You are on page 1of 8

Stanley Hilton Lawsuit - 9/11Review

Water & Air Filters- Discount My News Planet Eliminate Your Mortgage
Survival Products- Free Shipping News from all over the web. 1000s Eliminate Your 30-Yr Mortgage In 10-Yrs
headlines. Or Less! Download it NOW!
Free Web Hosting watchman for Jehovah
FTP, SEO tools, Site Builder, Domain or King of the north conspires for global
Subdomain! domination

Your Ad Here

911review 911review Wiki


br>

Stanley Hilton Lawsuit

Stanley G. Hilton has filed a class action lawsuit in Federal court in Northern California against
against high officials in the current Bush administration (including the federal government,
Bush, Cheney, Rice, Mueller, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft), for complicity in aiding and abetting
and facilitating the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks.

His suit contends, and we strongly concur, that the defendants did 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 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 terrorist attacks on the World Trade center Twin Towers and the
Pentagon Attack - attacks actually orchestrated by defendants. The suit also alleges that the
USA Patriot Act I and Patriot Act 2 are unconstitutional and must be struck down as such,
because they violate the fourth, fifth, ninth and first amendments to the US Constitution, by
permitting the government to spy on Americans and violate their rights to privacy, and because

http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml (1 of 8)29.1.2007 12:42:32


Stanley Hilton Lawsuit - 9/11Review

the Patriot Acts, like the war in Iraq, were passed under false and fraudulent circumstances
presented by defendants to the Congress.

The suit argues that 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.

The 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 9/11, the PA laws that were passed as a proximate result of 9/11, and the actions
of defendants in infringing on their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

911review.org strongly supports Stanley Hilton's courageous actions to hold the


officials responsible for the 9/11 massacres liable to punishment, and to repeal the
Fraudulent Legislation such as the Patriot Act.

Hilton is persisting in this legal action despite threats to his life and we call on all our
readers to support his actions by all means necessary. Please donate generously to the
9/11 Victims Legal Fund.

This is the Plaintiffs' Status Conference Statement II;

For the full text of the lawsuit, see StanleyHiltonComplaint.


For an excellent interview with Stanley Hilton by Alex Jones: StanleyHiltonInterview.

Water & Air Filters- Discount My News Planet Eliminate Your Mortgage
Survival Products- Free Shipping News from all over the web. 1000s Eliminate Your 30-Yr Mortgage In 10-Yrs
headlines. Or Less! Download it NOW!
Free Web Hosting watchman for Jehovah
FTP, SEO tools, Site Builder, Domain or King of the north conspires for global
Subdomain! domination

Your Ad Here

http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml (2 of 8)29.1.2007 12:42:32


Stanley Hilton Lawsuit - 9/11Review

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLAINTIFFS' STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT II

Date AUGUST 13, 2004

Time 2 pm

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


AMERICA; STANLEY G HILTON;
SCOTT MUNSUN,
ABEL ASHES,

PLAINTIFFS,

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"

http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml (3 of 8)29.1.2007 12:42:32


Stanley Hilton Lawsuit - 9/11Review

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

http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml (4 of 8)29.1.2007 12:42:32


Stanley Hilton Lawsuit - 9/11Review

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

http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml (5 of 8)29.1.2007 12:42:32


Stanley Hilton Lawsuit - 9/11Review

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,

http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml (6 of 8)29.1.2007 12:42:32


Stanley Hilton Lawsuit - 9/11Review

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.

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

See our pages: StanleyHiltonInterview and Stanley Hilton Complaint.

Links:

Sue The Terrorists

http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml (7 of 8)29.1.2007 12:42:32


Stanley Hilton Lawsuit - 9/11Review

911 - The War of Terror


Government Insider Says Bush Authorized 911 Attacks
Deciphering The 9/11 Distractions The government's lies are obvious
Alex Jones Interviews Stanley Hilton
David Corn

Former Wolfowitz Schoolmate sues Bush for 9-11 Conspiracy (INN 2004/9/19 )
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)
more...
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=788

911review 911review Wiki Brad's 9/11 page

Water & Air Filters- Discount My News Planet Eliminate Your Mortgage
Survival Products- Free Shipping News from all over the web. 1000s Eliminate Your 30-Yr Mortgage In 10-Yrs
headlines. Or Less! Download it NOW!
Free Web Hosting watchman for Jehovah
FTP, SEO tools, Site Builder, Domain or King of the north conspires for global
Subdomain! domination

Your Ad Here

http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml (8 of 8)29.1.2007 12:42:32