Stanley Hilton's fake 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 was at -- but is unlikely to ever see the inside of a courtroom.

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.
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 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
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

***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 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"

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
Michael Ruppert's rebuttal
Jim Hoffman's rebuttal


Mike Ruppert on the Stanley Hilton lawsuit
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

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.
Mike Ruppert
From The Wilderness Publications


Hilton uses disproved "red herrings" to justify his case - a clear example of legal malpractice

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