http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=788
911 : Former Wolfowitz Schoolmate sues Bush for 9-11 Conspiracy
Posted by admin on 2004/9/19 4:38:23 (3138 reads)

WTC 9-11

Update (09/19):

Mr. Hilton,
we spoke last week on the phone.

INN World Report is currently only interested in an interview with you, if you are willing to share your documents with us and allow us, to hire a specialist to examine them on authenticity. In my opinion, and this is not the opinion of INN Report, your credibility will lack pretty soon, if you don't release these documents ASAP to the media, at least on the Internet. If you're really familiar with the politics of the Neocons and honestly want to arrest them and stop "world war 4", you should release these documents now.
Also, at least one of your clients, who saw these documents, should come forward and explain their importance, especially about the anti-terror drills.

Regards,
Nico Haupt (INN World Report)


Update (09/16): Hilton Plaintif claims, Bin laden dead since 6 years

Some 9/11 researchers have their doubts in Hilton's honesty, but Hilton seemed to have left his 2002 LIHOP position, to a "MIHOP/Inside Job" strategy.
Mike Ruppert says, that to his "knowledge there is no record anywhere that Stanley Hilton broke information on the wargames preceding 9/11 before I did. Excerpts from
my new book "Crossing the Rubicon" covering the wargames were available
prior to this interview as were a number of stories on the FTW web site." (*Quote permitted, 09/17/04)


Update: Radio Interview transcripts (Alex Jones), plus streams with Hilton at 911truthradio.com

Stanley Hilton Sues Bush Cabal for 9-11 Conspiracy

ConspPlanet -September 16, 2004

Stanley Hilton, Bob Dole's former Chief of Staff, has launched a Federal law suit against top members of the Bush administration in a case alledging that Bush personally ordered 9/11 to take place. It was an operation that had been planned for over 35 years to gain political advantage and to push the Neo-Con agenda.

In an interview with Alex Jones, Hilton stated that he has filed a taxpayers Class Action Civil Lawsuit representing 400 members of the families of the many victims of the attacks as plaintiffs to claim that the Bush administration "violated the Constitutional Rights of the victims of 9/11"...

The Suit will be launched under the Federal Fraudulant Claims Act, and under the RICO Statute for being a "corrupt entity".

Hilton claimed that the 19 hijackers were actually FBI/CIA double agents who had been originally brought into the U.S. to spy on Arab groups.


Your Ad Here



911 - Stanley Hilton / Actual Suit Filing

From: Ed

The latest filings in Stanley Hilton's Federal Taxpayer Lawsuit against George W. Bush and other Administration Officials for complicity in 9/11 and treason by way of The USA PATRIOT Act and War in Iraq:





LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY G. HILTON

STANLEY G. HILTON, CALIF. SBN # 65990.

580 California Street, Suite 500

San Francisco, California 94104

Tel: (415) 378 6142. 650 557 1563

Fax (650) 557 0263



Attorney for Plaintiffs



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAXPAYERS OF UNITED STATES OF CASE NO. CV-03-03927-SI

AMERICA; STANLEY G HILTON;

SCOTT MUNSUN,

ABEL ASHES,

PLAINTIFFS, PLAINTIFFS’ STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT II

Date AUGUST 13, 2004

Time 2 pm

V.

GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL. ,

Defendants.





FACTS: All defendants have been served.

PLEADINGS: Plaintiffs desire to file a 2nd amended complaint to narrow down the case considerably. We wish to dismiss many of the original defendants, in fact we wish to dismiss from the case all original defendants except UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the federal government), BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, MUELLER, TENET, RUMSFELD, ASHCROFT. These defendants have been served in DC and local US Attorney. They were served in June 2004. The proposed 2nd Amended Complaint will more narrowly focus the case and clarify the issues at hand.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This is a taxpayer class action suit against high officials in the current Bush administration, for complicity in aiding and abetting and facilitating the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks as a contrived and stylized "New Pearl Harbor" and for doing so in order to launch unconstitutional aggressive war against the sovereign states of Afghanistan and Iraq, declare political opponents "enemy combatants," suspend the Constitution indefinitely, etc., all for sordid political ends which subvert the very system of laws and Constitution the defendants have sworn to uphold in their offices.

The suit alleges two theories, which are not mutually exclusive: (1) LIHOP: that defendants Bush et al LET IT (911) HAPPEN ON PURPOSE, i.e., that they had received adequate warning from FBI agents, NSA intercepts, spy satellites and other sources, of imminent air attacks against the WTC by "Al Quaeda" but deliberately chose to look the other way and to allow these attacks to take place; and (2) that Bush et al actively participated in planning executing and orchestrating the 911 events in order to manufacture a contrived and stylized sensational event aimed at frightening the taxpayers and Congress into passing unconstitutional laws, the PATRIOT ACTS, and in authorizing Bush via resolution to wage an unjustified war of aggression against Iraq. The suit seeks to obtain damages against defendants, an injunction ordering them to reimburse the US treasury for moneys unconstitutionally finagled to prosecute an illegal aggressive war in Iraq, and other damages. Each of the plaintiffs is a
victim in some significant way, of the Bush-911 phenomenon and aggressive war and costly perpetual occupation in Iraq. The suit alleges that Bush, as President, violated the US Constitution by deliberately lying to—and defrauding—the US Congress into passing an "Enabling Act" resolution in October 2002, authorizing Bush to wage aggressive war on Iraq. The war is unconstitutional and an illegal drain on the US taxpayers’ funds in the treasury. The suit alleges the Iraq war is unconstitutional and that declaratory and injunctive relief should be ordered. It is unconstitutional and illegal because the president violated the Separation of Powers provisions of the Constitution by deliberately lying to the Congress by falsely assuring them that Bush had evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and that Iraq was involved in plotting and carrying out the 9/11/01 terrorists attacks on the World Trade center and Pentagon–attacks actually orchestrated by defendants. The suit also
alleges that the USA Patriot Acts I and II are unconstitutional and must be struck down as such, because they violate the fourth, fifth, ninth and first amendments to the US Constitution o by permitting the government to spy on Americans and violate their rights to privacy, and because the Patriot Acts, like the war in Iraq, were passed under false and fraudulent circumstances presented by defendants to the Congress.

To the extent that the US Constitution is legally analogous to a "contract" between the government and the plaintiffs (taxpayers), it seems that deliberate fraud by defendants should nullify any unconstitutional acts by them, such as the aggressive war and occupation of Iraq and the Patriot Acts.

While this case presents many issues of first impression (such as whether individual citizens have recognized voices in court to challenge unconstitutional and illegal acts by a sitting president and his administration), there is precedent for such a suit: in 1996, the courts permitted a suit to go forward, whereby President Clinton’s line item veto power was declared an unconstitutional delegating of power by Congress to the President.

While defendants will assert "political case," to urge the court to decline jurisdiction, this is not so. This is a legal case with political overtones. The courts cannot escape their responsibilities by branding this a "political controversy." Defendants’ campaigns to spy on plaintiffs’ records and activities, threats to deprive plaintiffs of freedom and citizenship—these are not "political" questions but rather real legal ones. Defendants Bush et al pose an imminent and immediate threat to the health, safety and well beiong of plaintiffs, and the case is real and not theoretical.

This case presents many issues of first impression which are important public issues, to wit: whether a president can deliberately lie and defraud and deceive the Congress into delegating war making powers and unconstitutional search and seizure powers to the government, under the false pretext that "terrorists" have to be rooted out everywhere even though it means tearing up the constitution; whether a self-proclaimed and totally fraudulent state of "perpetual national emergency and perpetual war on terror," as defined- by Bush etc, can justify "suspending" and vitiating the Constitution; and whether taxpayers have standing to challenge the government in this fraudulent exercise of power.

Another reason why the suit must be allowed to proceed is that defendants continue to pose a clear and present danger to plaintiffs as taxpayers, because defendants have announced their intent to invade other countries, such as Iran, North Korea etc, in pursuit of their political goals, and these anticipated military misadventures all stem from the 911 events.

DISCOVERY: Plaintiffs intend to take the depositions of defendants

Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Mueller and Ashcroft, and also seek requests for production of documents, i.e., all air communications between the planes hijacked on 9/11/01 and ground control, all USAF and NORAD communications records of 911, all stand down orders to USAF that day, the entire Phoenix memorandum of July 2001 (warning of 911) and the August 6 2001 briefing records of Rice to Bush, All records of all persons and entities who bought put options on United Airlines (UAL) and American Airlines (AMR) stock just before 9/11/01, at the Pacific Stock Exchange etc. the suit also seeks documents relating to defendants; ties to the Saudi Arabia government and that governments involvement in 911.

ANTICIPATED LEGAL ISSUES

Of course, defendants will maintain that they are immune from suit, that plaintiffs lack standing, and that "national security" should impose a cloak of secrecy and lock the doors of justice. We disagree and maintain that there is sound legal precedent for (1) taxpayer suits against the US government and defendants (where unconstitutional acts are being perpetrated in the taxpayers’ name), and (2) suing a sitting precedent and taking his deposition (Paula Jones vs Bill Clinton), even on a civil case not even remotely connected to the president’s function as head of the federal government. We maintain that we have a right to v indicate our rights as US citizens and that we have standing to sue.

Standing derives not only from plaintiffs’ being taxpayers whose tax dollars have been wasted and misappropriated on an illegal war to benefit the defendants and their allies, but also because the USA Patriots Acts I and II (these Acts are herein referred to as "PA") have seriously infringed on all of the plaintiffs’ rights to privacy and freedom of association and speech and 4th amendment rights to be free from unwarranted government snooping. The PATRIOT ACTS ("PA") have been used against plaintiffs by defendants, to spy on what books they check out of libraries, what e mail they receive and send, what books they buy from bookstores, what phone calls they make, what banks they have accounts at, etc. Also, becasue these deplorable, un-American and unconstitutional statutes give defednants the right to pick up any US citizen off the streets, declare him or her an "enemy combaant," and deprive him or her of citizenship and liberty and even of the rights to a lawyer. This poses an
imminent threat to every taxpayer in the country, to allow defendants to suppress political dissent by arbitrarily declaring any citizen an "enemy combatant," becasue they oppose George Bush II’s political policies. These serious infringements on constitutional rights of plaintiffs warrant judicial action and inquiry. We maintain that the PA are unconstitutional and were directly related to the 911 incidents which defendants aided and abetted.

Under the precedent of Marbury vs Madison, and a plethora of progeny, judicial precedent has long maintained that the federal courts have a right, a duty and indeed an obligation to examine and review the federal acts and actions of Congress and of the president—such as the PATRIOT ACTS and the unconstitutional war in Iraq—because of the separation of powers doctrine. This court has jurisdiction to review and declare unconstitutional the actions and acts of defendants.

There is precedent for permitting depositions of sitting president and their top aides: In Paula Jones vs Clinton the high court ruled that a sitting president can be sued and deposed whilst in office

Your Ad Here


VENUE: Why is this case brought in US District Court for the Northern District of California? Plaintiffs live here and their rights have been violated here in the San Francisco area. Also, venue is right here because plaintiffs have been victimized here, one of the 4 skyjacked airliners on 9-11-01 was heading to San Francisco from Newark, NJ, and most of the put options on UAL and AMR stock were bought and sold and traded on the Pacific Stock Exchange in San Francisco. Plaintiffs allege that the massive sales of put options on 9/10/01 reveals complicity by certain purchasers of the options, i.e., foreknowledge of 911, a theme prevalent as a motif throughout this case. The vast and pervasive evidence of foreknowledge by defendants of 911, and defendants’ deliberately allowing of the 911 attacks to take place, is a motif of the case.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs believe they have the right to bring this suit as American citizens and that they face an imminent threat to their freedom from defendants, arising out of the entire orchestrated scenario of 911, the PA laws that were passed as a proximate result of 911, and the actions of defendants in infringing on their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

DATE: 8/1/04



Your Ad Here


---------------------------------


U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing or Other Case Activity

The following transaction was received from Brown, Tracie L. on 8/5/2004 at 1:14 PM




Case Name:

Taxpayers of United States of America et al v. Bush et al

Case Number:

3:03-cv-3927

Filer:

John Ashcroft





George W. Bush





Donald Rumsfeld





Internal Revenue Service





Dick Cheney





Robert Mueller





John Snow





Congress of United States of America





Paul Wolfowitz





George Tenet

Document Number:

31

Docket Text:
Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by John Ashcroft, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Congress of United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Robert Mueller, Donald Rumsfeld, John Snow, George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz. (Brown, Tracie) (Filed on 8/5/2004)


Alex Jones interviews Stanley Hilton

PrisonPlanet -September 13



"...SH: I have interviewed individuals in NORAD and the Air
Force. I personally toured NORAD many years ago around the time that I worked
for Dole. I’m very familiar with the operations at Cheyenne Mountain
at Colorado Springs, where NORAD is. Individuals that work in NORAD as well
as the Air Force have stated this, off the record, but the point is, yes,
this was not just five drills but at least 35 drills over at least two months
before September 11th. Everything was planned, the exact location……


AJ: But five drills that day.


SH: That day, that day, and Bush thought it was a drill.
That’s the only explanation for why he appeared nonchalant………


AJ: We also had NORAD officers and civilian air traffic
controllers going, “Is this part of the exercise? Is this a drill?”


SH: Yes.


AJ: On the tapes and in TV interviews, they thought it was,
quote, a drill.


SH: That’s right. That’s exactly what I said
long before it became public. I’ve known about this since earlier in
March of ’03, as I stated before. This was all planned. This was a government
ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized
the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder...."

Hilton Plaintif claims, Bin laden dead since 6 years

suetheterrorists.net -9/16/04

(Online source for information on Stanley G. Hilton's Federal Suit against the Bush Administration for their complicity in the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 and their subsequent attack on civil liberties and sovereign nations)

"...Stanley asked that I post the following message. Mr. Hilton insists that he has inside information that bin Laden has been dead for six years, that the Saudi Royal family and members of the bin Laden family were directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, and that John Kerry is running to lose.While, I am signed on to his lawsuit as a plaintif I am not absolutely sure of all of these alligations.

There is much evidence Hilton refers to that I have not seen, so I can't speak to his allegation that bin Laden is dead.If bin Laden has been dead for six years, then there has been a six year long propaganda campaign to convince us he's alive, including reports that he met with CIA Station Chief Larry Mitchell at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE in July of 2001 while on dialysis and reports that he received kidney treatment the day before the 9/11 attacks at a Pakistani military hospital.

Furthermore, I allege that Kerry may "win" the election and things will actually get WORSE than they have been under Bush. Stanley does not agree, and alleges that Kerry is running to lose in order to ensure Bush's re-selection.

I do however allege that some Saudi Royals and bin Ladens were probably involved along with some Pakistanis, Germans, Israelis, Dutch, British, and most importantly Americans.

Furthermore, I am suspicious that the Saudi Royal family favors a UN, US takeover of Saudi Arabia in order that foreign forces can manage the nation should Saudi Arabia plunge into a chaotic and bloody civil war and economic melt down due to the depletion of it's oil reserves, such as Ghawar, the largest oil field in the world which is allegedly 90% depleted.

Abel Ashes, plaintif 9/16/04

Insert for website:

"BUSHFRAUD--SOME SHOCKING FACTS ABOUT BUSH'S '1984' FRAUDSPEAK"
1. OSAMA BIN LADEN DIED 6 YERS AGO. HE HAS NOT BEEN "FOUND" SINCE 911 BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN DEAD---3 YEARS BEFORE 911 WAS PERPETRATED BY BUSH. HE SERVES THE ROLE OF "EMANUEL GOLDSTEIN," THE MYTHICAL OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESET FANTASY FIGURE IN "1984" BY ORWELL.
2. BUSH PERSONALLY ORDERED 911 WITH THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY AND BIN LADEN'S BROTHERS AND COUSINS--AND LET THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY THE DAY AFTER 911 SO THEY COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED.
3. "WAR IS PEACE"--BUSH'S CONCEPT OF PERPETUAL WAR ON "TERROR" IS STRAIGHT OUT OF 1984.
4. FRAUD IS TRUTH: BUSH'S RHETORIC IS SO MUCH BASED ON FRAUD THAT ANY TRUE STATEMENT WOULD HAVE NO ROLE AND WOULD BE A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
5. KERRY=GHOST CANDIDATE. KERRY IS A STALKING HORSE FOR BUSH AND WAS HANDPICKED BY THE PRO-BUSH MEDIA AS A "DOA" GHOST CANDIDATE WHO IS A STALKING HORSE FOR BUSH---COURTESY OF SKULL AND BONES CLUB AT YALE, OF WHICH BOTH BUSH AND KERRY WERE MEMBERS.

Stanley G. Hilton 9/16/04
------------------------------------------------------------------------



* There is a possible Hilton penned NY Times Op Ed pending and some possible British press coverage.
* Hilton has been threatened repeatedly that the suit will be thrown out and that he faces being fraudulently disbarred if he does not drop the suit. While the threats are coming directly from Judge Pavitt and the U.S. District Court of Northern California they are believed to have originated further up the line with John Ashcroft and the U.S. Justice Department.Such threats, of coarse amount to obstruction of justice by high level judicial officials. Also, Hilton's office was recently burglarized by persons unknown.
* Hilton is considering making additional filings under the Fraudulent Claims Act. It may be easier to force depositions and discovery by proving what didn't happen (the the official 9/11 story is a lie), than by proving what did (there are still missing links to be found and gaps to be closed...


Your Ad Here


The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.


lizardking
Posted: 2004/9/16 12:39  Updated: 2004/9/16 12:39

 Re: Former Wolfowitz Schoolmate sues Bush for 9-11 Conspira
Can we have more on Ruppert's accusations?


911review Wiki

Stanley Hilton Lawsuit
Stanley Hilton Complaint
Stanley Hilton Interview


Open And Fair Trials
Inside Job
Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11!
Coverup By White House
Prior Knowledge
Behind The Israeli Mole
Conspiracy Of Silence
Secret Evidence
Confronting the Empire



911review.org homepage



Your Ad Here