Stanley Hilton's phony 9/11 lawsuit
the one named plaintiff sued Bush, et al., because
he was fired from his job at Neiman-Marcus for distributing peace literature
the attorney was a friend of Senator Bob Dole
(Republican)
It's not much of a legal case if the sole named plaintiff is suing Bush, et al, because he was fired
from his job at a department store for passing out anti-Bush literature.
If Mr. Hilton wants to pretend that Mike Ruppert is behind his other
"plaintiff" objecting to being included on his lawsuit without
his permission, he should reflect on the fact that he couldn't even
spell Mr. Munson's name accurately.
A REAL legal effort about 9/11 is at justicefor911.org -- but is unlikely to ever see the inside of a courtroom.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/01/911-in-courts-sort-of-almost_19.html
I see that Stanley Hilton's $7 billion federal class action lawsuit against
the Bush Administration for its complicity in the attacks has been thrown
out. While I've been, and remain, skeptical of Hilton and his motives,
it's interesting to note the ruling was based on the "Doctrine of
Sovereign Immunity". "In other words, the suit was not dismissed
because of lack of evidence, but rather because the judge reasoned
that U.S. Citizens do not have the right to hold a sitting President accountable for anything, even if the charges include premeditated mass murder and
premeditated acts of high treason."
Person surprised to find himself as a plaintiff
in Hilton's lawsuit without his consent
From: Scott Munson
Subject: Stanley Hilton is a fraud.
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:44:00 -0700
Stanley Hilton is a fraud.
I have never met a more seemingly incompetent or kooky lawyer than Stanley
Hilton.
Stanley Hilton fabricated legal elements in my name for his
911 lawsuit.
When I visited Stanley Hilton's SF office I was shocked to
find he had inserted claims on my behalf that I had never made.
In my previous correspondence to Stanley Hilton I had detailed 2 cases
of being denied my 1st amendment right to pass out deception dollars.
http://deceptiondollar.com
In the first case: On April 4, 2003, Security guards at the metal detector
at the entrance of the SF Court Building, 850 Bryant, told me I could
not enter the building with deception dollars on my person.
In the second case, on May 20, 2003, a National Park Service Ranger
http://nps.gov informed me I could not pass deception dollars out on
Baker Beach, SF, CA; in a National Park.
I did not know whether Stanley Hilton was mentally incompetent, or engaged
in conscious deception.
I never signed any papers with him or gave him any "OK" or
permission to include me in his suit.
But I learned he was including me in his suit anyway. I was upset about
this.
So I called him, and emailed him, nearly ten times, over a space of
several weeks.
He returned neither my phone calls nor my emails.
I hope there is some law against a lawyer who pretends to be representing
me while making up accusations and denying all contact with me.
Scott Munson
Menlo Park, CA
Stanley Hilton removes Scott Munson as plaintiff
http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/com/47523071.html
Reply to: see below
Date: 2004-11-01, 2:56PM PST
Scott Munson has been removed as a plaintiff from Stanley Hilton's lawsuit
against the Bush Administration over 9/11, The USA PATRIOT Act, and
the ongoing so-called "War On Terror".
Stanley Hilton also responds to Munson's Craigslist posting:
"Stanley Hilton Is A Fraud" by Scott Munson
http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/com/47334649.html
I ASKED THE FED COURT TO DISMISS MUNSUN AS A PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE
TODAY. I NEVER GOT ANY CALLS OR E MAILS FROM HIM.
THE FALSE AND DEFAMATORY ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ME BY SCOTT MUNSUN ARE TOTALLY
FALSE.
MUNSUN AGREED TO BE A PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE, IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES.
HE NEVER PHONED ME OR WROTE TO ME REQUESTING TO BE REMOVED AS A PLAINTIFF
FROM THE CASE. THE FIRST I HEARD OF THIS WAS TODAY, NOV. 1 2004 ON CRAIGSLIST.
MUNSUN'S FALSE AND LIBELOUS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME ARE BIZARRE AND WITHOUT
ANY MERIT.
I HAVE FORMALLY ASKED THE COURT TO REMOVE MUNSON AS A PLAINTIFF IN THIS
CASE TODAY, IN ACCORD WITH HIS WISHES. SEE ATTACHMENT.
I SUSPECT MIKE RUPPERT IS BEHIND THIS UNJUSTIFIABLE ATTEMPT TO DEFAME
ME, BECAUSE OF WHAT HE PERCEIVES AS A "RIVALRY" IN THE "911
TRUTH MOVEMENT."
STANLEY G HILTON
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents
once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each
document during this first viewing.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing or Other Case Activity
NOTE: Please read this entire notice before calling the Help Desk. If
you have questions, please email the Help Desk by replying to this message;
include your question or comment along with the original text.
Please note that these Notices are sent for all cases in the system
when any case activity occurs, regardless of whether the case is designated
for e-filing or not, or whether the activity is the filing of an electronic
document or not.
If there are two hyperlinks below, the first will lead to the docket
and the second will lead to an e-filed document.
If there is no second hyperlink, there is no electronic document available
.
See the FAQ posting 'I have a Notice of Electronic Filing that was e-mailed
to me but there's no hyperlink...' on the ECF home page at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov
The following transaction was received from Hilton, Stanley G. on 11/1/2004
at 1:34 PM PST
Case Name: Taxpayers of United States of America et al v. Bush et al
Case Number: 3:03-cv-3927
Filer: Taxpayers of United States of America
Stanley G. Hilton
Scott Munsun
Abel Ashes
Document Number: 42
Docket Text:
First MOTION to Dismiss dismiss scott munsun only as a plaintiff filed
by Abel Ashes, Stanley G. Hilton, Scott Munsun, Taxpayers of United
States of America. (Hilton, Stanley) (Filed on 11/1/2004)
From Hilton's August 27, 2004 amended complaint
Plaintiffs have been fired from their
jobs, including plaintiff Ashes, who was fired from his job at a Neiman
Marcus department store in San Francisco (and assaulted
by Nieman Marcus store employees telling him "you can't distribute
that, the country is 'at war.'") on or about Feb. 23, 2003, for
distributing any 911-related or anti-Iraq-war literature and videos
critical of the government. Under the guise of the mantra "the
country is at war" plaintiffs have suffered loss of freedoms and
loss of tax dollars.
One need not be a sophisticated attorney to see that this does not bring
"standing" to sue the government for perpetrating 9/11.
Primary Plaintiff / Publicist in Hilton's suit
promotes fake "Wing TV"
www.suetheterrorists.net/page29.html
Victor Thorn is becoming one of my favorite commentators on matters related
to the 911 Truth Movement.
Here are links to three of his recent articles that I find especially
vital work. I recommend that everyone thoroughly read all three of these
articles and check out WingTV.
- Abel Ashes 11-28-04
www.fromthewilderness.com/10questions.shtml
Michael Ruppert's rebuttal
911review.com/wingtv/markup/hoffman.html
Jim Hoffman's rebuttal
Mike Ruppert on the Stanley Hilton lawsuit
www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=29867
WARNING FROM MIKE RUPPERT
Posted By: BarbaraHartwell <Send E-Mail>
Date: Friday, 14 March 2003, 9:25 a.m. Barbara Hartwell
Legal Defense and Research Fund
PO Box 832
Woodstock NY 12498
Website: www.barbarahartwell.com
Note from Babs:
I received this message from Mike Ruppert and thought I'd pass it on.
I tend to agree with what Mike is saying here ( especially re Alex Jones)
and I trust his judgment, as Mike has a proven track record of calling
a spade a spade and dealing in facts and evidence rather than sensationalism.
Mike Ruppert is a professional, not a grandstander like Alex Jones.
Thanks, Mike
-------------------------------------------------
A word of warning to all those who are ecstatic and jumping
over Stanley Hilton's so-called revelations. He and Jones combined are
extremely dangerous. Recently, Jones wrote a piece on Patriot II that
was full of fabrications and shameless distortions. Jones even fabricated
a section of bill S22 that he said was going to call for the mandatory
registration of all firearms in the country. The bill actually contained
a specific provision prohibiting that.
His interview with Hilton was full of just as many distortions and I have
never trusted or accepted Honneger's modified-limited hangout and I have
proven it to be false in my upcoming book, "Crossing the Rubicon."
The reason is simple: Honneger asserts that the attacks were masked by
some 9-11 exercise which prevented officials from knowing of real hijackings.
In my book I establish the exact times that FAA knew of the 9-11 hijackings
and that they were NOT drills. Then I show the exact breakdowns in proceedure
that occurred after it was known that they were real hijackings, after
FAA and NORAD knew that the twin towers had been hit and after the White
House and Secret Service had issued clear warnings to prevent Flt 93 from
reaching Washington. Flt 93 was shot down pursuant to that order.
It is my strong belief that Stanley Hilton is the Daniel Sheehan of the
new century and that anyone who allies with him will be as discredited
and broke as those who supported the Christic Institute. He has rounded
up 400 victim families and he will destroy their case exactly the same
way that Sheehan destroyed Martha Honey's and all who were involved in
that one. As for Alex Jones I still want to believe that he is just over-energized,
careless and sloppy. But even at that he is playing directly into the
opposition's hands.
Hilton's discourse was the most unprofessional dialogue I have ever heard
from a lawyer in a public setting. And the man was a close colleague of
Bob Dole. Does anyone get the picture?
Read below for just one of his many factual and very serious exaggerations
in the radio broadcast. Before allying with someone who insists that "they're
coming after white people" I encourage anyone who signs on to this
thread to click on the link and listen to the full broadcast for yourselves.
Make up your own minds. If, after that, you still want to align with this
nonsense then it's on you and you will deserve what you get for it.
Mike Ruppert
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Ruppert
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:38 PM
Subject: RE: [consortium] Listen to archived interview of attorney Stanley
G. Hilton ...
I listened to this interview very closely.
Mark my words.
Alex Jones is a bit megalomanical and he has been salted with
such incredible nuggets of disinformation that he will be destroyed by
his own carelesness. He made at least a dozen - small in his mind - factual
distortions during broadcast. As one example, McCarthy-like he said he
had all these sources about how Judicial Watch people had been threatened
with arrest at gunpoint for trying to serve a subpoena on the White House
asking why Bush was taking Cipro before the attacks. The actual real story
is that Judicial Watch process servers were trying to serve Cheney with
a summons on bahlf of the suit filed by Halliburton shareholders and they
were denied admittance by guards who happened to be armed. This is a classic
Alex Jones screw up! I recently caught and indirectly confronted him over
outright fabrications regarding Patriot II.
But Hilton, who was a senior staffer to Bob Dole is far, far worse. He
is the reincarnation of Daniel Sheehan who will destroy the lawsuit from
the inside. Not only did he pander to pro-white, anti-Semitic overtones,
he took the exaggerated points that Jones made and took some even further.
His bahvior was unprofessional to say the least just as it was utterly
unprofessional when Daniel Sheehan submitted an affidavit listing witnesses
who were non-existent or who had been dead for some time.
Mark my words. All of the victim families who put their faith in Hilton
are going to be betrayed as badly as the thousands who put their faith
in Sheehan. Isn't it strange the Hilton failed to respond to about 50
phone calls from FTW where he would have been asked different questions
and yet he was availalble to go on Alex Jones.
The fear-mongering, racially-tinged, "They're coming after white
people!", tone of Jones' broadcast made me sick.
MR
Sincerely,
--------------------------
Mike Ruppert
From The Wilderness Publications
Hilton uses disproved "red herrings"
to justify his case - a clear example of legal malpractice
BUSH'S TWILIGHT ZONE
WHICH PLANES REALLY STRUCK THE WTC AND PENTAGON ON 911?
by Stanley G. Hilton, Esq.
As a matter of general law, the most compelling and credible evidence
in any case is always physical evidence, such as photographs and videos.
These are objective mechanical recordings that cannot "lie."
In the case of the crimes of treason of September 11, 2001, the most
compelling evidence is the photos and videos or conspicuous lack thereof,
of the three aircraft that struck the World Trade Center and Pentagon,
the two building complexes that were hit on that Day of Infamy.
What is most striking is that a close look at the photos and video shots
of the two planes which struck the WTC show that the two planes which
struck the North and South Towers 15 minutes apart do not appear to
be American or United passenger jets, but rather unmanned Air Force
"drone" tanker planes without any windows, a special type
of Boeing 757 built for the Air Force to fuel fighter planes in the
air.
There is zero evidence for this -- the claim is based on some contrast
altered, questionable (at best) photos of the second plane hitting the
South Tower. There is nothing that even approaches the level of credibility
needed for a legal claim. It is the fake "pod" claim that is
just a bad joke perpetrated against the 9/11 skeptics by persons who seek
to disrupt the serious investigations.
The videos show that both planes that actually struck the WTC that
terrible morning had conspicuous protruding cylindrical "pods"
underneath their fuselage, and that just seconds before they struck
the WTC towers, a bright flash went off on the planes, like a match
lit to ignite the massive fuel stored in the aircraft. These pods were
most likely fitted with an incendiary device and/or a missile designed
to inflict maximum damage on the target. They were designed and deployed
for military use, but in this case George Bush personally ordered them
to be used against American citizens, thousands of them in the WTC for
blatantly political gains, in the most shameless act of Treason in our
nation's history.
When you play the videos in slow motion, at 2 percent of the actual
speed, you can clearly see the protruding, elliptical mass underneath
the fuselage of the plane and the flash of light going off just before
impact.
Those "slow motion videos" were created by an internet persona
called "webfairy," who claims to believe that the North Tower
was attacked by a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram. Since
that absurdity was not very useful in either misdirecting the skeptics
or discrediting the skeptics in the public eye, more subtle and less ridiculous
(but equally false) memes were crafted to muddy the waters (such as the
"pod plane" claim).
Eyewitnesses in Manhattan who observed the planes striking the
WTC stated that "there were no windows on the planes" and
that the planes were unmarked without any insignia.
This is the thesis of the discredited "inplanesite" film, which
claims that someone in Brooklyn, miles away from the towers, could somehow
make these determinations. It can be hard to see windows and decals on
planes at the other end of the airport runway when they are moving slowly.
It is disproven by photos clearly showing windows on parts of the fuselage
recovered from "Ground Zero" -- as if anyone REALLY needed to
waste mental energy refuting this.
The videos taken of Flight 175 which hit the second tower at 9:01
am also reveal a second protruding mass underneath the fuselage near
the back of the plane, a mass that appears to be a "pod" built
on the special 757-tankers which houses the long metallic "gas
pump" that emerges from these tankers during flight, and connects
with fighter jets that fuel up in the air at these "flying gas
stations." The old KC-137's were the prototype of this technology,
all produced by Boeing at its Wichita Kansas plant.
The "protruding mass" is yet another fiction - fun with blurry
photoshopped images.
That these aircraft were used as substitute planes to kill Americans
is shocking. That BushLies continue to cover up these crimes is still
more shocking.
Eyewitnesses who saw the two Air Force tanker phantoms strike the WTC
reported that these planes had "no windows" and appeared to
be "military or transport planes." One called it a "spy"
plane because it was unmarked. Of course, the planes struck so fast
and so suddenly and were so high above the street level, that
the normal human eye did not have enough time to actually study the
appearance of the jets with any degree of certainty. FEMA officials,
who had already set up camp for Tripod II by the morning of September
11th 2001, videotaped all of this in detail. These videos are being
subpoenaed in our lawsuit against Bush for personally ordering 911 to
happen.
There is little question that the two planes which actually struck the
WTC on 911 were not the United and American commercial jets which had
taken off from Boston Logan Field an hour earlier, but rather unmanned
drone Air Force tankers which were operated by a remote control system
similar to the NASA 557 remote control system for 757s and 767s, "Cyclops"
navigation systems, the systems used in Global Hawks, Predator Drones
and other drone aircraft, and the GPS guided remote control system tested
by Raytheon at Holloman Air Force Base in July of 2001 . The men at
the controls were acting on orders directly issued from Bush, Cheney
and Rumsfeld.
So what happened to the real UAL and AA commercial jets that had taken
off from Boston that morning? Where did they go? What happened to their
crews and passengers?
The evidence indicates that these planes were ordered by the US Air
Force to land at an Air Force base 200 miles from New York City, where
the passengers and crew were forced off the plane, and slaughtered on
orders from Bush.
This meme is probably one of the many red herrings dreamt up to discredit
the serious efforts to understand the roll of the war games in confusing
the military response. While it may eventually be shown that there was
plane substitution, blurry photos that are blatantly misrepresented are
not evidence for this.
The 19 Arab so-called hijackers were paid US double agents who
served as decoys for the real operation on Bush Day. They just followed
orders to knowing the true nature of the bit roles they were playing
in what will go down as the greatest act of treason in world history.
In a classic, brilliant and historic "military decoy operation,"
the original passenger jets seem to have been replaced by these drone
aircraft somewhere between Boston and New York airspace. Furthermore,
air traffic controllers were confused by a series of "drills"
that day which were meant to send up a smokescreen of chaos, under which
any dissenting officials would be rendered neutral.
Then there is the Pentagon, where half an hour later we are told that
another 757 American Airlines passenger jet hit the building and caused
a 16-foot hole? The government has yet to release a single video to
prove their bogus allegation that a 757 smashing into the Pentagon.
In an area with the highest number of surveillance and video cameras
on earth, not a single video has been released showing clearly what
actually took place during this mysterious incident. Many eyewitnesses
reported seeing something other than a 757 strike the Pentagon and the
FBI reportedly confiscated all videotapes from all surveillance cameras
within a ten-mile radius of The Pentagon, including those from the gas
station across the street.
There are no reports that all cameras "within a ten-mile radius"
were confiscated. A few in the immediate vicinity definitely were, and
keeping these videos secret allows the strange hoax of "no Boeing
at the Pentagon" to flourish (with some assistance from internet
voices who clearly do not understand how to authenticate evidence).. This
is the type of sloppy claim that gets ones otherwise credible arguments
dismissed in court, and it is hard to imagine an innocent explanation
for this.
Stranger still is that a 757 is 125 feet wide and 155 feet long,
but the hole in the Pentagon is only 16 feet wide. The 757's tail is
20 feet taller than the Pentagon's roof, yet no structural damage was
done to the roof upon impact.
The length of the plane is not relevant. Most of the plane is merely
the fuselage, which is the same size as the primary hole
in the building on the second floor. The damage on the ground level was
the width of a 757 and it was caused by the 757.
Photographs taken immediately after the alleged strike show office
furniture still intact right at the damage site and a slice or cross
section of the floors also shows desks and filing cabinets intact. This
is totally inconsistent with the government's own theory that fuel-laden
commercial airliners struck all three buildings, the WTC Twin Towers
and the Pentagon. The government's theory asserts that the impact of
the planes and the burning of the jet fuel brought about the total destruction
of the Twin Towers. If we are to believe the government's nonsensical
theory such aircraft laden with jet fuel striking the Pentagon would
have caused massive fires that would have spread throughout the building
and impact damage destructive enough to severely destroy a very large
section of the Pentagon. What we saw instead was a hole smaller than
the aircraft alleged to have made impact and relatively minor damage
when compared with the total destruction of the Twin Towers by what
were alleged to be similar striking objects.
There can be no doubt that the government's own theory is totally inconsistent.
Bush claims the same types of aircraft flown by the same ragtag gang
of Arabs and full of the same type of fuel struck both the WTC and Pentagon,
yet the damage is totally inconsistent. The two huge towers of the WTC
were totally destroyed while the Pentagon escaped with a small 16 foot
hole that could not even fit the fuselage of a 757, much less the wing
span.
Even more bizarre, there was never found any aircraft wreckage of the
757 that allegedly struck the Pentagon. The real plane appears to have
vanished into thin air.
This is a complete fabrication - there were lots of aircraft parts found
in the rubble and were scattered widely.
What really happened at the Pentagon may be that a cruise missile
was fired at the Pentagon by an Air Force fighter-bomber that swept
down the Potomac River and this missile, which looks like a cylinder
with two small wings at the rear caused the "surgical strike"
that produced the 16-foot hole.
As for the crew and passengers of the real jet that had taken off from
Dulles Airport that morning, they were forced to land and murdered,
like their counterparts from Boston. The planes were commandeered into
the Air Force fleet, their serial numbers altered.
Finally there is the mystery of the fourth commercial plane that took
off that morning, United Flight 93, which took off from Washington DC's
Dulles Airport, and headed for San Francisco. Unlike its three cousins,
which may have been "disappeared", this jet wound up in small
pieces on the ground in a wreck stretching a mile and a half at "Camp
Bush" in western Pennsylvania.
The official lie is that Flight 93 was also hijacked and was heading
for the White House when heroic passengers wrestled the hijackers and
either accidentally or intentionally caused the plane to crash.
Like most of the other lies about 911, this too is a fantasy.
Why was the plane 300 miles off course, west of Washington at the time
it crashed? How is it that these super-smart terrorists whose brothers
flew with precision into the WTC and Pentagon could not even find the
course for Washington, when they had just taken off from Dulles Airport,
20 miles west of Washington itself? It would have taken them less than
ten minutes to fly the plane from Dulles to the White House, but we
are told they stayed in the air for over an hour 300 miles off course.
"Attorney" Hilton is confusing Flight 93 with Flight 77, which
hit the Pentagon. Flight 93 departed from Newark, New Jersey, not Dulles.
Again, this attorney is either extremely incompetent (in which case his
previous association with Senator Bob Dole is hard to understand) or is
deliberately misrepresenting the evidence in order to sabotage the investigations
and prosecution.
United Airlines flight 93 was shot down by an Air Force fighter
under the command of Dick Cheney, possibly because the pilot became
suspicious and refused to land his plane at the directions of the military.
The pilot had radioed the Pittsburgh Airport control tower for permission
to make an emergency landing, and wound up being shot down by planes
of our own military. The government won't release the Pittsburgh Control
Tower records or the black boxes.
What I believe was supposed to happen, according to the script for the
spectacular 911 stunt show on Bush Day, was that this plane like the
three others was supposed to land at an Air Force base, where the passengers
and crew were to be "disappeared" while a fourth unmanned
tanker drone 757 was supposed to strike a US military base in nearby
Ohio, as part of a larger scenario of pseudo-events produced and directed
by the Bush Administration, intended to scare the American people into
giving Bush dictatorial control powers. However, because the pilots
became recalcitrant and suspicious, they would not play along with the
script and were shot down by a military jet fighter. The fourth plane's
"mission" of treason was aborted.
In our lawsuit against Bush for High Treason and mass murder, we seek
all documents pertaining to Air Force records and commercial air traffic
control records that will reveal what really happened on 9/11/01. We
seek the black boxes to all four ill-fated jets and from the tanker
drones that really struck the WTC, which the government has thus far
refused to produce, claiming "national security."
What is really at stake is not national security but rather national
insecurity. In classical BushLies, the purpose of the Bush administration
is not to reveal, but to deceive. The 911 Whitewash Commission, which
inept and timorous congressmen put together with the reluctant "semi-cooperation"
of the White House, is a sham. It did not address any of the issues
described above. This Whitewash Commission will surely go down as a
shameful footnote in history; a glaring testimony to the political weakness
of our "democracy" and the utter impotence and cooption of
Congress.
The holocaust that BushLies have unleashed in the Middle East through
mindless wars of destruction against Afghanistan and Iraq, with more
to come, is the logical and political result of the spectacular Twilight
Zone sound-and-light show of 911. In an administration based on fraud
and chicanery, we can expect nothing else but more stunts like 911 and
more wars of aggression against harmless Third World nations replete
with oil. Bush Day, Sept. 11, was intended to be a well-planned catalyst
for galvanizing the Congress and public into supporting unlimited aggressive
wars in pursuit of a dubious political agenda. Bush has well earned
his place in History's Rogue's Gallery along such luminaries as Hitler,
Stalin and Genghis Khan.
George Bush II is guilty not only of crimes against humanity, but also
of crimes against his own people. The 3000 souls who evaporated on Bush
Day, Sep. 11, cry out for vindication. Bush's Supreme Act of Treason
makes Benedict Arnold look like George Washington.
Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people some of the time,
but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Let us hope he was right.
- Statement of Stanley G. Hilton, Esq. September 2004
- Edited by Abel Ashes
|
