Story here, originally linked from Peter Dale Scott's page this morning.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/30/40...ified.html

Anthony Summers is referenced at the bottom of the article. I'd suggest all serious 9/11 researchers on this board pay closer attention to this story than usual and follow developments (if any occur) as much as possible with this one. The implications here are more than meets the eye.

I has a long conversation with ex-CORE OF CORRUPTION director Jonathan Elinoff a couple of months ago - directly as a result of the long threads I'd written about his situation on this board - and he gave me snapshot of his own research in both micro (in parts) detail and a macro overview. None of it contradicted what we already know, but there was so much more to consider, I was unsettled.

Peter highlighted the following on his Facebook post -

"Two important journalists are on to what could be a significant new opening into the mystery of 911: "The FBI probe that is the focus of the Freedom of Information lawsuit focused on a Saudi family with ties to the Royal Family and apparent connections to some of the 9/11 hijackers, including ringleader Mohamed Atta, and former Broward resident and currently suspected al Qaeda leader Adnan Shukrijumah."

The drug traffic trade doesn't respect borders, and I think the 9/11 truth movement has missed a trick by not looking more closely at the network of private companies - many Saudi, others from different locales - that frequently link back to obvious interests within the US. Ditto the drug trade, which Peter has been writing about again and again for the past decade. (I think Richard Clarke now works for a Saudi company too). Kevin Ryan has done some strong work here, but more need to follow his path. I might put some more ducks in a row and start a new thread on this at some point.

If Anthony Summers said it, it's just the same BS we've been hearing, warmed over. On another note, I hope that judge finds the chutzpah to make the government comply with his orders fully and completely. And then I hope the judge finds the courage to make the right call on forwarding it to the petitioners. It's way past high time.

This is important enough to post the article in full......a very interesting development....but Saudi connections are not new. The government and its agencies are obviously dead set against telling what really happened and not the official fairytale. :hock::

No doubt this Saudi 'family' was flown out of the USA at a time when all other person were grounded from flying.....move along...nothing to see here says the government......Ha!!

P.D.S. is a great researcher and his work on drug networks at high levels is important in understanding what intelligence agencies, governments and deep political structures do to get money, launder it and move it around. The same people are usually involved in arms sales and fomenting wars to sell more arms. While any trail that opens up new information and leads on 9-11 is important, the operation was simply to large to ever [IMHO] be tied to any one person, one group, one government.....many and varied entities participated before in the planning, during the event in its execution, and in the cover-up afterwards - which continues. As with the JFK Assassination and other deep political events, those who benefited from it do NOT want the true story to come out..for a variety of reasons.

Judge Zloch is brave to stand firm against the government stonewalling on any aspect of 9-11-01...I hope nothing happens to him.....

The four box 'shell game' the FBI is obviously playing is not what the Judge ordered. No doubt the last three to four boxes will be the least important or irrelevant....and if the Judge orders the turning over of most or all of the documents to the plaintiff they will likely have been substituted, substantially redacted, or somehow 'lost'......The Judge will be making a big mistake if he doesn't order the FBI to produce all of the boxes at the same time. One wonders how many other thousands of boxes of information must logically exist in various agencies on the events and people connected to 9-11!

More secret 9/11 documents identified, but FBI has yet to turn them over to judge
BY DAN CHRISTENSEN AND ANTHONY SUMMERS

Contradicting an earlier assertion made under oath by a senior FBI official, an attorney for the Justice Department said Wednesday that the FBI has identified four more boxes of "classified" 9/11 documents held by its Tampa field office.
The government, however, has yet to comply with a federal judge's orders Friday that it turn over copies of that massive9/11 file now said to total 27 boxes for his personal inspection.
U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch issued those orders in a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by BrowardBulldog.org seeking records about the FBI's investigation into apparent pre-9/11 terrorist activity in Sarasota.
In an email to the news organization's attorney, Thomas Julin, Miami Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee said the government was prepared to file the documents with the court last Friday "as ordered." The Justice Department, however, determined that Zloch's chambers do not have a safe with "storage capability for classified documents."
"The plan at present is to deliver the safe [which can hold four boxes] on Thursday, May 1, 2014, along with the first four boxes of classified materials," Lee said. "When the court has completed its review of the four boxes, chambers will be contacted and I will deliver four more boxes, as well as retrieving the material already reviewed."
Lee said, too, that he will deliver to the court on Friday CD ROMs containing scanned versions of the classified documents.
POSSIBLE DELAYS
The government's piecemeal document delivery plan deviates substantially from Zloch's orders, which require the production of photocopies of the FBI's entire 9/11Tampa file all at once. If approved, it would delay the production of records to the judge for inspection by weeks or months.
The existence of four additional boxes of 9/11 records could add to any delay.
Lee's disclosure about the additional four boxes calls into question the accuracy of the sworn declaration submitted to the court two weeks ago by FBI records section chief David M. Hardy.
Hardy told the court that the entire Tampa 9/11 "sub file" was "comprised of 23 boxes of records" including "a substantial, but undetermined amount of material classified at the secret' level." Prosecutor Lee did not explain why the file is now said to be 27 boxes.
The FBI probe that is the focus of the Freedom of Information lawsuit focused on a Saudi family with tiesto the Royal Family and apparent connections to some of the 9/11 hijackers, including ringleader Mohamed Atta, and former Broward resident and currently suspected al Qaeda leader Adnan Shukrijumah.
The investigation began after neighbors in the upscale south Sarasota gated community of Prestancia called authorities to report that Abulaziz al-Hijji and his wife, Anoud, had suddenly moved out of their home two weeks before 9/11, leaving behind cars, furniture, clothing and food in the kitchen.
Sources have said agents later found gatehouse logs and photographs of license tags and phone records showing that Atta, Shukrijumah and others had visited the al-Hijji's home.
Al-Hijji, who later worked for the European subsidiary of the state oil company Saudi Aramco, told London's Daily Telegraph last year that he condemned the terror attacks and had no involvement in them. The FBI has said publicly that its Sarasota investigation found no evidence connecting the family to either the hijackers or the 9/11 plot.
The FBI, however, kept the investigation secret until BrowardBulldog.org first disclosed it in September 2011.
Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired Congress' Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, has said that the FBI did not disclose the existence of the Sarasota investigation to either the Joint Inquiry or the subsequent 9/11 Commission.
The FOIA lawsuit was filed in September 2012 after the FBI denied administrative requests for the release of its records about the matter. In March 2013, the government unexpectedly released more than two-dozen heavily censored records that nevertheless undercut the bureau's previous public denials.
The documents state that the Sarasota Saudis had "many connections" to "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001." One document lists three individuals, with names blacked out, and ties them to the Venice, Fla., flight school where suicide hijackers Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi trained.
Last week, the government provided 27 pages of classified documents to Judge Zloch that bear the blanked-out case number affixed to the April 16, 2002 FBI report disclosing the family's "many connections" to terrorists.
The judge's order directs the government to immediately produce any documents responsive to the news organization's Freedom of Information request. Attorney Julin has asked the government to say whether any of those 27 pages are responsive and nonexempt, and if so to make them public.
The prosecutor said he's working with the FBI to respond to Julin's inquiry.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/30/40...rylink=cpy

More secret 9/11 documents identified, but FBI has yet to turn them over to judge

By Dan Christensen and Anthony Summers, BrowardBulldog.org Contradicting an earlier assertion made under oath by a senior FBI official, an attorney for the Justice Department said Wednesday that the FBI has identified four more boxes of "classified" 9/11 documents held by its Tampa field office.The government, however, has yet to comply with a federal judge's orders that it turn over, by last Friday, copies of that massive 9/11 file now said to total 27 boxes for his personal inspection.U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch issued those orders this month in a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by BrowardBulldog.org seeking records about the FBI's investigation into apparent pre-9/11 terrorist activity in Sarasota.In an email to the news organization's attorney, Thomas Julin, Miami Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee said the government was prepared to file the documents with the court last Friday "as ordered." The Justice Department, however, determined that Zloch's chambers do not have a safe with "storage capability for classified documents.""The plan at present is to deliver the safe (which holds four boxes) on Thursday, May 1, 2014, along with the first four boxes of classified materials," Lee said. "When the court has completed its review of the four boxes, chambers will be contacted and I will deliver four more boxes, as well as retrieving the material already reviewed."Lee said, too, that he will deliver to the court on Friday as ordered CD ROMs containing scanned versions of the classified documents.RECORDS DELAYS?The government's piecemeal document delivery plan deviates substantially from Zloch's orders, which require the production of photocopies of the FBI's entire 9/11Tampa file all at once. If approved, it would delay the production of records to the judge for inspection by weeks or months.The existence of four additional boxes of 9/11 records could add to any delay.Lee's disclosure about the additional four boxes calls into question the accuracy of the sworn declaration submitted to the court two weeks ago by FBI Records section chief David M. Hardy.Hardy told the court that the entire Tampa 9/11 "sub file" was "comprised of 23 boxes of records" including "a substantial, but undetermined amount of material classified at the secret' level." Prosecutor Lee did not explain why the file is now said to be 27 boxes.The FBI probe that is the focus of the Freedom of Information lawsuit investigated a Saudi family with ties to the Royal Family and apparent connections to some of the 9/11 hijackers, including ringleader Mohamed Atta, and former Broward resident and currently suspected al Qaeda leader Adnan Shukrijumah.The investigation began after neighbors in the upscale south Sarasota gated community of Prestancia called authorities to report that Abulaziz al-Hijji and his wife, Anoud, had suddenly moved out of their home two weeks before 9/11, leaving behind cars, furniture, clothing and food in the kitchen.Sources have said agents later found gatehouse logs and photographs of license tags and phone records, showing that Atta, Shukrijumah and others had visited the al-Hijji's home.Al-Hijji, who later worked for the European subsidiary of the state oil company Saudi Aramco, told London'sDaily Telegraph last year that he condemned the terror attacks and had no involvement in them. The FBI has said publicly that its Sarasota investigation found no evidence connecting the family to either the hijackers or the 9/11 plot.The FBI, however, kept the investigation secret until BrowardBulldog.org first disclosed it in September 2011.Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired Congress's Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, has said that the FBI did not disclose the existence of the Sarasota investigation to either the Joint Inquiry or the subsequent 9/11 Commission.The FOIA lawsuit was filed in September 2012 after the FBI denied administrative requests for the release of its records about the matter. In March 2013, the government unexpectedly released more than two-dozen heavily censored records that nevertheless undercut the Bureau's previous public denials.The documents state that the Sarasota Saudis had "many connections" to "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001." One document lists three individuals, with names blacked out, and ties them to the Venice, Florida flight school where suicide hijackers Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi trained.Last week, the government provided 27 pages of classified documents to Judge Zloch that bear the blanked out case number affixed to the April 16, 2002 FBI report disclosing the family's "many connections" to terrorists.The judge's order directs the government to immediately produce any documents responsive to the news organization's Freedom of Information request. Attorney Julin has asked the government to say whether any of those 27 pages are responsive and nonexempt, and if so to make them public.Prosecutor Lee said he's working with the FBI to respond to Julin's inquiry.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:

The four box 'shell game' the FBI is obviously playing is not what the Judge ordered. No doubt the last three to four boxes will be the least important or irrelevant....and if the Judge orders the turning over of most or all of the documents to the plaintiff they will likely have been substituted, substantially redacted, or somehow 'lost'......The Judge will be making a big mistake if he doesn't order the FBI to produce all of the boxes at the same time. One wonders how many other thousands of boxes of information must logically exist in various agencies on the events and people connected to 9-11!

Yep, absolutely a shell game and delaying tactic while some other counter-plan is hatched up. I also agree that he must order all boxes to be turned over immediately. Instead of a safe, the judge could make other arrangement, such as armed guards, I imagine.

But do you get the sense that it's going to go down the way the FBI want it?

David Guyatt Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:

The four box 'shell game' the FBI is obviously playing is not what the Judge ordered. No doubt the last three to four boxes will be the least important or irrelevant....and if the Judge orders the turning over of most or all of the documents to the plaintiff they will likely have been substituted, substantially redacted, or somehow 'lost'......The Judge will be making a big mistake if he doesn't order the FBI to produce all of the boxes at the same time. One wonders how many other thousands of boxes of information must logically exist in various agencies on the events and people connected to 9-11!

Yep, absolutely a shell game and delaying tactic while some other counter-plan is hatched up. I also agree that he must order all boxes to be turned over immediately. Instead of a safe, the judge could make other arrangement, such as armed guards, I imagine.

But do you get the sense that it's going to go down the way the FBI want it?

There are alternatives to small safes, whether they be many safes, jewlers safes [or larger], using a secure facility with guards and large safes [banks, Federal facilities of all sorts, and many other facilities]....this is but a game, I agree David. Trying to save money on puny safes is a joke....

It has been twelve and a half years already since 9/11, so I can't credit the idea that the government was caught so "flat-footed" that it needs time to make a change of plans, create or shred documents, etc. Its all already been done, if at all.

The idea that the documents will need a separate process to remove or insert substitute documents is inconsistent with the way discovery in civil cases is usually done. Note that the government wasn't ordered to turn over its original documents, merely "copies of the massive file." The government wouldn't make a copy of any document it decided to withhold, so there would be no reason for a separate process of creating or destroying already made copies.

Redaction of a paper file is a different matter. You typically make a copy of a record, redact that copy with a magic marker, then copy it again (so that the redacted material may not be read by the simple expedient of holding the paper up to the light). The time consuming part of the process is having a sufficiently cleared person(s) go thru each page and make the redactions. It necessarily means that the redactor knows which facts or information is not to be disclosed (and presumably, the truth behind the redactions). Not all redaction is a bad thing. A party to a lawsuit need not necessarily be given names, addresses, phone numbers, or information which would jeopardize another person's life if publicly revealed. This also protects the party to the lawsuit from suspicion if something unfortunate would happen to individuals reported on in the disclosure. It's also a bit like closing you eyes so you can't identify a bad guy, making it less likely that the bad guy will decide to kill you because you know too much.

The plaintiffs should also request the identity of the person(s) doing the redaction, if not the actual name, then the rank, clearance, and job title. You might learn more from knowing at what level the redaction was being done than you will from the redacted documents.

As far as I'm aware, there is no 9/11 Commission equivalent to the 26 volumes of the WC. They've never made all the witness testimony available for the public to read, or published thousands of documents for us to examine. So you have to rely on footnotes in the 9/11 Report. Imagine if we never had the 26 volumes and we had to rely only on what the Warren Report said.

Drew Phipps Wrote:It has been twelve and a half years already since 9/11, so I can't credit the idea that the government was caught so "flat-footed" that it needs time to make a change of plans, create or shred documents, etc. Its all already been done, if at all.

The idea that the documents will need a separate process to remove or insert substitute documents is inconsistent with the way discovery in civil cases is usually done. Note that the government wasn't ordered to turn over its original documents, merely "copies of the massive file." The government wouldn't make a copy of any document it decided to withhold, so there would be no reason for a separate process of creating or destroying already made copies.

Redaction of a paper file is a different matter. You typically make a copy of a record, redact that copy with a magic marker, then copy it again (so that the redacted material may not be read by the simple expedient of holding the paper up to the light). The time consuming part of the process is having a sufficiently cleared person(s) go thru each page and make the redactions. It necessarily means that the redactor knows which facts or information is not to be disclosed (and presumably, the truth behind the redactions). Not all redaction is a bad thing. A party to a lawsuit need not necessarily be given names, addresses, phone numbers, or information which would jeopardize another person's life if publicly revealed. This also protects the party to the lawsuit from suspicion if something unfortunate would happen to individuals reported on in the disclosure. It's also a bit like closing you eyes so you can't identify a bad guy, making it less likely that the bad guy will decide to kill you because you know too much.

The plaintiffs should also request the identity of the person(s) doing the redaction, if not the actual name, then the rank, clearance, and job title. You might learn more from knowing at what level the redaction was being done than you will from the redacted documents.

While some of what you say has some 'logic', it sounds to me a bit too much of an apologea for the three-letter agencies. I have hundreds and hundreds of documents on important [ne' VITAL!] issues of American polity which are fully redacted - and only contain the page number - all else is blacked out...is this what you mean?! I'll find one and post it.... The 'norm' is something in between.....the 'best bits' are redacted - not just the names of persons that might have some valid reason to be redacted; at other times the names are essential to know who did what, who knew what and when! Hiding the names of innocents is one thing; sadly, hiding the names and activities/connections of those individuals and agencies potentially guilty of crimes is what I find all too much of redaction is used for. It is 'compliant' non-compliance. We the People are the sovereign [in theory] and it is our government, our agencies, our papers and we damn well should be able to see them and know what is done in our name.

Here are two [there were more consecutive pages JUST like these] pages about Plumlee from when I was researching and filled a FOIA on him with his permission. Other documents didn't even reach this level of ridiculousness and were denied me in full. Ha...what's the difference?!?!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5964[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]5965[/ATTACH]

My sense too, is that the vast bulk of material is kept, as there is confidence that the classification and redacting system will handle all formal requests, and the law for breach of secrets covers everything else.

I filed an FOIA for Brig. General Erle Cocke Jr of the CIA Nugan Hand bank fame. In a deposition he gave shortly before his death from pancreatic cancer, Cocke openly said that he did jobs for the US and regularly got visits from the CIA for debriefs when he returned from abroad.

The CIA in their rejection stated they had never heard of him.

Entirely disbelieve-able and, in my view, simply a "go away and don't come back again" strategy. In their reply, they referenced "Erle Cocke Jr.", and I guess this was purposeful as it was probably filed under his military rank and name.