a grand jury member, and I’m sitting in that seat listening to that evidence, do I have subpoena power as an individual member of the grand jury? How does that work?
Harrison: Well, the grand jury itself has subpoena power. I don’t think any individual grand juror can act as sort of a lone wolf in the process. But the grand jury can vote to issue subpoenas. The U.S. Attorney can do that on their own, as well. So the subpoena power is there. To my knowledge, a single grand juror cannot do that.
Steele: Okay, but that grand jury itself, if they come together and say we want to subpoena this particular individual related to the case, they can do that?
Harrison: Yes, for sure. They can subpoena documents. Witnesses who show up can be compelled to testify, and they can be granted immunity if they’re concerned about self-incrimination.
Steele: You know, something that we hear — we get a lot of questions about here at AE, is people of interest. Now, we only focus on the evidence of controlled demolition. We don’t get into who or why it happened. But you know that people are asking the same questions about you guys and this latest step. So is there a chance that persons of interest will be cited? Is that an option that’s one the table?
Harrison: Well, Dave, do you want to speak to that, or shall I?
Meiswinkle: Yes, certainly. We like to call it people of material information or people of material interest. That’s an option that we’re discussing, and we’re working toward that. We still haven’t decided exactly what we’re going to, when we’re going to do it. But, that’s an important question, Andy. And we think that the grand jury probably would need a little bit of guidance, especially if they’re getting into this material and they’re not used to the things that we’ve been used to for all these years. They’re coming in cold. So that’s certainly on the table and that’s pretty likely that something like that will be produced and given to the grand jury. But, let Mick follow that up.
Harrison: Well, what you said is correct, Dave. We’re still developing our strategy on how best to deal with information regarding who may have been involved. It is a delicate matter. We certainly don’t want to do anything to harm the reputation of an innocent person in the process. Theoretically, this is all going to be secret in terms of what the grand jury does. So we have a duty to give the grand jury the information that we have, and we intend to honor that one way or the other. Certainly, if the grand jury were to call us in and to ask us, ‘What do you know about persons who may have had motive or means or opportunity?’ we’re going to be sharing everything we know on that. And we’re actively looking into those questions as we speak.
Meiswinkle: Now, Andy, this process may last up to 18 months. That’s a year and a half. It’s long process. And we’re just at the beginning as far as we know. So there’s opportunity for us to develop the strategies and to produce what we think will be helpful and necessary.
Like you pointed out, the evidence that’s being presented has to do with the fact that controlled demolition and explosions were involved. Well, then the question becomes, “Well, how did they get involved?” You know, “Who did it?” Now, the charges, too — and I forgot to mention this — in the petition are all conspiracy, too, and aiding and abetting charges, too. So any crimes that were mentioned there, that we believe were committed, there are also subcategories for conspiracy and aiding and abetting. So that certainly opens up the whole panorama of possibilities as far as how that investigation would go. So the evidence speaks for itself. It’s pretty clear. And I’m sure that the grand jury will have a lot of ideas as to how to go. But I think that it may be incumbent upon us as attorneys to assist or guide them in certain directions, or make it easier for them to do their investigation. That’s what we want to do. We want to give them all that we can to help them do an objective, thorough, complete investigation.
Steele: I’m glad you mentioned the time frame, because I’m kind of in the dark on when this will take place. Now, you said it can be up to 18 months. Will you guys have ample warning that the grand jury process is happening? Will you know that it’s happening at a certain time? How you will get the word on what the outcome was?
Harrison: Well, a couple questions there. One is, you know, will we know it’s starting and how it’s proceeding. And the other is will we know when it’s finished. And, in terms of the former, knowing how the process is moving along, the notice we get will be up to the U.S. Attorney and also up to the grand jury. And if either of those entities decide to keep us in the loop, then we’ll know, and if they decide to shut us out, we won’t know unless we go to the court and try to get some relief under the mandamus statute.
So, we’re hoping to have this cooperative relationship so that we’ll at least know what stage of the process we’re in with the grand jury. And we hope to be called in to testify. If that happens we’ll obviously know — and know that the process is going forward by hearing witnesses because we’ll be among those witnesses heard. Procedure specified for informing what you might call the complaining witness of the status, so that’s to be determined. We’re hoping the U.S. Attorney’s office, hoping they’ll work out a cooperative relationship, so we’ll know. And we’ll just have to keep you informed as things go.
Steele: Right. This is going to be a process. And the truth movement is going to want to follow it. We’re going to have to be patient and just wait for developments as they come. But the good news is that the process is happening. Dave, you were going to say something?
Meiswinkle: And as Mick says, it’s sort of a give and take. We’ve written them and we’ve called them and we’ve asked them certain questions and we’re waiting for a response. So, if they respond, hopefully, we’ll be further along as far as being able to answer your questions with more knowledge. But right now because it’s so recently happened, it’s hard to predict what to expect — other than that we would expect them to comply with the law. That’s what we expect of them, right? And how we assure that that’s happening, that’s a question that we’ll come to as we go. Right now, I’m just assuming — I think both of us are assuming — that they will act in good faith at this point in time. You know, they could do the exact opposite. But we don’t know that now. We’ve prepared for that. That’s why we’re talking about the mandamus action is possible. And other things, too, we can do. That’s just one thing that we were mentioning. But we’ll do whatever we can to make sure this process is going forward, within reason. And that might just be what we’ve done thus far. I don’t think there’s anything more that we can do right now. As I say, a prayer here or there won’t hurt.
Harrison: So this is Mick. I just wanted to disagree with Dave on a procedural point, and I’m sure he didn’t mean to say this in an absolute sense. But in terms of “there’s nothing else we can do,” there probably is nothing else we can do to answer the question you were posing, which is exactly how fast is this going to move and where are we now? As Dave said, we’re going to have to hope for the best and wait for the U.S. Attorney to communicate.
But, that doesn’t mean we’re going to be sitting on our hands; I don’t think Dave meant to imply that we would be. We’re going to be developing expert declarations in coordination with Architects & Engineers. These are the federal form of affidavits to present very persuasive summaries of the technical evidence in a formal format that’s used in federal court. And these declarations will explain the credentials of the experts, the questions they’ll be addressing in their opinions, the facts on which they based their opinions, and ultimately their expert opinions at the end, which will address the demolition of the buildings by the use of explosives. And we hope that those declarations will be a guide to both the U.S. Attorney and the grand jury to help them understand this technical evidence. So we are going to be working on that.
Meiswinkle: When I said that there’s nothing we can do, that’s not exactly — I didn’t mean there’s nothing we can do. We will be preparing to make presentations in hopes that we’ll be able to make presentations. And we’re hoping to work with Architects & Engineers, we’re hoping to do Freedom of Information Act, and, as Mick said, we’re hoping to line up witnesses, and things of that nature. So we’ll be doing a lot of things on that end that we can do. But as far as influencing, we can’t influence them. That’s against the law. We can’t influence them, and it’s a secret process. So, in that regard, that’s what I meant. In other words, we’ve taken the ball, and we’ve thrown it to them. It’s in their corner now to do what’s legally proper. And, as Mick pointed out, we’re not just sitting here. We’re trying to think ahead. So we have lots to do in our own right, as Mick pointed, that would be with the Freedom of Information Act, and preparing witnesses, and things of that nature. So I just wanted to clarify: I don’t mean that we’re just going to be sitting here. We have lots of things to do, and to further this on and to assist. I think, to underline, is we want to assist them and we’ll be continuing to do things to assist them, and be prepared when we get the opportunity to give them that proper information.
Steele: That’s right. Now, you guys are doing a lot here. And there’s a process to follow. We’ve been waiting 17 years. Another 18 months is really not a big deal in the big scheme of things. And during that time you’re going to be working with AE911Truth, as you mentioned. So we’re going to be getting our ducks in a row here and assisting you to make this case go the way it should.
That’s going to lead to my next question, because we don’t just have listeners to this show. Our listeners are mainly activists, people that get involved, that can’t just sit around and listen to actions like this. They want to be involved in it in some way, even if it’s small, even if it’s just the bare minimum that they can do.
So what is the work you’re going to do that you need help from the 9/11 Truth Movement for?
Harrison: Well, let me start the list, and maybe Dave can add to it. I would encourage your listeners to check both the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry website and the Architects & Engineers website this coming Monday the 10th of December, our new, expanded cooperation — the Lawyers’ Committee working with Architects & Engineers on this grand jury project. It’s an exciting collaboration, precedent-setting in some ways. And you’ll be able to see on our websites things you can do to get involved.
Now, we will have investigative committees. Dave mentioned we’ll be doing Freedom of Act requests, FOIAs. We also have some FOIA litigation pending on some critical issues relating to the evidence of demolition on the Trade Centers. So we’re hoping to be very energetic in developing additional evidence that will help the grand jury and the U.S. Attorney while we’re watching the grand jury process unfold.
So people can help us by getting involved, by volunteering their time to work on our investigative committees. They can also, obviously, make donations, which you should be able to do on Monday on our websites.
And I think if you have information, if you’re out there, particularly if you have inside information, we do want to hear from you. If you’re a whistleblower, obviously, we’ll have to verify your information. But we’re open to developing new evidence, so if you have something that’s not been out there yet, let us know.
So Dave, do you want to add to the things that folks out there listening can do to help us out?
Meiswinkle: Sure, well, the website is LCfor911.org. So people can actually go on that website and you can view the petitions that have been submitted — the one on April 10 and the one on July 30. So you can read the 52 pages plus. And you can also go through the exhibits and spend hours, literally.
Maybe one of the easier things to do is just to make a contribution if you can afford it, because we are an organization that’s, for the most part — well, we’re a nonprofit organization, and we’re trying to do something that is quite substantial. We’re trying to rewrite history here. And the Architects & Engineers are trying to do the same thing. And we’re trying to redirect the course of what’s happening in this country. And right here in this grand jury, as I mentioned before, is the litmus test, in part, for whether the system can really work. And we’re going to give it a try.
So, as Mick said, we have these various committees we’ll be doing: The Freedom of Information Act. These are also — you have other levels like an Open Records Act or Open Public Records Act or Right to Know Act in your state.
You can get involved just by getting connected to a group and talking about this issue. The issue is something that a lot of people haven’t addressed for a long time now. They fell asleep on it. But it’s that important now, and that the government now is thinking it’s important, because we have that letter, that letter that you started the show off, Andy. That’s a game changer. All of a sudden now we have credibility. And what he says is, “We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions.” So that’s basically our understanding is they’re going to show this evidence to the grand jury. And everyone out there can be a grand juror now in the sense that you can go and look at that evidence by going to that website: LCfor911.org.
So there are a lot of things to do. You can contact us through that website. And, as Mick said, we’re still investigating this. And we’ll be investigating this until its conclusion. So if you want to help on that please get in touch with us.
Steele: Absolutely. And also just a quick note to our supporters: AE911Truth right now, as we speak, is hard at work on our own dedicated webpage specifically for this grand jury petition. You can keep up there as well. It’s going to launch on Monday. When it launches it will be AE911Truth.org/grandjury. It’s going to be very slick. So that’s just another way that can keep on top of what’s going on here.
We’re also going to be updating our supporters as much as possible on this issue. The best way to keep on top of it and be reminded when developments happen is to subscribe to our email list. You can do that at the AE911Truth site. And we’re raising money for this important effort because anything important in history requires that in order to get forward.
We have two very dedicated professionals here who know what they’re doing, who are taking up this issue when so many others have turned away. We got to keep them supported, as well. So $50,000 is the fundraising goal. And it’s going to be going towards exactly what Dave and Mick have laid out here, getting the evidence ready. AE911Truth is, again, going to be putting together all of its experts. And our experts could be subpoenaed by the grand jury to come in, isn’t that correct?
Harrison: Yes, they may be subpoenaed. They might just be invited, because we’re certainly not going to require a subpoena to show up. So we’re hoping to have that opportunity.
And I would add that there are some obvious things that folks can do to help here. Donations at the moment are critical, because we’re talking about a body of attorneys, a body of scientists, architects, and engineers working hundreds of hours to prepare to present this evidence in a way that does it justice at this critical moment in history. I mean, we really do have an opportunity here that is historic. And we want to take advantage of it. This is not the time for us to drop the ball. We’ve all been donating our time, and the money we’re trying to raise is basically geared towards enabling us to travel if we get invited to meet with the U.S. Attorney, to travel if we get invited to present to the grand jury, to do some preparation of the expert testimony of the hard, factual evidence, and we may be developing facts, witness declarations, as well. There’s a lot of time involved. So your support right now could be really critical.
If you want to support the petition, even though we are at the stage where it looks like this evidence, it’s not actually a moot point to sign up on our webpage — the Lawyers’ Committee’s webpage — and say “Yes, we support the grand jury petition.” We do hope to periodically update with the U.S. Attorney a list of those folks who are supporting this effort. So feel free to sign up on our webpage. And also, if you’re an architect, engineer, or scientist, and you’re not already involved with Architects & Engineers, I’m sure they would welcome you to join their organization and add your support to this historic effort. This is really a key time to do that. And the same for lawyers: If you’re a lawyer out there listening, we need more lawyers. We need folks with federal court litigation experience. We need folks with grand jury experience, criminal law experience. We can use all the lawyers we can get. So now’s a good time, if you want to make a difference, to get involved.
Steele: You know, we’ve done outreach to various presidents. We’ve also got the Bobby McIlvaine Act going on in the legislative branch. Now we’re hitting the judicial branch of government. It’s a full on effort here all throughout the 9/11 Truth Movement. When history looks back on this, what are you going to say that you did during this time? When we’re looking back at Mick Harrison and Dave Meiswinkle and all the other people at the Lawyers’ Committee, how did you help out? And there’s ways you can do it. You can volunteer with either organization. You can donate money. You can, on your own, just be a citizen journalist and keep the public informed. Get on some website that has a link onto the Google News platform. Some of them do and they present alternative news. Get your stories out there. Do the press’s job for it, because we’ve been doing that for years here. But there’s so many ways that you can get involved and be part of this historic action. This is the best opportunity for the 9/11 Truth Movement that we’ve had.
So please donate, and again I appreciate everything that you guys are doing and wish you the best of luck. And we’re certainly do whatever we can to help you in whatever form it’s going to come in, particularly me, whatever I’m called upon to do. I just wanted to make sure you guys heard that before we close out today.
Mick, Dave, do you have any final thoughts?
Meiswinkle: Yeah, just a final thought is that there’s been a positive energy shift. And to quote a favorite baseball player of mine, Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” So, just realize that we’re in the ball game here as far as getting to the truth and getting our Constitution restored as it was before the 9/11 crimes. Thanks, Andy, for having us on.
Harrison: And, Andy, if I could add my closing thought here. First of all, I just want to thank Architects & Engineers, because they’ve done so much good work, along with some other independent scientists over the years, that the body of evidence that has been developed is really the cornerstone of our petition. And so we wouldn’t have the content of our grand jury petition, and it wouldn’t have gone as far as it has gone, without the historic work of Architects & Engineers. So we all at the Lawyers’ Committee thank you all for that.
And my last thought is that this grand jury process isn’t yet a litigation in court. It’s before the grand jury. So we’re not a party like we would be in a civil lawsuit. So what happens from this point on, part of it’s in the control of the U.S. Attorney, part of it is in the control of the grand jury. We control maybe a part of it in terms of what we do. But there are a lot of things we don’t control.
So one reason that we’re asking for support at this point, particularly financial support and volunteer time, is there may be some surprises down the road in this process that we can’t predict. And we need to develop the capability of Architects & Engineers, the capability of the Lawyers’ Committee, and our sustainability, so that when those moments happen — and those surprises may be positive, they may be windows of opportunity, and I think we’re at one right now but there may be others as this process unfolds — we have to be ready to respond when those opportunities and surprise developments happen. And your support can be critical in enabling us to do that.
Steele: Alright, Mick and Dave Meiswinkle, thank you so much for coming on 9/11 Free Fall.