Stanley Hilton Lawsuit

by Stanley Hilton

TAXPAYERS OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,

v.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT; GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR; ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR; CONDOLEEZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Second Amended Complaint For Damages, Injunction And Declaratory ReliefJURY TRIAL DEMANDED

First Cause Of Action: Taxpayer Suit Under The Constitution.1. Plaintiffs are all taxpayers of the united states of America, except for plaintiff "United States Government" ("USG"), which is named as a plaintiff because 31 us code ? 3730(b) states that an action under the Federal Fraudulent Claims Act must be brought in the name of the US government. Plaintiffs also aver that they bring this action in the name of all victims of defendants' schemes as stated in this action, including soldiers and others forced to go to Iraq by defendants and risk and lose their lives and limbs.

2. Plaintiffs are suing only those defendants named in the caption of this amended complaint.

3. This is an actual case and controversy and is not "Political" case. In particular, the second cause of action for violation of 31 US Code sec. 3729 is brought under 31 US CODE ? 3730 (b), which states that private citizens have rights to bring such an action against Bush et al. In the name of the "united states government," to recover funds of which the USG has been defrauded by defendants, via false claims plaintiffs accuse defendants of violating federal laws and abusing powers, i.e. committing illegal acts, not of political decisions. The acts are ministerial, not discretionary. Defendants violated clearly established laws and rights of plaintiffs, such as first amendment rights of free speech and 4th amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and cannot claim "qualified immunity." Though they are high federal officeholders, defendants are not immune from suit. A sitting president can be sued for violating clearly established laws in office.

4. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.

5. The statute of limitations does not bar this action.

6. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and opinion declaring the USA patriot acts I and II unconstitutional, for violating plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th , 8th and 9th and 14th amendments to the US constitution, we ask the court to enjoin enforcement of the USA Patriot Acts I and II accordingly.

7. Plaintiffs also ask the court to render a declaratory judgment declaring the military action in Iraq to be unconstitutional.

8. There is a need for an injunction because defendants continue to squander taxpayers' money and there is reason to believe defendants plan further military adventures which would drain the treasury, deprive plaintiffs of federal funds and tax money.

9. Defendants all have offices in San Francisco, CA and operate here.

10. Jurisdiction over ths case is conferred by federal statutes 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331, 31 U.S.C. ?? 3729 et seq., 18 U.S.C. ?? 1961 et seq. and directly under the US Constitution.

11. VENUE: Venue is proper here because, inter alia, plaintiffs live here and one of the skyjacked aircraft that crashed on sept. 11, 2001 (UAL flight # 93) was bound for San Francisco, ca, and because plaintiffs suffered damages here as they reside here. Also 18 US CODE ? 1965 and 31 US CODE ? 3729-3731 provided that actions under RICO and the Federal Fraudulent Claims Act may be brought in the district where the person injured (plaintiffs) resides. Plaintiffs reside in this district.

12. Plaintiffs aver that defendants all conspired with the government of Saudi Arabia("GSA") prior to 9/11/01 to knowingly finance, encourage, recruit, permit, and aid and abet, certain individuals to carry out the 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in order to orchestrate a contrived, stylized and artificial "second Pearl Harbour" event for the purpose of galvanizing public support for their military adventure agenda in the middle east, and in order to persuade congress to enact their repressive patriot acts I and ii for the purpose of suppressing political dissent inside the us. Plaintiffs aver that defendants Bush et al. Knew about plans by "Al Quaeda" to launch the 911 attacks (hereinafter referred to as "the 911 acts"), and conspired with gSA to fund, finance and encourage said Al Quaeda individuals (many of whom were acting as informants and agents of defendants) to mount the 911 attacks, and allowed these attacks to occur deliberately, thereby violating clearly established rights of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also are informed and believe, and so aver, that defendants orchestrated the 911 acts and utilized a technology known as "fly by wire"("fbw"), i.e., remote control of aircraft, in the 911 acts. Said technology is also employed in the "global hawk" aircraft and military drone aircraft, and in commercial aircraft used in the 911 acts. Then, defendants concocted a scheme to cover up what they had done and suppress their prior knowledge and approval of the 911 acts.

13. Plaintiffs also aver that defendants knowingly utilized the climate of fear and hysterical created by the 911 acts, and deliberately concocted untrue and fraudulent claims of "weapons of mass destruction" ("WMD") said to be present in Iraq, from 9/11/01 through the present, and particularly in october 2002, when defendants presented these false claims to congress in order to obtain a resolution "Enabling act" which Bush then used to launch a preemptive war against the sovereign state of Iraq.

14. As a proximate result of defendants' acts and violation of the constitution and clearly established rights of plaintiffs, plaintiffs suffered severe damage in loss of taxpayer revenues, emotional distress, loss of government services, and other damages. Plaintiffs have been prevented from exercising their free speech rights by us forest rangers and other officials, who have banned distribution of certain literature that is critical of defendants' handling of the 911 acts (Plaintiff Scott MUNSUN was stopped by federal park rangers from distributing literature critical of defendants and Bush and the 911 acts, at Baker Beach in San Francisco, on or about May 28, 2003, and his literature was confiscated by the ranger). Plaintiffs have been approached by defendants, federal officials, and have had their literature and videotapes etc seized, and have been threatened with arrest if they did not cease distributing the literature and videos. Plaintiffs have been fired from their jobs, including plaintiff ashes, who was fired from his job at a Nieman Marcus department store in San Francisco (and assaulted by Nieman Marcus store employees telling him "you cant 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. And all the while, all the while., defendants have continued to march forward with their cavalcade of horrors intended to frighten the plaintiffs into coughing up endless moneys. Plaintiffs have also lost liberties as defendants have finagled new laws and rules and regulations enabling them to read private e mail, wiretap, etc., all of which violate plaintiffs; 4th amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable governed search and seizure and plaintiff have suffered loss of liberty, loss of freedom etc. as defendants have proceeded on their plan to disable us democracy and impose totalitarian controls and laws, solely in order to tighten their grip on power for political ends. Plaintiff TIBBS is a veteran who has been damaged by being forced to accept smaller amounts of military pensions and other benefits than would otherwise be the case but for the expensive and wasteful wars of aggression conducted by defendants in Iraq etc., which have bankrupted the us economy and prevented veterans from getting their just rewards in the form of medical and health services, pensions etc. Also plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants have utilized and implemented the USA PATRIOT ACTS I AND II to spy on them, invade their privacy, intercept communications intended to be private, invade the privacy of what books they read at libraries and bought at bookstores, what financial accounts they have and what financial transactions they engaged in, etc. Also the defendants appear to be prepared to strip some of the plaintiffs of their US citizenship under the USA PATRIOT ACTS I AND II, as a mens of suppressing political dissent. This violation of plaintiffs' rights has been brazen in its scope and dangerous.

15. Defendant Bush and the other defendants have deliberately conspired with the government of Saudi Arabia to harm the interests of plaintiffs, and to violate plaintiffs' clearly established rights, and to manipulate petroleum prices, which have more than doubled since fall 2001, from $ 16/bbl to $ 40/bbl. in addition, Defendants created "sweetheart deals" with certain companies and awarded these deals to "reconstruct and rebuild" Iraq. These companies include defendant Cheney's company Haliburton, Bechtel and others. Taxpayer money has been showered on these companies which damaged plaintiffs' rights and interests.

16. There is no adequate remedy at law to compensate plaintiff and protect them from future acts of grossly negligent and intentional malfeasance in office by defendants, and therefore plaintiff ask for and are entitled to receive an injunction removing defendants from office and enjoining them from carrying out any further duties in defense of this country. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants are dangerous and hence an injunction should issue requiring defendants to fulfill their constitutional duties forthwith, or remove themselves from office or be removed from office by all legitimate constitutional means.

17. The USA Patriot Acts, I and II, planned and implemented by defendants as a means of suppressing and chilling exercise of political dissent, violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the 1st, 5th, fourth and 14th amendments to the constitution, in that they constitute an invasion of privacy and give the federal government vast unconstitutional powers to spy on us citizens, i.e., plaintiffs, for defendants; own nefarious political purpose. Ashcroft should be enjoined from enforcing the patriot laws.

18. The actions, misfeasance, malfeasance and other acts committed by defendants as alleged above, in the first cause of action, amount to negligence, misfeasance malfeasance in discharge of defendants duties to plaintiffs, and defendants have breached the duty they had to protect plaintiffs from terrorists and physical and emotional harm.

19. As a proximate result of defendants' malfeasance and violation of the constitution, plaintiffs suffered severe damage in regard to emotional distress, loss of government services, waste of government money, creation of huge federal budget deficits and resultant interest (including interest paid to GSA), diminution of federal services and funds due to diverting funds to Bush's Iraq misadventure, etc. . plaintiffs have also lost liberties as defendants have finagled new laws and rules and regulations enabling them to read private e mail, wiretap, etc.,. all of which violate plaintiffs; 4th amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable governed search and seizure and plaintiff have suffered loss of liberty, loss of freedom etc.., as defendants have proceeded on their plan to disable us democracy and impose totalitarian controls and laws, solely in order to tighten their grip on power for political ends.

20. Whereas defendants pose a "clear and present danger" to the lives and liberties and freedoms of plaintiffs, and to the us treasury which they have been bankrupting by wasteful wastrel spending on meaningless wars of aggression, and whereas there is no adequate remedy at law to compensate plaintiff and protect them from future acts of grossly negligent and intentional malfeasance in office by defendants, and therefore plaintiff ask for and are entitled to receive an injunction removing defendants from office and enjoining them from carrying out any further duties in defense of this country. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants are dangerous and hence an injunction should issue requiring defendants to fulfill their constitutional duties forthwith, or remove themselves from office or be removed from office by all legitimate constitutional means.

Wherefore plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter alleged.

Second cause of action: Violation of Fraudulent Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. ?? 3729, 3730 et seq (Brought in the name of the United States Government pursuant to 31 U.S.C. ? 3730(b)

21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are repeated here and incorporated by reference.

22. The actions of defendants as described supra amount to presentation of false claims to Congress for taxpayer money in violation of the FEDERAL FRAUDULENT CLAIMS ACT ("FCA") , 31 U.S.C. ?? 3729 et seq., in that defendants all presented to Congress false and fraudulent claims to Congress "for payment or approval" from 9/11/01 through present, in that defendants presented a fraudulent claim to Congress that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction ('WMD"), when this was in fact totally untrue and defendants had utterly no evidence of WMD in Iraq (as proven by the fact that after 18 months of war and search, defendants have failed to find any WMD anywhere in Iraq. Therefore this is evidence that defendants must have presented a deliberately false and fraudulent claim before Congress in october 2002 and other times between 9/11/01 and the present, a fraudulent claim for taxpayer moneys. Defendants also presented fraudulent claims to Congress from 9/12/01 to the present that "Osama Bin Laden" was a live leader of a worldwide conspiracy to deploy WMD against the US and to destroy and inflict severe damage against the US, when in fact defendants knew that Osama Bin Laden had been killed many years before 9/11/01. Hence they fraudulently presented a dead man as the casus belli justifying waste of resources to pursue a pointless War against Afghanistan. Defendants also presented fraudulent claims to Congress from 9/11/01 to the present, that Saddam Hussein and the government of Iraq were linked to Bin Laden and al Quaeda and that Hussein and Iraq had been involved in planning and executing the 911 attacks. These utterly fraudulent claims were used by defendants to finagle public funds out of Congress for pointless wars against Iraq, and waste of the treasury funds. These were fraudulent claims because Bush et al went before congress in october 2002, through the present, and presented a false claim that there were weapons of mass destruction ensconced in Iraq, which requiring immediate military action to obviate an imminent attack on the us. Defendant Rice fraudulently alleged that a "mushroom cloud" over the USA (to be launched by Iraq) was a clear and present danger that was imminent, and Bush et al. Claimed that Iraq had bought nuclear weapons material, chemical and biological weapons ("CBW"), and other WMD and that Iraq planned to deploy such weapons against the USA. All of these claims were false and fraudulent, and known to defendants to be false and fraudulent at the time they were made. This violated the Federal Fraudulent Claims Act ("FCA")

23. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this civil action under 31 U.S.C. sec. 3730(b), as us citizens.

24. The statute of limitations for this cause of action is 6 years-see 31 U.S.C. ?3731. Hence the action is timely.

25. As a proximate result of said violation of the FCA, plaintiffs have suffered damages, to wit, loss of taxpayer money on a useless and purposeless boondoggle in Iraq, denial and reduction in public services because of the diverting of federal taxpayer funds to the Iraq misadventure, loss of life in a purposeless activity, infliction of emotional distress, creation of huge federal budget deficits and resultant interest charges (including interest paid to gSA), etc.

26. Plaintiffs request an order compelling defendants to reimburse the US treasury for the federal funds they defrauded the Congress into giving them, by making deliberately false and fraudulent claims of WMD, mushroom clouds, CBW and the like.

Wherefore plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter described.

Third cause of action: RICO statute: 18 US CODE ?? 1961 ET SEQ.24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are repeated here and incorporated by reference.

25. All of the above-described acts by defendants constitute a violation of the RICO statute, 18 US CODE ?? 1961 ET SEQ. In particular, defendants have received income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity and have used and invested such income in the acquisition of interests in, ands establishment of operations of, certain enterprises, such as the Iraq "reconstruction" program whereby defendants' cronies such as Defendant Cheney's company Haliburton and Bechtel have won sweetheart deals to "rebuild"the very infrastructure that defendants have destroyed or damaged through mindless military action, in pursuit of defendants' dubious goals. Plaintiffs aver that defendants have engaged in pattern of tam Marte quam Mercurio and that the "war" in Iraq has been a cover for racketeering activity, such as the sweetheart deals, described supra. The cover-up by defendants of the genesis of the 911 acts has been a conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 1961, as well. This has been a conspiracy to obstruct justice. As part of the coverup, during the days following 9/11/01, defendants knowingly allowed members of the Saudi royal family and Bin Laden family to fly out of the USA at a time when all other flights were grounded. The purpose of allowing these criminals to escape the country was to prevent anyone from questioning them about their complicity in causing the 911 attacks. The coverup also has taken the shape of a campaign of intimidation and suppression of FBI agents and informants who knew about the true genesis if the 911 attacks. For example, when FBI translators and agents and informants sent letters and e mails and documents to defendants prior to 9/11/01, warning them of imminent threats of attack, defendants suppressed these, forbade the informants from speaking publicly or to the 911 commission later, and imposed a policy of Omerta.

26. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this cause of action because of 18 US Code ?1964 in that plaintiffs aver that there is a causal link between defendants' violation of 18 U.S.C. ?? 1961-1962 and plaintiffs' injuries.

27. As a proximate result OF THE VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. ? 1961 by defendants, plaintiffs have suffered damages including denial of their rights to receive fede3ral services and funds, invasion of their privacy and constitutional rights by the defendants via US PATRIOT ACTS and spying, credit damage etc.

Prayer for relief:Plaintiffs pray for relief against each defendant as follows:

1. For declaratory relief, an order declaring that the USA PATRIOT ACTS I AND II are null and void for violation the Constitution, and declaring the defendants' actions to have violated RICO and the FCA, and an injunction enjoining defendants from implementing the USA PATRIOT ACTS I AND II;

2. An order to defendants requiring them to release all information they have concerning the genesis and execution of the 911 acts;

3. Declaratory judgment declaring USA patriot acts I and II to be unconstitutional, null and void;

4. An order compelling defendants and their cronies and business associates, including Bechtel corp; and Haliburton corp., to reimburse the US treasury for all tax dollars gained by them, which tax dollars have been extracted from plaintiffs, us taxpayers on the basis of false and fraudulent information;

6. An injunction forbidding defendants, and defendant Ashcroft and his justice dept., from enforcing patriot acts I or ii, and declaratory relief in the for of an order declaring both patriot acts to be unconstitutional.

7. For monetary damages according to proof;

8. For reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit;

7. For all other appropriate relief deemed proper.

Date: 8/27/04

SG Hilton Attorney