EXTREME PREJUDICE: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

by Susan Lindauer

  GODFREY: “I don’t know directly, no. Only afterwards have I found out – well, I have learned that she supposedly was talking with people at the Iraqi consulate, although she had always described that she was meeting with consulate folks with different Middle Eastern countries.”

  SHAUGHNESSY: “Did she mention any of those countries?”

  GODFREY: “Not directly, no. Not to me.”

  SHAUGHNESSY: “Now, sir, did she ever mention a person named Paul Hoven?”

  GODFREY: “Yes.”

  SHAUGHNESSY: “In what respect?”

  GODFREY: “Our socializing was with a group of friends. We all lived in Maryland. And in particular, it’s hard to live in the Washington, D.C. area and not be somewhat political. And we were quite a tight group of Democrats. Very often a lot of our socializing revolved around some political issue or another.”

  “I remember a party we had at our place, the time of the [Democratic] convention, where Bill Clinton was nominated. When I talked to Susan about other things that she did, and other socializing she did, she described a group that she got together with on a weekly basis, down on Capitol Hill, and other times down on the Virginia side.”

  “And she used to laugh and say it was about as opposite from our social group as possible. A lot of these people were very, very much Republican. And also that these people that she knew, and talked with quite a bit, were involved in policy, and in particular in the Intelligence Communities.”

  “One of the persons that she described as being a member of that group, who was a good friend of hers, was Paul Hoven.”

  SHAUGHNESSY: “Did she explain anything that she may have done with Paul Hoven, or was it simply as part of the group there?”

  GODFREY: “Not anything, to my knowledge, as to her political activism or peace activism. I think he was one of the first people she met in that group. As best I knew, that group was primarily a social group. They invited her in, because she had become friends with Paul Hoven, and also because of the connections with her father, who is a Republican, who had run at one point for governor of Alaska.”

  SHAUGHNESSY: “Did there seem to be any hostility, acrimony, hard feelings or anything of that nature between her and Paul Hoven?”

  GODFREY: “Not that I am aware of, no.”

  SHAUGHNESSY: “You talked about Susan going up to meet with Middle Eastern, people from the Middle East, in the embassies, or whatever. Did she mention any particular countries that stand out in your mind that she went to see?”

  GODFREY: “Actually, no. Whenever she did speak of such things, she always spoke of those activities in a vague way, and told me on purpose. These were activities that she was doing, to my understanding and I fully believe, as part of her peace activism. But it wasn’t something that I was involved with. And she said, a lot of these talks that I am having and all, well, she just felt it was better not to go into the details.”

  Godfrey’s exchange with the Prosecutor on 9/11 amused me. The Prosecutor tried to dismiss my 9/11 warning as “a premonition.”

  Godfrey adamantly corrected him that it was “a prediction— not a premonition.” And he stuck by it, never deviating from the word.

  For the sake of further clarity, he submitted an affidavit on the 9/11 warning,610 which cuts through the Prosecutor’s attempts to deflect the impact of my warning. (See Appendix)

  GODFREY: “Ms. Lindauer’s original warning to me in 2000 was somewhat vague, describing her opinion that a terrorist attack would occur in New York City. I recall that by the spring and summer of 2001, her warning became much more emphatic and explicit. She got much more agitated about the likelihood of the attack.”

  “Ms. Lindauer confided in me on several occasions her concern that the next terrorist attack would involve airplane hijackings and/or airplane bombings.”

  “In the spring and summer of 2001, on several occasions, Lindauer expressed heightened concern that a terrorist attack was in the works that would strike the southern part of Manhattan. She claimed it would reprise the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. She described the attack as completing the cycle started in that first attack.”

  “She definitely tied the threat of airplane hijackings to, what she said, would be some sort of strike on the World Trade Center. That’s what she was predicting.”

  “In August, 2001, Ms. Lindauer told me the attack was “imminent. She warned me to stay out of New York City. She told me the situation was very dangerous, and that a lot of people would get killed in this attack. She expected heavy casualties.”

  GODFREY: “In September, 2004— I was interviewed by the FBI in Mississauga (adjacent to Toronto), in the presence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP insisted on this, as the interview was in Canada, and I was a Canadian resident. I spoke with FBI special agent Suzan LeTourneau.”

  [That was four years before the hearing in New York and 12 months before I got incarcerated at Carswell]

  “While the interview focused on mundane details of Ms. Lindauer’s life and acquaintances, the conversation did touch on her indictment and her predictions. I told [FBI Special Agent] LeTourneau that Ms. Lindauer had predicted the 9/11 attack throughout the spring and summer of 2001, and that her prediction was very specific. It involved airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center.”

  At the defendant’s table, I experienced a grim satisfaction of triumph. My mind flashed back to those terrified nights at M.C.C, writing desperate letters to Judge Mukasey, frantic and tearful at 2 in the morning, begging for the right to call witnesses, so I could prove myself.

  Everything I said was truthful always. Within a few months of my arrest, the FBI, the US Attorneys Office—and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police— were fully aware that a private citizen outside the Intelligence Community stood ready to authenticate my 9/11 warning in a Court of Law.

  Notably, Godfrey’s testimony could not be suppressed by secrecy laws. His revelations would have created serious blowback for Congress, which in September 2004, was getting ready to publish the 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission strongly denounced “conspiracy theorists” who believed action should have been possible to prevent the strike, or substantially cripple its impact.

  The 9/11 Commission Report would have been exposed as an egregious public fraud. And the truth would be out in the open.

  That provided a strong motivation for the Justice Department to fight my demands for a trial.

  The FBI was not the only agency at the Justice Department to speak with Godfrey, either. In his affidavit, Godfrey discussed how he spoke with Dr. Shadduck at Carswell about my 9/11 warning, too.611

  GODFREY: “In early December 2005, I believe, a few months after Ms. Lindauer had been sent to Carswell Prison, I spoke with the psychologist handling her competence evaluation for the Court. During our conversation, I attempted to confirm with him that Ms. Lindauer had made predictions of a terrorist attack in Manhattan to me and others prior to the 9/11 attack. He seemed to have no interest in hearing this. Our conversation was brief.”

  “While she was still detained in prison, I offered to travel from Toronto and testify at any competency hearing, as a character witness, on her mental competence, on what I knew of her political activities before her indictment, about warnings of terrorist attacks, and any other aspects for which the Court might be interested.”

  “I attended the hearing on forcible drugging in May, 2006. I offered to testify on that day. In fact, I arrived at the Court, assuming that I was to testify. However, her attorney, Mr. Sam Talkin, did not call me. In conversation that day, I told him that she had made warnings of a terrorist attack to me and others, in advance of 9/11. I told him that I was mortified by what the Court seemed to be doing.”

  No one can doubt that Godfrey made tremendous efforts to authenticate my 9/11 warning— in interviews with the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons, my Uncle Ted Lindauer and other Defense attorneys. Nevertheless, I continued to suffer taunts in Court for
years that I was “delusional” for suggesting I gave advance warning about 9/11.

  If not for Judge Mukasey’s superior vigilance, the deception would have succeeded. I would have been “detained indefinitely” under the Patriot Act, and shot full of Haldol—until whatever time I could be reformed and persuaded to recant the facts of my life, which intersect so tragically with the truth about 9/11 and Iraq.

  It was grotesquely corrupt. And legally fraudulent.

  Godfrey discussed it further in his affidavit.612

  GODFREY: “I consider Ms. Lindauer fully competent in all ways, and devoid of any mental illness or instability.”

  “Ms. Lindauer has an artistic and mercurial temperament. She is passionate as an activist supporting her causes. She is a creative writer and former journalist. I have never observed mental instability or mental illness in her behavior.”

  He expressed concern for the legal competence of my attorney, Mr. Talkin as well.

  GODFREY: “I made myself available to speak with the investigator working for her defense attorney. I was prepared for a lengthy conversation, including a discussion of Ms. Lindauer’s 9/11 warning. I was surprised when the defense investigator cut short the conversation after only five to ten minutes. His questions seemed far inadequate for the scope of the indictment against Ms. Lindauer, and for what I felt I had to share with her Defense Attorney.”

  GODFREY: “Several months later, I contacted Ms. Lindauer’s uncle, Ted Lindauer, and spoke with him at greater length about several issues in her case. I can verify that Ms. Lindauer felt compelled to seek her uncle’s assistance interviewing witnesses for her case, before she got sent to Carswell.”

  In conclusion, Godfrey disputed the notion of my incompetence whole heartedly, and roundly castigated the Justice Department.

  GODFREY: “In my opinion, contrary to the Justice Department lawyers, Ms. Lindauer is now, and always was, competent to stand trial. The decision to accuse her of incompetence was baffling to myself and many others. I was forced to conclude that it was likely politically motivated to block her request for a trial.”

  “Throughout this entire ordeal, Susan Lindauer has suffered harassment. She faced inexcusable delays in setting a trial date, (or in dropping the charges). She was repeatedly questioned in court over the reliability of her terrorist warnings, despite that they had been corroborated by me and by many others in affidavits, and under oath in spoken testimony. She was incarcerated in a mental facility, within a federal prison for 7 months, 1,300 miles from her home for supposed observation. And then held in confinement for months afterwards.”

  “The FBI and the US Attorneys Office’s behavior in Ms. Lindauer’s case were abhorrent. It is quite clear that much more was going on.”

  The Old Gray Haired Lady Suffers Dementia

  Well, I was elated by our success. I thought we’d won the day.

  Until I read the New York Times.

  The article by Alan Feuer,613 buried in the Metropolitan Section, made no mention of Godfrey’s explosive revelations of my 9/11 warning, nor any mention of Kelly O’Meara’s confirmation of my lengthy relationship with Hoven or his noted intelligence ties. It offered nothing about my claims to have worked as a U.S. Intelligence Asset, covering Iraq at the United Nations before the War.

  Ground Zero stood 1,000 yards from the Federal Courthouse on Pearl Street where my hearing took place. But the New York Times apparently saw no reason to enlighten readers in New York City that the Justice Department was fighting to block an American citizen’s Constitutional Right to a Trial, in order to withhold critical information about 9/11 from the American people.

  Instead, in his opening lead, New York Times journalist, Alan Feuer, falsely declared that I “stuck my tongue out at the Prosecutor.”614

  I had to read it several times. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. It was an outrageous lie, not even close to the mark. I practically wept.

  I never stuck my tongue at children in the 3rd grade. That’s not my style. I might have flipped the guy a finger! Oh yes, with great satisfaction! But I had a broken molar tooth that day, which scraped my tongue painfully. Sticking out my tongue at O’Callaghan was simply not possible.

  Feuer could not see my face anyway. I was seated directly in front of him, facing the Judge. The invention was disgraceful, a gross lack of journalistic integrity. Real tabloid trash. Yet because the New York Times printed it, ordinary people would believe it.

  Why did Feuer do it? I felt so betrayed. Here I had waited four years for a chance to tell my story to the people of New York. All I got was one morning and the chance to present two outstanding witnesses. The gravitas of the occasion was most evident. I could not smile at my witnesses, because the consequence of the occasion was so severe.

  And this was how the New York Times reported my story?

  Ah, but America has come a long way since the days when the New York Times served up the only source of hard news for the people.

  Robert Redford would have shared my disappointment in this bitter sequel to “Three Days of the Condor.” But like me, Redford would have saluted his champions in the New Media on the internet.

  Because in fact, the blogs carried the day! They were on the ball, ready to expose the corruption that the New York Times tried to bury from the public, for whatever reasons.

  Thank heavens for the blogs!

  One of the best investigative journalists today, Michael Collins had traveled to New York for my hearing that morning. He was in the courtroom, and caught it all for posterity, with careful attention to details and nuance. He reported it all. My 9/11 warning. The validation of my relationship to Hoven and his murky ties to U.S. Intelligence.

  That truth was not lost, though the “gray haired lady” of journalism clearly suffered dementia not to print it.

  It was blog journalist, Michael Collins who sat up and paid attention. Collins who alerted the blogging community. Collins who told America: “9/11 Prediction Revealed at Susan Lindauer Hearing on Competence.”615

  That felt so sweet and so good. Collins posted my 9/11 warning dead center for the changing of the media guard, the rise of a new watch dog for the people.

  And what about Feuer, that New York Times’ hack? He got flamed on the blogs.

  Damning headlines all over the internet taunted: “From the People Who Brought Us Judith Miller: The NYT “Covers” Susan Lindauer hearing.”616 A friendly reminder of the dishonesty of the New York Times’ reporting on Pre-War Intelligence and its unchecked “facts.”

  It was a good lesson for the Times’ editors in New York. They can’t pull this sort of crap on the people and get away with it. Not anymore. It won’t be tolerated.

  Like everything else, it was bittersweet validation, after so many years of harassment.

  There was another surprise coming that would blow us away.

  A few short weeks after Godfrey’s and O’Meara’s testimony, O’Callaghan left the US Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.

  O’Callaghan joined the upper echelon of John McCain’s Presidential Campaign,617 as part of the top circle of advisers. He was assigned to Sarah Palin’s campaign in Alaska, handling “Troopergate.” That’s right. The man who despised spirituality as evidence of “mental defect” took over the reins of Sarah Palin’s Vice Presidential Campaign!

  It was enough to know that O’Callaghan was on McCain’s payroll.

  This was a political hit, like I’d always sworn it was. All the players were politically motivated. And the outcome was fixed.

  I rest my case.

  CHAPTER 33:

  “OFF WITH HER HEAD,”

  THE RED QUEEN SAID

  I won the battle and carried the day with flying colors. It was a tremendous victory by any standard. I had one morning in court. But in that small window, I proved my declarations had been truthful from the first days of my indictment.

  Ah, but did I win the decision? Did the Court accept my competency?

  On Sept
ember 9, 2008, lame duck President George Bush nominated Judge Loretta Preska to serve on the 2nd Circuit Appellate Court, a major promotion in her career.618

  Apparently Judge Preska had other ties to the Bush family, as well. Her husband’s law firm handled Daddy Bush’s legal affairs.

  And so, on September 15, 2008, Judge Preska declared me incompetent to stand trial for the second time—six days after receiving her appointment to the higher court.619

  Neither my 9/11 warnings nor the accuracy of my Pre-War Intelligence mattered a single iota. Assurances from O’Meara that my relationship with Hoven and his intelligence background were fully authentic made no difference. Godfrey’s testimony that he observed no signs of mental instability in almost 20 years proved irrelevant.

  Judge Preska declared that my belief that (I) had “a 95 percent chance of acquittal indicated (I) could not appreciate the gravity of the charges.” Therefore, she declared that I “could not adequately assist in (my) defense,” though my own attorney swore otherwise. My advanced understanding of judicial proceedings and high level of social functioning in daily life were also irrelevant, according to Judge Preska.620

  Judge Preska announced her decision moments after Dr. Kleinman concluded his testimony against me. Notably, Dr. Kleinman declared that I wrongly informed him the Prosecution had floated a plea bargain. Dr. Kleinman cited that “mistake” as proof that I could not understand the proceedings, or participate effectively in my own defense—even though my own attorney protested otherwise.621

  Thanks to my foresight, my Defense had tape recordings of my interviews with Dr. Kleinman.622

  We had hard proof that Kleinman devoted two hours trying to cajole and manipulate me into pleading guilty to tax charges, something I was not indicted for.623 Dr. Kleinman pushed hard for a deal, while I steadfastly refused and urged him to move on to different topics. He would come right back to the plea deal. My reply, captured on tape, was that I didn’t owe any taxes, and if there had been a mistake in my filing to the IRS, I would have amended my tax return—and still not owed a dime to the IRS.