yo, you gots to read dis shit. its fo real.
"U.S. Taxpayers, et al Vs. Bush, et al
On August 13, Hilton amended "U.S. Taxpayers, et al Vs. Bush, et al" to narrow the list of plantiffs down to the United States of America (the federal government), Bush, Cheney, Rice, Mueller, Tenet, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft. Here are the facts of the case as presented in the filing:
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 ...
[For a (slightly dated) examination of the LIHOP theory, see William Rivers Pitt's essay All Along the Watchtower.]
...(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.
Hilton points out in this filing how the Republicans opened the door for a lawsuit against a sitting president with their attacks on Bill Clinton:
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.
...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.
Hilton also sounds a ringing indictment of the PATRIOT Act:
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.
In the filing, Hilton outlines and refutes anticipated political and legal objections (full marks for falsification):
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.
The case presents a range of important legal precedents:
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."
On August 13, Hilton amended "U.S. Taxpayers, et al Vs. Bush, et al" to narrow the list of plantiffs down to the United States of America (the federal government), Bush, Cheney, Rice, Mueller, Tenet, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft. Here are the facts of the case as presented in the filing:
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 ...
[For a (slightly dated) examination of the LIHOP theory, see William Rivers Pitt's essay All Along the Watchtower.]
...(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.
Hilton points out in this filing how the Republicans opened the door for a lawsuit against a sitting president with their attacks on Bill Clinton:
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.
...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.
Hilton also sounds a ringing indictment of the PATRIOT Act:
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.
In the filing, Hilton outlines and refutes anticipated political and legal objections (full marks for falsification):
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.
The case presents a range of important legal precedents:
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."