Thursday, March 13, 2008

Legal Matters

I've attempted to influence the court case of Morgan Reynolds v Whoever-The-Hell-All he claims to be suing on the issue of no planes. The Number 1 piece of evidence in ANY no planes court case MUST be: Chopper 5.

Therefore, I have requested that attorney Jerry Leaphart has an ethical obligation to:

1. Name WNYW FOX 5 as a defendant
2. Subpoena the Chopper 5 footage.

Below is my correspondence with Morgan Reynolds, attorney Jerry Leaphart, co-author and litigant Judy Wood, Scholar for 9-11 Truth founder James Fetzer, and WNYW public affairs representative Isaura Nunez. Ms. Nunez has recently refused my request for a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5 for use in a documentary.




From: ace@acebaker.com
Subject: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 12, 2008 7:51:04 PM PDT
To: Jsleaphart@cs.com, econrn@suddenlink.net
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, lisajudy@nctv.com, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM

Dear Morgan Reynolds and attorney Jerry Leaphart:

I have reviewed the documents in your Qui Tam lawsuit alleging no planes on 9-11. I must say, according to my scientific research, you are absolutely correct, there were no planes impacting the twin towers. However, it appears that you have failed to bring the most obvious, most crucial, most decisive evidence in your case.

The most crucial, most decisive, and most obvious evidence for no planes is the FOX 5, WNYW, "Chopper 5" footage. This is because:

1. There is no plane in the wide shot. Analysis has shown that the a real plane would be present in all of the first 170 video frames.
2. The plane image enters the picture 1 frame after a series of camera zooms.
3. The plane image becomes less stable after stablizing the background footage.
4. The nose of the airplane appears to pop out from behind the tower.
5. The picture fades to black right after the nose out.
6. The footage was never replayed.
7. The footage was cleansed from the official archives.

If the plane had been real, 1 is impossible, 2 is extremely unlikely, 3 is impossible, 4 is impossible, 5 is extremely suspicious, 6 is extremely suspicious, and 7 is extremely suspicious.

Mr. Leaphart, under the law, you have an ethical obligation to bring this evidence. I request that you "Doe in" WNYW, and subpoena the Chopper 5 footage. If you fail to bring this evidence, in my opinion, it will be a gross violation of your sworn ethical obligations under the law. If you are committed to representing your client, and proving no planes, I can think of absolutely no reason why you would not do this.

Please do the right thing. I implore you.

Copied on this email are:

James Fetzer Ph.D. - Founder of Scholars for 9-11 Truth.
Judy Wood, Ph.D, - Co-author with Dr. Reynolds, also a Qui-Tam plaintiff in 9-11 matters, and also represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart.
Isaura Nunez - Public Affairs and Media Relations, FOX 5.

Ms. Nunez has recently refused my request to license a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5. I have requested to be put in touch with the legal department at WNYW.

Sincerely,

Alexander "Ace" Baker








From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 12, 2008 8:15:42 PM PDT
To: Jsleaphart@cs.com, ace@acebaker.com
Cc: econrn@suddenlink.net, lisajudy@nctv.com, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Jerry,

Based upon my familiarity with Ace Baker's study, I strongly second
his recommendation. This has to be among the most, if not the most,
important evidence available as to video fakery/presence of planes
on 9/11 in New York City. Please let me know if I can contribute.

Warm regards,

Jim





From: Jsleaphart@cs.com
Subject: Re: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 13, 2008 6:52:34 AM PDT
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, ace@acebaker.com
Cc: econrn@suddenlink.net, lisajudy@nctv.com, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM

In a message dated 3/12/2008 11:16:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
Please let me know if I can contribute.




Hi Jim,

I will let you know. Thanks for your message.

JL





From: econrn@suddenlink.net
Subject: Re: WNYW Chopper 5 footage MUST be evidence in your case.
Date: March 13, 2008 12:26:10 PM PDT
To: Jsleaphart@cs.com, ace@acebaker.com
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM, lisajudy@nctv.com

Mr. Baker:

FYI, my affidavit (sworn testimony) filed with the SDNY federal court contains the following:

52. Consider one video in particular. According to Ace Baker, musician, composer and videographer, FOX cleansed its Chopper 5 footage from the archives because there is: 1. No plane in the wide shot. 2. Miracle Zoom, too obvious. 3. Plane motion becomes less stable upon stabilizing the video. 4. Nose pops out from behind the layer mask. 5. Picture fades to black. 44
44 Source: http://www.acebaker.com/9-1/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5Velocity.html

In addition, my affidavit contains another paragraph regarding work by Mr. Baker:

80. The case for the remarkable lack of eyewitnesses who claim they saw and heard an airliner hit a twin tower as claimed by the defendants is presented well in a radio interview by Ace Baker on January 15, 2007, including audio clips of commentary by network anchors and reporters during 9/11, as well interviews with alleged witnesses to the alleged WTC airliner events. 57
57 http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/audio/911/Ace%20Baker%20%20Media%20Fakery%20Timeline%20Dynamic%20Duo%20-%2015%20Jan%202008.mp3

In the future, if you wish to make accusations against me and/or wish to fault my lawsuit, I suggest you rely on accurate facts to maximum extent possible before making charges. Diligent homework will aid you in this pursuit.

Regarding your advice on the ethics of attorney Leaphart, perhaps attorney Leaphart will comment in the future regarding his ethical obligations for Mr. Baker's edification, perhaps not. As a client, I have observed nothing but outstanding legal skills by Mr. Leaphart and the highest ethical standards on behalf of my lawsuit. I further observe that those eager to admonish others about their "ethical obligations" often are the least well qualified to do so. To offer a recent third party example, one Mr. Spitzer comes to mind.

I further suggest that you might consider filing your own lawsuit under the False Claims Act or another cause of action regarding the bogus WTC plane crashes. That would free you from up from your time-consuming obligation to counsel Reynolds and Leaphart on legal tactics, ethical obligations and intellectual content on behalf of the United States of America to expose and remedy fraud by NIST contractors.

Sincerely,

Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.






From: ace@acebaker.com
Subject: Re: Accusation of Lepahart Legal Malpractice Restated and Re-Alleged
Date: March 13, 2008 7:24:43 PM PDT
To: econrn@suddenlink.net
Cc: Jsleaphart@cs.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM, lisajudy@nctv.com

Have not seen said affidavit. Please link. Offered link appears to be an mp3 file of some sort, and is dead. Alleged affidavit appears to be irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Accusation is that no subpoena has been brought for Chopper 5 footage, and that WNYW has not been named as defendant.

Please forward link to:

1. Subpoena for Chopper 5 footage
2. Link to WNYW named as defendant.

Accusation that Attorney Leaphart has fallen below his sworn ethical obligation under the law is restated and re-alleged. Please prove me wrong. I beg you.




From: econrn@suddenlink.net
Subject: Re: Accusation of Lepahart Legal Malpractice Restated and Re-Alleged
Date: March 14, 2008 8:55:52 AM PDT
To: ace@acebaker.com
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Isaura.Nunez@FOXTV.COM, lisajudy@nctv.com

The opening sentence from your earlier email:
"I have reviewed the documents in your Qui Tam lawsuit alleging no
planes on 9-11."
By contrast, read your new email below. Case closed.




From: ace@acebaker.com
Subject: Re: A harmless little reply, and some of my best writing :-)
Date: March 15, 2008 9:04:07 AM PDT
To: econrn@suddenlink.net
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, lisajudy@nctv.com, Jsleaphart@cs.com

My dearest Morgan,

No, the "case" is not closed.

My accusation was (and is) that Chopper 5 had not been subpoenaed, and that WNYW had not been named as a defendant. Your reply was an irrelevant non sequitur, containing a dead link to an mp3. When I said "Have not seen said affidavit", I meant "I have not seen any court documents which request the incriminating footage, and/or name the obvious perpetrator". When I said "please link" I meant "please provide an HTML hyperlink pointing to any copies of court documents which request the incriminating footage, and/or name the obvious perpetrator".

I hope that is clear now. In the words of a brilliant 9/11 researcher, "Can a Ph.D. . . . be this retarded?"

The answer to that question now, about you, is the same as it was then, about Steven Jones: No, Morgan Reynolds is not this retarded. Neither is Jerry Leaphart.

You know very well what you're doing, and you're doing it very well. Although your physics argument about planes is fundamentally correct, it's not threatening. We all know that the experts can argue kinetic energy and moment of inertia til the cows are hamburger. Same with the demolitions. Of course towers cannot pulverize themselves, but the experts can issue a blizzard of numbers and baffling BS, and the idiots in the general public blink, nod, and go back to watching American Idol.

On the other hand, the problems with Chopper 5 are obvious to anyone with eyesight. That's why they cleansed it. That's why they never replayed it. That's why they would fight a subpoena for it. Which would make them look guilty, like they're hiding something. Which they are. Because there's no plane in the wide shot.

Have I mentioned there's no plane where there's supposed to be a plane? I've counted, and the total quantity of planes, in the opening shot, is precisely zero. There are none, nada, zip, and nil. There aren't any, not even one. A plane fails to occur. No plane is evident. There's nary a plane apparent. There's an absence of plane. The plane is conspicuous by its absence, totally lacking, and unseen. It ain't there. There is no plane. Of plane, there is no. If playing Hamlet, the plane would choose not to be. The plane is not present and is not accounted for. The plane is away without official leave, missing in action, and derelict in its duty to be observable. The plane is guilty of a failure to appear. It's invisible. It's transparent. To say the plane was ephemeral or vaporous would be putting it mildly. It's non-existent.

There . . . is . . . no . . . plane.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

1 comment:

Shallel said...

"This parrot is dead!" The hamburger is singing, the blind, pulling teeth, Porky is saying "that's all folks",
and the musician's logic is impeccable.
The sorcerer's apprentices struggle to spin the magic myth, the supernatural anesthetist weaves his raster, Barbara Eden lives in an ornate bottle, and the laws of motion are optional.
The toy ship's captain speaks gibberish, sparks fly from his fingertips. UFO's come and go on strings.
A curious beast slouches, the dimwit smirks, the dark lord is otta sight, and Shallel has gone round the bend...