Personal Representative of the Estate )

of LOUIS NEIL MARIANI, deceased, )

and others similarly situated[1], )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 03-5273

)

GEORGE W. BUSH[2], President of ) Judge Eduardo C. Robreno

the United States, Officially and )

Individually, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

and )

)

RICHARD CHENEY, Vice President of )

The United States, Officially and )

Individually, )

)

and )

)

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of )

the United States (DOJ), Officially and )

Individually, )

)

and )

)

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of )

Defense (DOD), Officially and )

Individually, )

)

and )

)

GEORGE J. TENET, Director, Central )

Intelligence Agency (CIA), Officially and )

Individually, )

)

and )

)

NORMAN Y. MINETA, Secretary, )

Department of Transportation (DOT), )

Officially and Individually, )

)

and )

)

PETER G. PETERSON, Chairman of the )

Board, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN )

RELATIONS (CFR)[3], Officially and )

Individually, )

)

and )

)

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, National )

Security Advisor, to Defendant Bush, )

Officially and Individually, )

)

and )

)

GEORGE H. BUSH[4], Former, )

Director, Central Intelligence Agency, )

(CIA), Vice-President and President of )

the United States of America, Officially, )

and Individually, )

)

and )

)

KENNETH R. FEINBERG, Special Master, )
"September 11 Victim Compensation )
Fund of 2001" Officially and Individually, )

and )

)

Other unnamed past, present, officials, )

representatives, agents, and private )

consultants of THE UNITED STATES )

OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendants.[5] )

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT[6]

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Ellen Mariani, on information, belief and established facts, by and through her counsel of record, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and for her causes of action against all named and unnamed Defendants states the following:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiff commenced this civil action on September 12, 2003, by filing of Complaint with this Honorable Court. Since Plaintiff's initial filing and the 'firestorm" surrounding Defendant GWB's refusal to comply with the "911 Commission[7]," this Amended Complaint provides newly discovered substantial additional facts, evidence and voluntary support from former federal employees and other concerned American Citizens who all seek justice and the truth as to how and why the events of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter "911"), occurred. Plaintiff hereby asserts Defendants, officially and individually are exclusively liable to answer the Counts in this Complaint under the United States Constitution and provisions of the 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) and (c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter "RICO Act") for "failing to act and prevent" the murder of Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, for financial and political reasons and have "obstructed justice" in the aftermath of said criminal acts and omissions.[8]

2. On "911," Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, an American Citizen and paying passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, was murdered by unidentified perpetrators, (hereinafter "terrorists") according to Defendant GWB.

3. At the time of the "911" attacks Defendant GWB was and continues to be President of the United States of America and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Defendant GWB "owed a duty" not only to Plaintiff, but the American People to protect and defend against the preventable attacks based upon substantial intelligence known to Defendant GWB prior to "911" which resulted in the death of Plaintiff's husband and thousands of other innocent victims on "911."

4. Defendant GWB has purported to the American People, this Court and the Plaintiff that the infamous attacks of "911" were directly masterminded by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda Network terrorists (hereinafter "OBL"), almost immediately after the attacks. Yet, Defendant GWB has not been forthright and honest with regard to his administration's pre-knowledge of the potential of the "911" attacks and Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant GWB to justify why her husband Louis Neil Mariani died on "911.' Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB is invoking a long standard operating procedure of invoking national security and executive privilege claims to suppress the basis of this lawsuit that Defendant GWB, et al., failed to act and prevent the "911" attacks. This Court must see through this and Plaintiff argues from the onset, the reasons why "911" occurred are no longer a national security risk, but a national security disgrace and tragedy. Plaintiff asserts, contrary to Defendant GWB's assertion that OBL is responsible for "911," the compelling evidence that will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power by this Court and testimony at trial will lead to one undisputed fact, Defendant GWB failed to act and prevent "911" knowing the attacks would lead to our nation having to engage in an "International War on Terror (IWOT)" which would benefit Defendants both financially and for political reasons. Plaintiff asserts, her husband was murdered on "911" and Defendant GWB and many of his cabinet members are now profiting from the IWOT. Plaintiff will prove, the "Bush family" has had long ties to power in the federal government and with the OBL family which raises serious public trust questions yet to be answered, to include, but not limited to, the fact that Defendant Cheney is profiting immensely from his former company's exclusive contracts to rebuild Iraq.[9]

5. Plaintiff reasonably believes Defendants knew or should have known the attacks on "911" would be carried out and intentionally and deliberately failed to act and prevent these deadly attacks leading to the untimely death of her husband. Plaintiff believes, Defendant GWB et al, allowed the attacks to take place to compel public anger and outcry to engage our nation and our military men and women in a preventable "IWOT" for personal gains and agendas. The statement of "911 Commissioner" and former United States Senator Max Cleland reinforces Plaintiff's claims that her President and Commander-in-Chief Defendant GWB has not been honest and forthright to her or the American public with regard to "911":

"As each day goes by, we learn this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted."[10]

6. Plaintiff believes the facts, circumstances and substantial evidence once presented to a jury will ultimately establish Defendants allowed the "911" attacks to occur to create an "IWOT" for malicious personal agendas, to include, but not limited to war profiteering. A pattern of this financial war profiting and the "Bush Family" goes back to their dealings with Nazi Germany during World War II. Plaintiff understands this assertion will be a shock to her fellow Americans who are not aware of this fact, however, her sentiment is expressed in the following Paul Donovan: "Why Isn't the Truth Out There?" Observer (U.K.), October 5, 2003, article which states in part:

"This is the staggering story of the events of 9/11. No reasons have been given for the Bush administration's conduct on that day; no one has been brought to account. Yet from the tragedy that was 9/11, Bush has been able to deliver for his backers in the arms and oil industries . . . " (Emphasis added).

7. Plaintiff intends to prove to a "reasonable jury" the Defendants in this matter have engaged in a long history of foreign policy decisions and have possessed absolute control of power of her government and have not been honest and forthright with the American public as to "911" and have "obstructed justice" setting a second basis for a "RICO Act" claim as evident by its secrecy and refusal to comply with the "911 Commission" in the aftermath of "911." For example, the following phillynews.com, September 11, 2003, William Bunch article; "Why Don't We Have Answers to these 9/11 Questions" goes to the heart of Plaintiff's claims and states:

"NO EVENT IN recent history has been written about, talked about, or watched and rewatched as much as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - two years ago today. Not only was it the deadliest terrorist strike inside America, but the hijackings and attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington were also a seminal event for an information-soaked media age of Internet access and 24- hour news. So, why after 730 days do we know so little about what really happened that day? No one knows where the alleged mastermind of the attack is, and none of his accomplices has been convicted of any crime. We're not even sure if the 19 people identified by the U.S. government as the suicide hijackers are really the right guys."[11]

8. Defendants have influenced American national security policy either as public officials or private citizens to the detriment of innocent American lives to include the wrongful death of Plaintiff's husband that provides her standing to seek answers on behalf of others similarly situated who, without question, "fear" even questioning the Defendants' conduct or misconduct prior to, on and after "911." Plaintiff will prove Defendants have engaged in a "pattern of abuse of public powers" dating back to the late 1970's to support her civil RICO Act and Bivens constitutional tort action in this matter. The facts will show, Defendants' have engaged in both personal business and national security "deals" with alleged terrorists, "OBL" and Saddam Hussein, providing the foundational claim of Plaintiff that her husband was murdered due to Defendants' "failure to act and prevent" the attacks on the United States of America on "911" for one overall chilling reason, to profit either personally or politically from the so-called "IWOT."[12] Plaintiff asserts, in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, Defendants were allies with OBL and Saddam Hussein during the former Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq war respectively, wherein, personal and political deals were made and it is believed upon discovery, these dealings hold the truth about "911."

9. Plaintiff will establish herein claims based upon the United States Constitution, statutory and case law, to compel judicial redress of her husband's wrongful death and to set a precedent to prevent future abuses of power in the United States Government as will be clearly established by the wanton acts and omissions of Defendants' in this case. Plaintiff's husband was murdered on "911" and Defendants have yet to be honest and forthright as to the truth as to how and why "911" occurred. For these reasons, Plaintiff brings this cause of action with the genuine belief Defendants have broken the law and continue to show great contempt towards herself, the American Public and the laws of the United States of America. Plaintiff's Complaint is historical in nature as our Constitutional way of government has been attacked and the following quote of Justice Louis Brandeis is very relevant to this cause of action:

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy." (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)).

10. As widely reported and confirmed by many American independent researchers of the facts and circumstances of "911," Defendant GWB knew the attacks of "911" were probable and failed to act. Specifically, Special Agent Robert Wright wrote a memo on June 9, 2001, warning his superiors, Defendant DOJ/FBI of the potential of terrorists hijacking aircraft to attack the United States and two (2) months later, Defendant GWB's National Security Advisor, Defendant Condoleezza Rice, acknowledged that on August 6, 2001, (one month prior to the "911" attacks), she provided a written brief to Defendant GWB at his Texas ranch which warned "OBL" might try to hijack U.S. aircraft. Plaintiff, as all Americans have a "right to know" why these reports provided Defendant GWB were not acted upon to prevent the most deadly attacks against our nation since Pearl Harbor which led us into War World II as "911" is now leading us into the never ending "IWOT." From the mountain of evidence and the ongoing "secrecy" of Defendant GWB and his unwillingness to cooperate with the "911 Commission," Plaintiff brings this RICO Act civil action to obtain justice for herself and husband Louis Neil Mariani and to expose the "truth" to the American public as to the great betrayal Defendants have inflicted upon each and every freedom-loving American arising from the crimes prior to, during and after "911."[13]

11. Plaintiff asserts, Defendants acting in their official and individual capacities were grossly and criminally negligent in failing to act and prevent the attacks on "911" resulting in the wrongful death of her husband and attacks against her country. Plaintiff incorporates for the public record at Exhibit "A", an "Open Letter" directed at Defendant GWB that provides her personal reasons for proceeding with this cause of action. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and "open letter" will of course be supported by substantial facts and evidence to prove Defendant GWB and all subordinate Defendants named herein have not been "truthful" with the American People and must be held accountable to Plaintiff and the families of the thousands of other innocent people who lost their lives on "911." [14]

12. In sum, Plaintiff having "standing" to bring forth this cause of action and its claims herein, will set forth bona fide challenges to the "official version" of the events of "911" version as purported by Defendant GWB. Plaintiff will establish inconsistencies establishing a prima facie case for this matter to proceed to a jury trial in the search for truth and justice to redress the untimely death of her husband and thousands of other innocent people.

13. Plaintiff asserts, in a free society such as America, no one, including the President of the United States of America is above the law. This Honorable Court must afford Plaintiff her fundamental United States Constitutional First Amendment Right to petition this Court for redress of Defendant USA, et al., "failure to act and prevent" the "911" attacks which led to the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani and thousands of other innocent people to include daily, our brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces who Plaintiff believes are dying in Iraq because of Defendant GWB's lies.

14. For the above stated reasons and the Counts provided hereinafter, Plaintiff's Complaint is exclusively based upon the United States Constitution and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act)(citations omitted), however, other basis for jurisdiction and venue are based upon special factors due to the "unique" nature of this matter. For the good of Plaintiff and her nation this case merits judicial review, relief and vindication to ensure another "911" never occurs again due to the wrongful acts and omissions of federal employees as will be proven in this matter at trial.[15]

15. In sum, Plaintiff will call to trial former federal employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise with military intelligence and other duties to support the underlying RICO Act foundational basis to prove Defendants have engaged in a "pattern of criminal activity and obstruction of justice" in violation of the public trust and laws of the United States for personal and financial gains. Plaintiff will prove, Defendants have engaged our nation in an endless war on terror to achieve their personal goals and agendas.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. The following jurisdictional and venue claims merit this Complaint to be afforded judicial review on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated Americans who lost loved ones in the aftermath of the terrorists' attacks on "911."

17. Jurisdiction is based upon:

a.       28 U.S.C. 1331, in that it is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States, and the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, (federal question);

b.      28 U.S.C. § 1346, United States as a Defendant;

c.       28 U.S.C. § 1361, An action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty;

d.      28 U.S.C. § 1366, Construction of reference to laws of the United States or Acts of Congress;

e.       28 U.S.C. § 1357, Injuries under Federal law;

f.        28 U.S.C. § 1365, Senate actions;

g.       28 U.S.C. § 1349, Corporation organized under federal law as party;

h.       32 U.S.C. § 102(3), Federally recognized agencies as all Defendants, named and unnamed are all employees, former employees, agents or consultants of the United States Federal Government;

i.        28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(2)(3), Civil rights and elective franchise and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, Public Health and Welfare Act in conspiracy and or failure to act and prevent criminal violations of civil rights;

j. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), in that there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs;

k.      18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1964(a)(c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) civil remedies and Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), compensation for victims of "constitutional torts" by federal actors; and

l. 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaratory and injunctive relief as deemed necessary.

18. Venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is proper due to the special factors involved in this "unprecedented" federal lawsuit and the fact the United States Constitution, the "supreme law of the land' originated at the May 25, 1787, Constitutional Convention in the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiff reasonably believes in the wake of the national tragedy giving rise to this action on "911" and its serious and controversial claims, New York City is an inappropriate venue for justice to be served in this matter. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (a) because Defendants reside, are found, operate under color of authority or office, have agents, or connected with or related to the aforesaid and transact affairs in this district. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1965 (b) because, to the extent any Defendant may reside outside this district, the ends of justice require such Defendant(s) to be brought before the Court. Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (b) (2) or, alternatively, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (a) (2). Further, certain of the conspiratorial acts alleged herein took place and continue to take place within this judicial district. Any and all Defendants, named and unnamed who are employed with, were employed with, contracted with and connected to Defendant USA and GWB, can be compelled through order and/or subpoena power of this federal court to be subjected to discovery or otherwise appear before the court under federal law, executive order, or the Code of Federal Regulations or other process to establish venue in this Honorable Court. Venue is further proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) as Plaintiff's Counsel of Record, (agent), under the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and (b), practices law in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the ends of justice require this matter to be heard in this District, wherein the Constitution and Nation were born.

PARTIES

19. Defendant, the United States of America (hereinafter "Defendant USA[16]"), an international sovereign nation, empowered, limited and controlled subject to its United States Constitution, is the USA as set forth by its territorial boundaries description which the Court is requested under Federal Rules of Evidence ("F.R.E."), Rule 201, to take judicial notice of said territorial description and boundaries commonly referred to as the USA, herein as defined and set forth under the United States Constitution.

20. Defendant GWB, under color of authority and office is responsible as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America and Armed Forces respectively, officially and individually, under the United States Constitution and National Security Act of 1947, (hereinafter "NS Act") was and continues to be in control of Defendant USA and all other named and unnamed Defendants, officially and individually. At all times relevant to the claims herein, all Defendants present and past federal employees of the USA or national security consultants have long had personal ties to Defendant GWB and or his family relevant to establish and support the RICO Act basis of this lawsuit. Defendant GWB is an individual who is also a citizen of the United States who acted with executive power as the President of the United States of America under Article II of the Constitution. Defendant GWB receives for his compensation for services payments from the United States Treasury to conduct his official acts in a faithful manner and solemnly swore he will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will do the best of his ability, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution. Defendant GWB's conduct prior to, on and after "911" raises serious doubt on the face of the evidence he failed to uphold his "oath" to protect Plaintiff's husband and our nation from the devastating attacks of this infamous day. Due to the complexity of this litigation and large number of named and unnamed Defendants in this matter, for clarity purposes, Defendants USA, et al., will mean GWB as he is solely responsible for all acts and omissions of all subordinate Defendants under the provisions of the "NS Act".[17]

21. Plaintiff ELLEN MARIANI is an adult individual and a citizen of the Defendant USA and is domiciled and a resident of the State of New Hampshire. On "911" Ellen Mariani and Louis Neil Mariani were domiciled in New Hampshire. Plaintiff is the surviving wife of decedent Louis Neil Mariani, who died on "911" as a fare-paying passenger in the crash of United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself, the Estate of Louis Neil Mariani [step-daughter Lauren Peters and Ellen Mariani], and all wrongful death beneficiaries who believe the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, P.L. 107-42, Section 408(b)(3), 49 U.S.C. Section 40101 (2002), is unconstitutional as ex post facto law and a ploy by Defendant GWB to silence and bury the truth as to the reasons Plaintiff's husband and thousands of other innocent people died from the attacks on "911." Plaintiff has a legal duty to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting her personal, financial interest, welfare, safety or security as a citizen of the Defendant USA and the State of New Hampshire, and on behalf of others similarly situated, by petitioning the federal judiciary for redress of grievances as provided for under Article(s) 4, Section 2 and 3 and as thereafter amended Article I, IV, V, IX, X or XIV of the United States Constitution to compel answers by Defendants as to how and why her husband and thousands of others died on "911."

SUMMARY OF FACTS[18]

22. That on January 20, 2001, Defendant GWB was sworn in as President of the United States of America and assumed the duties as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

23. That, the evidence will show that Defendant GWB from the period of July through August 2001, was provided by his subordinate Defendants credible intelligence information that the attacks against the United States of America on "911" were imminent. Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB both grossly and criminally failed to carry out his duties as President and Commander-in-Chief and should be held accountable to her and the American People as to what he knew prior to the "911" attacks. In the wake of "911" it was later stated by United States House of Representative Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, "The reports are disturbing that we are finding this out now." Plaintiff stands on her claim Defendants at the minimum were "grossly negligent" in acting to prevent "911" as early as two (2) months prior to the deadly attacks. Another lawmaker, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York stated:

"Certainly if the White House had knowledge that there was a danger or an intent to hijack an American airplane and did not warn the airlines, that would be nonfeasance in office of the highest order . . . That would make the President bear a large amount of responsibility for the tragedy that occurred."

24. That, on or about, August 6, 2001, Defendant GWB received intelligence reports that a potential attack against the United States of America was being planned by the use of hijacked civilian airliners. The American people were never warned of this potential threat to their health and well-being as Defendant GWB owed a duty to inform and warn the public as apparently high level cabinet members to include Defendants Rumsfeld and Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft prior to the "911" attacks.

25. That, on September 10, 2003, Plaintiff and her husband Louis Neil Mariani spent their last day together as husband and wife on this earth.

26. That, on or about 8:00 a.m. on "911," Defendant GWB sat down for his Presidential Daily Briefing ("PDB"). "The President's briefing appears to have included some reference to the heightened terrorist risk reported throughout the summer" but contained nothing serious enough to call National Security Adviser Defendant Rice. The briefing ends at on or about 8:20 a.m.

27. That, on "911" on or about and between 8:13 a.m. and 8:20 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11, is not responding to Defendant FAA communications, goes off course and its transponder signal stops transmitting "Friend or Foe" (IFF) beacon signal. On or about 8:24 a.m. Defendant "FAA," by and through an unidentified employee at this time, hears alleged terrorist over United Airlines Flight 11's radio; "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move." At this very moment, Defendant "FAA" was mandated to alert Defendant NORAD to expedite immediate defensive measures to prevent loss of life or property damage via scrambling of American alert fighters to intercept Flight 11 and Defendant GWB should have been immediately briefed of the situation and should have by a simple phone call.[19]

28. That, on or about 8:32 a.m., eight [8] minutes after Defendant FAA was first alerted to the highjacking of Flight 11, Defendant Bush's motorcade leaves the resort en-route to Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. That, it is believed Defendant NORAD was notified by Defendant FAA on or about 8:36 a.m., ten [10] minutes prior to the first crash into the WTC that Flight 11 was hijacked.[20]

29. That, on or about 8:46 a.m., Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (hereinafter "WTC") and Plaintiff husband's plane, United Airline Flight 175 transponder signal stops transmitting "IFF" beacon signal, as did Flight 11 before it crashed into the WTC.

30. That, on or about 8:47 a.m., Defendant NORAD was alerted that Flight 11 crashed into the WTC and at 8:48 a.m., the first news broadcasts on radio and television report a plane crashed into the WTC.

31. That, on or about 8:51 a.m., Defendant GWB arrives at Booker Elementary and should be completely aware Flight 11's crash was not an accident, especially in light of the "PDB" provided him 51 minutes earlier.

32. That, on or about 9:05 a.m. Andrew Card walks up to Defendant GWB in front of the world while Defendant GWB is listening to a goat story and is alleged to have whispered in his ear; "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." For approximately the next seven (7) to eighteen (18) minutes Defendant GWB continues to listen to the goat story while Plaintiff's husband was just murdered and does not immediately assume his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

33. Plaintiff believes if Defendant GWB, DOD and NORAD responded expeditiously as trained for and according to protocol, at 9:03 a.m, thirty-nine (39) minutes after being alerted to the highjacking of Flight 11, and Defendants acted responsibility and warned all U.S. Commercial aircraft captains of potential danger to their aircrafts, crews and passengers, Plaintiff's husband and thousands of other innocent people might still be alive today.

34. Plaintiff as previously stated, incorporates at Exhibit "C" a comprehensive list of "timelines" of Defendant GWB's acts on "911." Under this section, Plaintiff will provide the foundation of "pre-911" and "post-911" events that support the basis of this Complaint that Defendants GWB and subordinate United States Government officials are grossly and criminally negligent for failing to act upon credible evidence to prevent the "911" attacks and have engaged in a pattern of "obstruction of justice" since the "911" attacks to mislead the American People. For these reasons, Plaintiff possesses "standing" to bring this cause of action arising from the wrongful death of her husband, Louis Neil Mariani and does speak on behalf of others similarly situated who might fear bringing a cause of action arising from the evil events of "911" against Defendant GWB, et al., provides the following "Counts" in support of this cause of action:

Count I

Plaintiff asserts the Ex Post Facto "Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act"

as unconstitutional and Defendants GWB et al., are exempted parties under the Act's

specific 'exemption' for claims against Terrorists and Their Aiders, Abettors and Conspirators

35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length.

36. Plaintiff asserts the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, (hereinafter "Act") is unconstitutional and ex post facto legislation specifically intended to silence the truth of the true perpetrators or terrorists which have yet been captured or held to account for the "911" attacks which resulted in the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani.

37. Plaintiff asserts the "exclusive jurisdiction" under the Act mandating her to bring this claim into the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York due to the serious nature of this Amended Complaint and the fact that New York City was the primary target of the "911" attacks will prejudice her case. Plaintiff reasonably believes venue in Philadelphia is appropriate in the federal district wherein the United States Constitution was signed as the Defendants have tested the United States Constitution and pose the greatest threat to our way of life if they are not held to account for their actions prior to, during and after the "911" attacks. Moreover, Defendant GWB, the primary focus of this Amended Complaint, and a majority of the Defendants are employees of the United States who were acting within their official capacity on "911" and Plaintiff can bring this action in "any judicial district" predicated upon the fact that "a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise" to this action occurred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff argues, the entire United States of America and its Citizens were victims of "911" for that matter, coupled with the fact that the United States Constitution is under attack in of itself, merits this Amended Complaint to be tried and decided in the Birth Place of the Constitution and where our Declaration of Independence was written and signed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and where our battle of freedom was won in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Furthermore, all of the Defendants conduct public business and/or have offices throughout the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

38. Plaintiff further believes Section 408(c) of the Act provides one critical "exception" relevant to Plaintiff's case being heard in this Honorable Court and venue set therein. The Act states in part:

"The Southern District has 'original exclusive jurisdiction' over all actions brought for any claim (including any claim for loss of property, personal injury, or death) resulting from or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001"with the exception of claims to recover collateral source obligations and claims against terrorists and their aiders and abettors and conspirators." (Emphasis added) (Act Section 408(c)).

39. Plaintiff asserts from the mountain of evidence that will be produced and based upon her RICO Act claim, Defendant GWB et al., are exempt from the Act's jurisdiction in New York because Defendants will be directly connected to their true standing in the "911" attacks as "aiders and abettors and conspirators" who intentionally and deliberately "failed to act and prevent" the "911 attacks on the United States of American leading to the murder of Plaintiff's husband Louis Neil Mariani and thousands of other innocent people for many years to come, to advance their agendas, including but not limited to an "IWOT." [21]

40. Plaintiff, herein also names Defendant Kenneth R. Feinberg, Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, (hereinafter "Fund") as a party for his questionable strong-arm tactics and hostility towards Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts and alleges, Defendant Feinberg's appointment by Defendant Aschroft was tactical placement of a "go along to get along" move by Defendant GWB to ensure all "911" families joined the fund to prevent any questions of liability, gross or criminal negligence on behalf of Defendant GWB and his administration for failing to act and prevent the "911" attacks.

41. Plaintiff provides at Exhibit "D" proof of his lack of independence in administering the "Fund" via a letter signed by Defendant Feinberg to Donald J. Nolan, Esquire dated February 8, 2002. Most notable is the handwritten statement below Defendant Feinberg's signature that states: "So - are you bringing your clients into the Fund? Give me a call. Best - K."

42. Plaintiff asserts Defendant Feinberg's overall involvement with the "Fund" and his appointment by Defendant Ashcroft is highly suspect and will call at trial staff members of the "Fund" who will expose the appropriate facts to support Plaintiff's claim that Defendant Feinberg's assignment is not to administer just compensation to the families but, a ploy to silence any traditional lawsuits that will expose Defendant GWB's failure to act and prevent the "911" attacks. Furthermore, Red Cross delays have in effect thrown needy families into the waiting arms of Defendant Ashcroft and Defendant Feinberg while also serving to keep the government of the United States out of the courtroom via what Plaintiff originally termed "the Feinberg hush fund." Defendant Feinberg has maintained total control over fund settlements while allowing the Red Cross to extend payments in the millions from donations to displaced renters and homeowners who did not even lose a family member, and also to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) workers, all of whom should have been paid from FEMA's well-established and budgeted funds approved by Congress. Defendant Feinberg allowed the U.S. government to use Red Cross funds specifically donated to the families who lost their loved ones, said funds given to other parties, which only helped to extend and intensify the financial difficulties of victims family members, as many just decided to give up and submit to Defendant Feinberg's fund while also absolving the government of the United States of all future accountability.

43. Plaintiff, reasonably believes, Defendants are hiding behind arbitrary legislation such as this "Act" [Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act] and the Patriot Act to silence Americans such as herself from obtaining the truth as to how and why "911" ever occurred. To protect and preserve the United States Constitution Plaintiff's Amended Complaint merits judicial redress and all extraordinary relief for the good of our nation.[22]

Count II

Defendant "GWB's" Official Version of "911" and refusal to cooperate with his "911 Commission" demands judicial scrutiny in this cause of action

44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein at length.

45. Plaintiff asserts from the timelines as set forth in the "Summary of Facts" Defendant GWB's behaviors, both officially and individually are highly suspect. Plaintiff, a reasonable person with "standing" seeks to find the truth of "911" and questions why it has taken almost two (2) years for Defendant GWB to establish the "911 Commission."

46. Plaintiff believes from the substantial investigations and news reports from around the world, Defendant GWB must be compelled to answer the claims and assertions in her lawsuit as it has been over two (2) years since her husband's death and yet to date, no "terrorists" have be held to account.

47. Plaintiff deserves her day in court in this matter for many reasons, most specifically to challenge Defendant GWB's purported fact that the "terrorist" responsible for the "911" attacks and its mastermind is "OBL." Defendant GWB has not released to the public intelligence reports or statements to remove suspicion regarding his own good faith efforts to find the terrorists responsible for "911." Moreover, why are several alleged terrorists named by Defendant GWB who allegedly died in the "911" attacks still alive?

48. Plaintiff asserts and alleges Defendant GWB's behaviors on the morning of "911" upon being informed the nation was under attack to include but not limited to his continued reading of a children's story when he should have expeditiously carried out his joint duties as President and Commander-in-Chief to order air defenses to prevent continued attacks against our Nation, in of itself, calls into question his stability and motives to carry out this nation's top public office.

49. Plaintiff seeks to find and obtain the answer as to why her husband was murdered on "911" and to date, political reasons and "obstruction of justice" by Defendant GWB in failing to release intelligence reports and to fully cooperate with the "911 Commission" provide Plaintiff with no other option but to proceed with this cause of action. In light of the fact that Defendant Ashcroft is a party to this litigation, this Honorable Court must provide Plaintiff justice by issuance of subpoenas and by affording Plaintiff discovery to support her claims regarding Defendant GWB failing to act and prevent the deadly attacks on "911." Moreover, the fact that the only federal employee who has the power to seek prosecution of the murders responsible for "911," namely Defendant Ashcroft who has spent more time advocating for his Patriot Act than seeking the "terrorists" responsible for the "911" attacks is yet another bona fide issue which advances Plaintiff's right to judicial review in this matter.[23]

Count III

Defendant "USA" and "DOD" for Twenty-Five (25) Years had prior knowledge

American Airspace was vulnerable to terrorist attacks via highjacking of

Commercial Airliners

50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein at length.

51. Plaintiff's basis for alleging Defendants had prior knowledge "terrorists" could highjack commercial aircraft and attack the United States is not only due to Defendant GWB's continued withholding of facts and public records necessary for the "911 Commission" to perform its public duty, but, supported by the sworn affidavit of Timothy Stuart McNiven, former United States Army participant in a 1975 Congressional funded military study which purpose was to "identify security lapses and submit corrective actions" to Congress. (See Exhibit "B").[24]

52. Based upon review of Affiant McNiven's sworn statement Plaintiff asserts Defendant USA, et al., charged with defending America had prior knowledge before "911" that the events of this infamous day in American history could take place and did. Hence, Defendant USA's failure to implement the findings of the study was grossly/criminally negligent and Defendant's "failing to prevent" the attacks of "911" raises other serious national security and public trust matters important for Plaintiff to obtain justice in this case. Affiant McNiven's testimony and the chilling similarities of the study's scenarios to the actual events of "911," support a basis Defendants were grossly/criminally negligent in failing to prevent "911." Affiant McNiven's testimony also provides the "nexus" to include Defendant George H. Bush, Sr., (hereinafter "Defendant GHB") as a critical party to this litigation as Defendant GHB as CIA Director at the time of the study and reasons for its not being implemented are very relevant for Plaintiff to find the answers as to why her husband was murdered on "911." Plaintiff believes, Defendants' GWB and his father, GHB, hold the answers for the entire nation to be informed of the truth as to "911" and why it occurred and was not prevented.[25]

53. Plaintiff asserts the facts and circumstances as set forth in Affiant McNiven's statement provide the foundation to call into question all Defendant GWB's official and private national security advisors' apparent ill-willed "advice" which once full discovery is achieved, will prove not only that Defendants were grossly negligent in failing to prevent the "911" attacks, they were also criminally negligent wherein this Court, for the good of the nation, must grant any and all declaratory and injunctive relief to hold Defendants' accountable for all crimes proven in this civil action. For these reasons, Defendant GWB cannot and must not be afforded "Executive Privilege" or any other governmental immunity from defending this lawsuit as the "national security" interests of Plaintiff and the American People outweigh the "national security" interests of "individual Defendants" in this matter.[26]

54. In sum, on July 25, 2003, a report by a joint panel of House and Senate Intelligence Committees concluded that 9/11 resulted from C.I.A. and F.B.I. "lapses." Defendant GWB is solely responsible as President of the United States of America for the "lapses" that resulted in the murder of Plaintiff's husband Louis Neil Mariani and must be held to answer by this Court to explain his failure to act and prevent the attacks of "911."

Count IV

Defendant GWB and his Administration were provided ample warning the

"911" attacks were Imminent and Failed to Act

55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations in this Complaint as if set forth herein at length.

56. Plaintiff asserts Defendant GWB received and ignored advance warnings of an imminent plan to hijack passenger airplanes and fly them into buildings in the United States and will be further supported by the actions of high cabinet officials who stopped flying commercial airliners leading up to the "911" attacks.

57. Plaintiff through reason and belief maintains the cloud of "secrecy" Defendant GWB and his subordinate advisors continue to engage in by not being forthright and honest with the United States Congress, its "911" hearings and now, the "911 Commission" support her claim Defendants were provided ample warnings to prevent the murder of her husband Louis Neil Mariani.

58. Plaintiff believes and upon discovery and compelling of the release of Defendant CIA's July 2001, "Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB)" will clearly demonstrate Defendant GWB's lack of swift and decisive action during his story telling session at the school on the morning of "911" occurred for one reason - Defendant GWB knew the attacks would occur.[27]

59. Plaintiff asserts perhaps the single most damning indictment of Defendant GWB and all Defendants who failed to protect our nation on "911" was the failure of Defendants DOD/NORAD to follow normal military protocol to be followed as standard procedure. The following testimony of "911" victim family member Mindy Kleinberg, presented on March 31, 2003 before the "911 Commission" is so articulate that it stands with Plaintiff's "open letter" to Defendant GWB as cited at "A" and to support this Count:

"Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings. These 'protocols' were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason -- with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to 'intercept' commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.

If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semi-annual exercise known as 'Vigilant Guardian." This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, 'fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board.'

Lucky for the terrorists that none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th. Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example:

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston's Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost -- (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).

Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the World Trade Center.

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?

So the hijackers' luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures. Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.

"Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives."

60. From the above public statement of Mindy Kleinberg, Plaintiff does not stand alone in her belief that Defendant GWB's and all subordinate Defendants in this action should be held to account for the worst attacks on our nation since Pearl Harbor leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including Plaintiff's husband Louis Neil Mariani. Mrs. Kleinberg has also voiced her support for Plaintiff in this cause of action and will be called as a favorable witness on behalf of Plaintiff at trial.