Do you have a cite for the second part of that? Where a judge "agreed with the findings?" I believe the present legal posture is that the trial(s) may go forward against some of the named defendants, but other defendants have been dismissed on various bases.
In considering whether or not a case is to be dismissed as a matter of law, the court will assume the facts are as stated in the complaint. If the facts are arguable and the outcome of the factual argument is material to the outcome of the case, and other requirements such as venue, standing, amenability of defendant to judgement, etc. are met, the case is not dismissed. Those assumptions of fact are not the same as legal findings of fact that occur during the course of trial.
The below posts represent the research I have undertaken to substantiate your assertion that "the judge agreed with their findings." Can you provide more detailed particulars regarding "the judge agreed with their findings." For example, which case, which judge (some cases have bounced from DC to NY), and which findings? Or if you don't have a cite to the legal details, a cite to an article or column might direct further research.
TIA!
Burnett, et al. v. al Baraka Investment and Development Corp., et al. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516791/posts?page=287#287
More on the Burnett case, and introducing the Acree case ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516791/posts?page=291#291
More on the Acree case and pending Congressional reaction ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516791/posts?page=302#302
Hi, Cboldt. You've done some good research on this matter.
This NewsMax article says what I read some time ago - that Judge Baer confirmed the findings of the trial - that Iraq had involvement in 9/11.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517374/posts