Click here for a pdf of this cover letter.

Dear Don Paul, and CC’d recipients of this email,

The attached letter comes to you from a group of people who volunteered on April 14, 2007, to participate in a public grand jury experiment that had been produced, at Don Paul's request, by members of San Diegans For 9/11 Truth.

What might have become a San Diego Citizens’ Grand Jury ceased to exist on April 14 because (among other reasons) the time allotted for jury deliberations the next day was cancelled and, on the evening of April 14 and shortly thereafter, more than half the volunteers dissociated themselves from the event.

We’ve already communicated to Don, by email and telephone, the purpose of the attached letter, and because those communications have left the issue unresolved, we were compelled to produce the attached letter as well. We seek to clarify what happened in order to protect the volunteers, the people who produced the event, and the 9/11 truth movement from any unwanted consequence that could result from the event, our participation in it, and or our association with incorrect public announcements Don Paul made, by means of the internet, on, and possibly before or after, May 15, 2007, regarding the event.

We care much more about justice than about having public arguments that could have adverse effects on the 9/11 truth movement. So, in order to avoid harming the 9/11 truth movement in any way, after careful consideration and discussion about how best to go about protecting ourselves and setting the record straight, we decided that rather than publish the attached letter on the internet and other public places, we would send it directly to Don Paul and a carefully selected CC list. The CC list includes people who manage or lead the sites to which Don posted the announcements that are the subject of this letter, served as expert witnesses either at the event or by way of prerecorded video, provided videography services for the event, made films that were part of the presentation, and or contributed resources and abilities to produce the event—all of whom should have accurate information about the April 14 event.

The attached letter is authorized by and sent to Don from at least nine of the original 23 volunteers. We now remain acquainted with each other so that 1) we can appropriately complete the San Diego grand jury experiment of April 14, 2007, including issuing accurate reports and announcements, and 2) we might work together to create ways to empower people to use the common law grand jury process to initiate and complete legal processes that lead to the prosecution, conviction, and punishment of anyone who may have committed a crime that brought about the 9/11 attacks.

CC:

911blogger.com:

dz

Somebigguy

GeorgeWashington

Reprehensor

WTC7.net

Jim Hoffman

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (stj911.org)

Steven E. Jones

Richard Gage

Kevin Ryan

Ken Jenkins

Janice Matthews

Michael Berger

Gabriel Day

Sofia - Smallstorm

Nelisse Muga

April Frantz

Mike Copass

Click here for a pdf of this letter.

9/11 GRAND JURY RESOURCES

a 9/11 truth group

VIA ELECTRONIC AND CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL

May 22, 2007

Mr. Don Paul

[address]

____ [at] wireonfire.net

____ [at] fastmail.fm

RE: Correction and Clarification of Inaccurate and Unauthorized Announcements

Dear Don,

The authors of this letter respect your initiative in working for truth and justice regarding the events of September 11, 2001. We also have respect for the task that was put before us on April 14, 2007 and for all efforts that might lead to 9/11 justice.

We are therefore alarmed by announcements you made to various web sites (including those you posted on May 15, 2007 and any others you may have posted at other times) that falsely associate us with opinions you independently hold. As you knew when you made those announcements, our work as a group had barely begun, was not complete, and we had not come to any conclusions. We clarify our position herein. We require prompt correction from you.

Almost everyone in the group (hereinafter, the “Group”) was unacquainted with you and each other prior to volunteering on April 14, 2007, to participate in a grand jury experiment that we hoped would help bring about international awareness and dissemination of truth about the events of 9/11, and possibly help initiate legal action for justice.

Until recently, the people who volunteered that day believed we might be able to produce something that would be a professional and credible document that could withstand the scrutiny of a legal professional.

Even though we had and have not articulated any collective conclusions, and in spite of our explicit objections to the document you declared was going to be the Group’s presentment, you published, without our knowledge or consent, announcements on May 15, 2007, that falsely state we endorsed and endorse your conclusions.

You are free to publish your own conclusions.

But your unauthorized incorrect announcements about the work of the Group—as well as your independently-drawn conclusions, independently-created publications, posters, and any other material you create that refers, without their consent, to the people who volunteered to participate in the April 14 event—undermined the effort we made to conscientiously serve, deliberate, come to conclusions we could honestly stand by, and conform this experiment to official legal procedures as much as possible.

As you know, citizens’ grand juries aren’t something volunteer community groups routinely do. We were all operating in very unfamiliar territory. But we were genuinely dedicated to furthering 9/11 truth and justice, and deeply grateful for the enormously admirable efforts of the people who managed to produce the event, so were perhaps too willing, when we showed up to meet you for the first time on April 14, 2007, to cooperate with the manner in which you conducted the process. We were reasonably respectful of your responsibility to us, and reasonably handed the job of managing the logistics of the day over to you. We wanted to, and reasonably expected you would, follow the procedures of a formal U. S. Federal Grand Jury. The U. S. Federal Grand Jury Handbook and other information about how juries are conducted had been provided to all of the volunteer jurors in advance of the meeting.

They clearly state that grand juries listen to evidence, and then deliberate among themselves to come to their conclusions, which conclusions are communicated to a prosecuting authority by means of a “presentment” that the jury, and only the jury, collaboratively composes. So our responsibilities were to be objective, systematic, thorough, and fair, and to conscientiously produce a written presentment that accurately represented our carefully drawn conclusions. We weren’t responsible for the management of how this would take place, but when our opportunity to deliberate was cancelled, we conscientiously attempted to work together after April 14 anyway, via the internet, in order to carry out our promises.

It didn’t occur to us that you had no intention of ever adhering to grand jury protocol until you posted, a month later—without our consent or knowledge and in spite of our repeated clear communications to you that we had not come to any conclusions—your false announcements that what you called a “San Diego Citizens’ Grand Jury” had charged specific people with “capital crimes” (along with photographs of us and a “Wanted” poster of people you accuse). What you published were accusations of some of the most powerful people in the world for the most serious crimes in history in a manner that is entirely contrary to the systematic, objective, rational judicial process we had been led to believe we would be able to contribute our time, experience, skills, and abilities to—and you attributed your accusations to the volunteers. Unauthorized public declarations, disregard for long-established formal procedures, independent declarations, disregard for systematic procedure, disregard for collaborative work, “Wanted” posters, empty accusation, innuendo, and so forth have no place in legal procedure.

The following definitions and summary of legal procedure clarify the primary reasons (among many others) your announcements are false:

1. pre·sent·ment – noun. Law. The written statement of an offense by a grand jury, of their own knowledge or observation, when no indictment has been laid before them.

2. de·lib·er·a·tion – noun. Careful consideration before decision. Formal consultation or discussion.

3. in·dict·ment – noun. Law. a formal accusation initiating a criminal case, presented by a grand jury and usually required for felonies and other serious crimes.

4. An indictment can be made ONLY by means of a grand jury's presentment, which can be produced ONLY following a grand jury's deliberation. As of May 15, 2007, when you published your opinions about our assembly on April 14, 2007, no indictments had been made, no charges had been brought, because we have neither deliberated, nor produced a presentment. We had not come to any conclusions. We had not made any decisions.

5. A presentment is formally presented to an official prosecuting authority. Your refusal to work accordingly, and your incorrect announcements to the public at large have undermined our sincere effort to work with you in good conscience to conduct the experiment in an effective, credible way.

6. It is a prosecutor's task to present evidence and ask a jury to draw conclusions about that evidence. It is a jury's task to deliberate a prosecutor’s evidence and deliver their conclusions to a prosecuting authority by means of a document called a Jury Presentment. Even if we had come to conclusions, you are not authorized to publish them.

We provide a timeline below to further clarify how none of the foregoing requirements for a jury, a presentment, and an indictment could have been met, and why your public announcements about what happened on April 14, 2007, are incorrect.

April 14 to April 15, 2007 – the Group volunteered 1) to hear you make a presentation about the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and then 2) to privately deliberate with each other to draw conclusions about the presentation and produce a written statement called a presentment about whether or not we believed you had provided probable cause to indict specific people for crimes.

April 14, 2007 – The meeting for step two, the jury’s private deliberations, that had been announced and scheduled for Sunday April 15, 2007, was cancelled at the request and encouragement of Don Paul, the Prosecutor.

April 14, 2007 – After the Prosecutor’s and expert witnesses’ presentations of evidence, and in the span of less than an hour, Don Paul, the Prosecutor, called for a show-of-hands vote for conclusions he had drawn about his presentation. (As noted above, this show-of-hands vote could not have been a jury deliberation, or an activity that would lead to a presentment, because prosecutors are excluded from deliberations and the work of the jury.) The volunteer jurors asked Don Paul questions, made contributions, requested exclusions, requested additions, requested changes, expressed confusion about and objection to the process of voting, asked questions about how our presentment would be created, and asked when we would convene to create the presentment. Don Paul did not answer nor acknowledge several of the most important comments and questions he was asked (in particular the direct question about how we, as a jury, would go about producing our presentment). Don Paul did the counting of the show-of-hands votes for his conclusions. The will of the volunteers was not clear from any of the votes taken. No reliable records were made during or after this gathering.

April 14 to April 28, 2007 – Several volunteer jurors dropped out of the experiment, leaving less than half the original number.

April 28, 2007 – Don Paul, the Prosecutor, sent the remaining volunteers for whom he had email addresses a document that he independently (with almost no input from the experiment’s participants) authored and titled "Findings, Charges, Presentments and Indictments," along with references to evidence he said supported the conclusions he’d made in that document. The conclusions in that document appeared to precisely match the conclusions he recited at the show-of-hands vote on April 14, 2007.

May 2, 2007 – Some (about eight) of the volunteers and staff communicated with Don Paul by way of conference call to review and discuss the document Don Paul delivered on April 28th. Issues of the conference call included:

· Rejection of the possibility of using the document Don Paul wrote as a presentment

· The inappropriateness of the Prosecutor controlling or attending any deliberations proceedings

· The inappropriateness of a prosecutor writing a presentment

· A second rejection (the first having taken place on April 14, 2007) of the possibility of including Janet Reno in our list of persons indicted

· The addition of qualifying language to any findings that might be related to American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175

· Amending specific charges so they conform to requirements regarding the jurisdiction of a Grand Jury

· The need to tie specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing to specific people

· The possibility of expanding our charges to include war crimes

· The plan for reconvening as a new experimental jury for deliberations to produce a presentment

· The need to convene with a quorum (which we no longer had) for deliberating and voting on a presentment

May 3, 2007 – With Don Paul's knowledge, the remaining volunteers continued to work to draft, format, and complete a presentment.

May 15, 2007 – Don Paul—independently, without the knowledge or consent of any volunteer jurors, and in conscious opposition to the process they’d clearly communicated to him they were following—posted announcements, and a photograph of the jurors, witnesses, and audience, to various websites that appeared with such titles as (1) "Historic Result from San Diego Citizens’ Grand Jury" that falsely make such claims as “For the first time ever, a public body (i.e. the “San Diego Citizens’ Grand Jury” that existed as an experiment for about eight hours on April 14 and never deliberated) has charged individuals with capital crimes in regard to the events of September 11, 2001 in New York City,” and (2) "Wanted By The SDCGJ," followed by names and photographs of the people Don included in the list he recited on April 14, and listed in the document emailed to the volunteers on April 28. At the time Don Paul independently made these announcements without the knowledge or consent of the people he was writing about, the group had never met with each other to discuss Don Paul’s presentation, had never deliberated, had never produced a presentment, and had not charged anyone with anything.

May 19, 2007 – The people who remained willing to continue as volunteers (and one who volunteered to facilitate the April 14 event) met in person for the first time since April 14. The result of that meeting was agreement 1) to correct, and mitigate damage from, Don Paul’s false announcements by means of this letter, 2) to postpone the possibility of publicly correcting Don Paul’s errors (in order not to adversely affect the goals of the 9/11 truth movement) and only CC this letter to a very few leading members of the 9/11 Truth community, especially those that directly or indirectly participated in the San Diego event either during or after the fact, 3) to bring closure to the confusion of goals and intentions that started on April 14, 4) to acknowledge the fact that the group who assembled that day never constituted any sort of grand jury, and 5) to identify ways we might do constructive work together to further 9/11 truth and justice, one of which included directing our efforts to providing resources to the public at large for effectively using the common law grand jury process to initiate and complete legal processes that lead to the prosecution, conviction, and punishment of the perpetrators of the 9/11 crimes.

The people who volunteered to attend your presentation on April 14 never discussed with each other what you presented that day. The Group never charged anyone with any crimes. Your public statements to the contrary are false, improper, and detrimental to the 9/11 truth and justice movement.

We regret we have to demand that you, Don Paul, correct, no later than midnight, May 25, 2007, your false announcements, in every venue you published them to, so that there can be no misunderstanding that your conclusions, “indictments,” “presentments,” and all other opinions about any subject whatsoever are NOT those of the people who attended your April 14 presentation, as follows:

1. State in every venue you published your false announcements to that what you called in those announcements “the San Diego Citizens' Grand Jury” never deliberated together, nor did they ever produce a presentment, and so could not be said to have come to any conclusions nor to have made any indictments.

2. State in every venue you published your false announcements to that the conclusions and "indictments" made in your announcements of May 15, 2007—and on any other day—are solely your own, and cannot be attributed to anyone but you.

3. Have all announcements, posters, propaganda, artwork, and all other material that associate your conclusions with any of us, and or the San Diego Citizens' Grand Jury, or any variation of that name, removed from the servers they're hosted on.

4. Do not associate any of the volunteers, nor photo- or videograph likenesses of them, with your conclusions in any way in any future publications you may ever make, unless you have our prior written permission.

Before you refuse, please consider the damage your unfounded announcements have done, and could further do, to your credibility as a person of any integrity or honor—with us, and possibly, subsequently, with the public at large. Please consider the possible consequences of provoking us, by misrepresenting us without any retraction or apology, to publicly report how you've misrepresented us. Please consider the effect of your disregard for the clearly expressed will, opinion, and abilities of a group of people whose sole reason for assembling with you was to pursue 9/11 truth and justice.

Sincerely,

At least nine of the original volunteers who now comprise “9/11 Grand Jury Resources”