The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that "mere speculation" by South Florida online publication Broward Bulldog Inc. and its founder Dan Christensen is not enough to bolster allegations that the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation covered up a connection between the 9/11 hijackers and a Saudi Arabian family in Sarasota, Florida.

The Broward Bulldog claimed the FBI hadn't conducted a proper search in response to a request for documents relating to the 9/11 Review Commission, but the court wasn't convinced. The FBI "pursued all the leads it had," according to the court opinion, which said Broward Bulldog offered no persuasive evidence to suggest otherwise.

The ruling is the latest chapter in a yearslong quest by the publication to obtain information it alleges could link 9/11 terrorists to the Saudi Arabian family, which had "abruptly left their luxury home" two weeks before the attacks, according to a 2011 Broward Bulldog article.

When the FBI announced that it found no connection after investigating the family, the Broward Bulldog asked for corresponding records under the Freedom of Information Act and sued to compel a response. The FBI disclosed documents, including a memo that said an agent had found "many connections" between the family and the attackers.

But when the 9/11 Review Commission emerged in 2014, investigators found the alleged connection was unsubstantiated and based on inaccurate information, according to the opinion. The Broward Bulldog then petitioned the commission for more information, filing two requests and suing again to compel responses.

The government shared more than 800 pages of documents but redacted information it said was exempt under statutory law, and it later released extra documents it said had been withheld by mistake.

Broward Bulldog challenged several redactions, but the district court ruled in favor of the government for most, which it said protected national security information. It did order the government to disclose certain information redacted under personal information and confidential source exemptions, sparking appeals from both sides.

|

The redactions

The Eleventh Circuit found the FBI submitted declarations that were "relatively detailed, nonconclusory and submitted in good faith." And though the bureau didn't exhaust all files it possibly could, it didn't have to, the court ruled, as its search met the burden of reasonableness.

The lower court was right about almost all the redactions, which fell under one of nine statutory exemptions—except for some that pertained to personal information and privacy in 17 documents, confidential sources in two documents and law enforcement techniques and procedures in three slides within a document, according to the panel.

One was a "grainy photograph taken by a security camera in an unknown location, and it is unclear who or what the photo depicts," according to the opinion, which dismissed the government's claim that disclosing it would let future subjects know the camera's position.

The other two slides described the investigation of Walid bin Attash, whom Osama bin Laden had enlisted to help with a hand-to-hand combat course aimed at selecting candidates to carry out the 9/11 attacks, according to the opinion.

Broward Bulldog had claimed the FBI released "piecemeal" batches of documents just before important deadlines, but the panel pointed out that it "offered nothing beyond speculation to support its assertion that the Bureau sought 'strategic advantage' by manipulating when it produced responsive documents."

The publication also accused the FBI of withholding certain records, including transcripts of commission interviews, but the court found there was no proof that those even existed.

The ruling upheld the lower court's refusal to allow Broward Bulldog's request for documents that were already the subject of its earlier lawsuit, which is ongoing and almost identical, according to the ruling.

"We see no reason to allow Broward Bulldog to pursue duplicative litigation because it used different wording to request the same documents in two separate actions," the opinion said.

Eleventh Circuit Judge William Pryor wrote the opinion, but it wasn't unanimous. Judge Adalberto Jordan concurred.

But Judge Berverly Martin concurred in part and dissented in part, finding the majority condoned a lack of specificity from the FBI. She also found certain redactions don't meet statutory requirements. For instance, one document contained redacted names of two people incidentally mentioned and not associated with the investigation, according to Martin's dissent.

|

Records request continues

Christensen's attorney, Tom Julin of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart in Miami, said he's still mulling the long and complex decision to consider how it will translate to documents for his client.

"Obviously, we're not getting everything that we wanted, but we are getting some information, and this at least brings to a close this part of the case for now," Julin said. "The quest for additional information about the FBI's investigation of 9/11 will continue, and it will continue both in the district court and we're evaluating whether we will file a motion for rehearing or seek Supreme Court review."

It's been a long battle, according to Julin, who said the FBI denied it had any records until it was sued.

"The Bulldog's reporting started with a simple story about a Saudi family that fled Sarasota two weeks before 9/11. It then discovered that the FBI had investigated the family in 2001 and 2002 but had not disclosed its investigation to Congressional investigators," Julin said. "The Bulldog will continue pushing to get more information out."

Counsel to the government Assistant U.S. Attorney Carlos Raurell declined to comment.

|

Read the ruling:

Read more: