It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: 9-11 Stanley Hilton Lawsuit Dismissed On Sovereign Immunity!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
In a soon to be made public 15-page ruling, Judge Illston dismissed the $7 Billion federal class action lawsuit filed years ago by CA lawyer Stanley Hilton. Hilton is now preparing an appeal to be filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The document will be made public as soon as it is received by the webmaster at www.suetheterrorists.net.
 



www.suetheterrorists.net
1/9/2005 Abel Ashes (Hull Simmons)- The $7 billion federal class action lawsuit against top Bush Administration officials for, among other things, their roles in engineering and orchestrating the 911 attacks has been dismissed by Judge Illston. Attorney for the plaintiffs, Stanley Hilton is preparing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and hopes to reverse the judge's ruling.

Mr. Hilton will be making the fifteen page ruling dismissing the suit available to the public. As soon as SueTheTerrorists.Net webmaster, Abel Ashes (Hull Simmons) receives the document it will be online for all to read and understand the judge's given reasons for dismissing the suit.

Mr. Ashes spoke with Stanley Hilton earlier today and Mr. Hilton informed him that the judge's 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. Mr. Hilton and his plaintiffs disagree and so are filing an appeal.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Wow. Just wow. Judge Illston dismissed the suit, not because of lack of evidence, but because of the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity." We as Citizens of the United States of America cannot hold a sitting President accountable, even if the charges include premeditated mass murder and premeditated acts of high treason. Remember, this lawyer Stanley Hilton claims to have hard evidence of a signed document issued by the Bush administration to go a. with the 9/11 attacks, among much other evidence, which to this point Hilton has withheld.

Now what is curious is that the US Constitution provides that:

Article II. Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So how is it possible, upon these incredible charges that the lawsuit brings, that the case be dismissed based on Sovereign Immunity? This is the biggest news recently for the whole 9-11 truth movement.

Related News Links:
www.serendipity.li
911review.org
www.rense.com
www.truthout.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
9/11 'Drills' Alex Jones explosive interview with Stanley Hilton




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Article II Section 4 means impeachment and conviction on articles of impeachment. The power of Impeachment lies soley with the House of Representatives and the power of conviction lies soley with the Senate.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Ok, that's fine, but still. With the incredible charges that this lawsuit brings, let's not miss the forest by staring at the trees. The real issue here is the reason the case was dismissed! Hilton HAS the evidence.

And by the way, we are the second site to break this news, and we have our friends over at www.letsroll911.org... to thank for being the first! This is huge, and represents a huge blow to some last held out hopes for the 9-11 truth movement as a whole. Many more people have not taken legal action because this lawsuit was still in progress, and were waiting patiently to see what was going to happen with it. I guess now we know.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by TrueAmerican]

[edit on 14-1-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
For all interested here is the definition;
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY - A doctrine precluding the institution of a suit against the sovereign [government] without its consent. Though commonly believed to be rooted in English law, it is actually rooted in the inherent nature of power and the ability of those who hold power to shield themselves.

In England it was predicated on the concept that "the sovereign can do no wrong", a concept developed and enforced by - guess who? However, since the American revolution explictedly rejected this interesting idea, the American rulers had to come up with another rationale to protect their power. One they came up with is that the "sovereign is exempt from suit [on the] practical ground that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." 205 U.S. 349, 353.

www.lectlaw.com...

This ruling is baloney. Maybe we have to wait for him to leave office ( if that will ever happen). Long live King George



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by valkeryie
This ruling is baloney. Maybe we have to wait for him to leave office ( if that will ever happen). Long live King George


Thanks for that valkeryie. In case you didn't know, one of the reasons that it has taken so long for fruition on this suit is that the original judge presiding the case recently stepped down, and was replaced by the new judge.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by valkeryie
This ruling is baloney. Maybe we have to wait for him to leave office ( if that will ever happen). Long live King George


Thanks for that valkeryie. In case you didn't know, one of the reasons that it has taken so long for fruition on this suit is that the original judge presiding the case recently stepped down, and was replaced by the new judge.


Let me guess, one that was appointed by Bush.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I think this just keeps the government from having to defend itself against such frivilous lawsuits. If this was allowed, every nutcase with a conspiracy theory would be able to drag the president into court, bringing the government to a standstill.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
It's curious that you would regard this huge lawsuit as just another "frivilous" lawsuit, because it is not. Go look at the documents on www.suetheterrorists.net...



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
another little point to the 911 thoery of government involvement.

remember rumsfelds boo boo when he said the phili plane was "SHOT" down...
what if the passengers (whom we have recorded voices of) actually were overtaking the "government" agents or machines that were controlling the plane...(they obviously succeeded, even though the plane still crashed) they would have been excellent witnesses if they had survived... to bad they got "shot" down....



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonoflaz
what if the passengers (whom we have recorded voices of) actually were overtaking the "government" agents or machines that were controlling the plane...(they obviously succeeded, even though the plane still crashed) they would have been excellent witnesses if they had survived... to bad they got "shot" down....


i never thought of that angle. i've never heard anybody say exactly that before. what a great shot through the bow of the official lie. they were fighting with the 'terrorists', yes, but the identity of the terrorists is unproven by black boxes or rhetoric.
that's GREAT! you rock.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by billybob]




top topics



 
0

log in

join