* is officially, "legally", beyond the law

http://www.atsnn.com/story/111717.html
....
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. 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.
....
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 ahead 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

The ninth, the ninth...Something about that court I should know about, isn't there?

love to describe as nutty. I hope they stick to their guns and not allow the criticism to distract them.

a sitting judge?

and therefore properly dismissed. If someone thinks they have proof of criminal charges for the administration flying planes into buildings, they are free to bring them.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Simplisticly, the House is the Prosecutor, the Chief Justice is the Judge and the Senate is the Jury for impeachment.

-Hoot

covering BJ's? BTW where did they dredge that up? "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity" And since when do we have a sovereign?

two Ducats to rub together...

:-(




Badaboom

Good one. :)

claiming that, as you wrote above, "the charges include premeditated mass murder and premeditated acts of high treason" is incorrect. If such charges were filed, it would have to be in a criminal suit.

See http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/usdc/bnkrptcy/briefs/bnk21.htm for explanation and discussion of the "sovereign immunity" doctrine. This is not something the judge just made up on the spot.

:puke:

So, in appeal, they are going to argue whether * can even be sued, before any of the complaints are going to be heard?

we are suing Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it.

snip

"We are suing them under the Constitution for violating American?s rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress to justify the bogus Iraq boondoggle war, for political gains. And also, under the RICO statute, under the Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt entity.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread80501/pg1

and the Sovereign immunity it says:

As noted above, it is well settled in the law that, absent "consent," the Federal government, its departments and agencies are immune from suit. Sovereign immunity extends to Indian nations , government officials acting in their official capacity and, to the extent that Congress has cloaked them with immunity, Federal corporations .

Since this suit does not appear to be against a Federal Government, agency and it's departments, it may be possible to argue the point of the interpretation of "government officials acting in their official capacity", in this case?

beings it got dismissed on those grounds.

There's always trhe chance to sue him over the tsunami. :crazy:

How did it proceed?

"government officials acting in their official capacity". That didn't apply in Paula Jones civil suit.

somewhere that excludes fraud, conspiracy, treason?

Sovereignty may give him a bye on incompetence & negligence, but surely not the above?

official capacity, he cannot be sued period. The only remedy in cases of "fraud, conspiracy, treason", if they can be reasonably asserted or, even better, proven, is to go to Congress for impeachment. If you go to Congress with the assertion that Bush et al had "roles in engineering and orchestrating the 911 attacks", you will be laughed out of the building, if not slapped first. Not one Congressmen will even listen to this allegation. Wouldn't you agree?

I think you need to find your audience. You need to find those Republicans who lost loved ones in the WTC in order to sell this. If someone has proof of "fraud, conspiracy, treason" you need to give it to the people who are going to hurt Bush the most. And that's the people who would actually vote for him. Once they're sold, then the rest will happen by word of mouth.

On our side, we must mock the right for being as corrupt as Bush, because only people who are equally devoid of morals would stand by and say nothing.

Remember, in Clinton's case, the Dems distanced themselves from Clinton. I don't see any such distancing from the Republicans which tells me that they are as devoid of morals as Bush is, unless they do or say anything to prove otherwise.

As for the merits of the case as a civil lawsuit, if there is any facts in this case that would allow it to be tried in a civil court, I'm sure the ninth circuit court will find it.

against Clinton? The answer is, yes, a sitting president can be sued.

:wow:

Every meets their 'Waterloo'...eventually.

Please send this to Conyers and inform him about it. Send it to others as well. Looks like we opened a new can of worms.

No wonder we are viewed so well by the MSM. :crazy:

posted by slave
excerpt

"Stanley Hilton is not just some low profile character himself, he was a former chief of staff to Bob Dole(early 80's). Has been a lawyer for 30 years, and a classmate to Paul Wolfowitz and other notable neocons.

And I quote

..."At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject ? how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years."

Do we see the pieces coming together, another thing alleged from the lawsuit is there were 35 drills going back two months prior to 9/11 involving planes crashing into the pentagon etc. 5 drills on 9/11, Mike Ruppert is going to expose this fact in his book 'Crossing the Rubicon' "

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread80501/pg1