AE911T Taking It to SCOTUS

[Orphia Nay]

How is that they grant certiorari (the decision to review a lower court's order); note that AE's petition is a petition for certiorari. When is of course never in this case, but in general the SC denies cert in 99% of all requests.

IANAL, but this is basic US constitutional law.

Thanks. Yes, did think it would be pretty unlikely.

AE911T’s argument boils down to: “Nuh, uh”, and “But NIST forced us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting them”.

 

[benthamitemetric]

... We need a 911 truth for Dummies.

I'm pretty sure that's all "9-11 Truth" ever has been...

 

[Orphia Nay]

From AE911T on April 22:

“Today, AE911Truth is happy to announce that our petition challenging this startling ruling is moving forward and has been distributed to the nine Justices of the Supreme Court for consideration at their upcoming conference on April 26”, blah blah blah, give us money, etc.

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/983...tition-passes-initial-steps-without-challenge

Hmmm, I know the Supreme Court can be a bit dodgy, but who thinks they’ll take up this case?

 

[Oystein]

From AE911T on April 22:

“Today, AE911Truth is happy to announce that our petition challenging this startling ruling is moving forward and has been distributed to the nine Justices of the Supreme Court for consideration at their upcoming conference on April 26”, blah blah blah, give us money, etc.

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/983...tition-passes-initial-steps-without-challenge

Hmmm, I know the Supreme Court can be a bit dodgy, but who thinks they’ll take up this case?

On my calendar, April 26 was yesterday. A friday.
You can go to SCOTUS website at https://www.supremecourt.gov/ andeasily find your way to their calendar, click on "26" of April, to get a summary of what's next:

Today at the Court - Friday, Apr 26, 2024

• The Supreme Court Building is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
• The Justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review.
• The Court will release an order list at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, April 29.
• The Court may announce opinions on Thursday, May 9. Opinions will be posted on the homepage after announcement from the Bench.
• Courtroom Lectures available within the next 30 days.

So, check back in on Monday, perhaps later in the day depending on your time zone.

Searching for SCotUS dockets at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx I come up empty (i.e. nothing related to "9/11 Truth"'s efforts) with search terms such as
- Lawyer's Committee for 9/11
- NIST
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- AE911Truth
- McIlvaine

--------
ETA: Found the docket after all:
No. 23-981

 

[Oystein]

So here is what happened so far - if my reading (IANAL!) of documents is correct.

The initial situation:
AE911T and friends had sued to force NIST to amend their WTC7 report, some court had decided, if AE is to be believed, that NIST's scientific reports are not required by law to be correct, and AE and friends appealed that ruling.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the appeal, apparently mostly based on the argument that AE & friends lacks standing.

And so, AE & friends decided to go to the Supreme Court. The issue has been docked as Docket No. 23-981. Documents filed hereunder:

Mar 05 2024: Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 8, 2024) by Mick G. Harrison and John M. Clifford, counsels for Petitioner (ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH, et al.)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-981/302348/20240305164411455_Petition.pdf
This document by AE & friends essentially asks four questions:

A. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Erroneously Nullify the Doctrine of Organizational Standing, by Conflating It with Informational Standing, Contrary to the Supreme Court’s Decision in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman?
B. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Substantially Undercut the Doctrine of Informational Standing in Erroneously Deciding, in a Manner that Conflicts with or at Minimum Circumvents Decisions of the Supreme Court, that None of the Plaintiffs, including 9/11 Victim Family Members, Demonstrated Article III Informational Standing Because, in the Court of Appeals’ View, Plaintiffs’ Reading of the National
Construction Safety Team Act as Requiring Agency Reports on Major Building Failures to Be Done Honestly and in Good Faith Is “Not Plausible?”
C. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Substantially Undercut the Doctrine of Informational Standing in Erroneously
Deciding that None of the Plaintiffs Demonstrated Article III Informational Standing, to Challenge a Scientifically Baseless and False Agency Report,
on the Ground that Plaintiff’s Own Investigation Provided Them the Truthful Information About the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11
that the Agency, Via Its False Report, Had Denied Them?
D. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Erroneously Interpret Article III Standing Law, Thereby Unconstitutionally Limiting Citizens’ Constitutional Right of Access to the Courts and Severely Hindering the Ability of the Judicial Branch to Perform Its Constitutional and Critical Role of Oversight of Agency Abuses of Power?

So, a number of leading questions asserting. I guess that's what a "Writ of Certiorari" is?
The opposing party in this case is called "Respondents" and these "Respondents... were Defendants-Appellees below, are: Gina M. Raimondo, in her official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, Dr. James Olthoff, in his official capacity as Director of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)".

Apr 08 2024: Waiver of right of respondent Raimondo, Gina, et al. to respond filed by GINA M. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET
AL.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...20240408180852094_Waiver Letter - 23-0981.pdf
This response by Respondent, the Secretary of Commerce (the administration member in charge of NIST; represented by ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR, Solicitor General) is sweet and short - quoting the entire substance of the response:

The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.

So, quite obviously, the government is supremely confident that AE & friends' filing holds no water whatsoever and that there is no dount the Justices will easily find the same. (I can't help but notice that AE911Truth, in their news item, forgot to tell their DONORS about this (non-)response)

Apr 10 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2024.
I suppose this is quite simply te way things go: Once a writ is filed with the Supreme Court and respondent's / defendant's response is in, SCotUS will set a day on which to decide whether or not to pursue the filing. That is not a "success" that AE's lawyers won, nor is it any reason to now call for and collect $$$DONATIONS$$$. Their "We need to raise $5,000 by April 29" is simply a lie.They don't need to. SCotUS will drop the case, whether or not the pockets of LC911I are lined with more $$$ or not.

--------------------

By the way: The law firm representing AE & friends, Clifford & Garde, LLP (Washington, DC), appears to solely engage in representing employees as plaintiffs sueing their employers, with some specialization in high-risk jobssuch as in nuclear power, 911 (the emergenncy phone, not the terror attack) responders etc.

Is this "NIST must not lie and we have standing to complain about that" case even something that a labor attorney would be qualified to represent?

 

[Oystein]

Oh look:

Apr 29 2024 Petition DENIED.

So sad

 

[bknight]

Really sad
LOL
Just what I expected.

 

[gabeygoat]

Huh, imagine that

 

[Orphia Nay]

Oh look:

So sad

Well, that SHOULD be the end of it for AE911T.

I see they haven’t revealed this petition denial on their website. (Gotta keep asking for donations, though!)

Instead, they have seen fit to post an update, “The Crew confronts RFK Jr again about WTC7”.

 

[pgimeno]

Oh look:

Apr 29 2024 Petition DENIED.

So sad

Indeed, we're deprived of further legaltainment.

 

[bknight]

Well, that SHOULD be the end of it for AE911T.

I see they haven’t revealed this petition denial on their website. (Gotta keep asking for donations, though!)

Instead, they have seen fit to post an update, “The Crew confronts RFK Jr again about WTC7”.

I wouldn't count these grifters gone for good.