UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
  
PLAINTIFFS' STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT II 
 
Date AUGUST 13, 2004 
 
Time 2 pm 
 
TAXPAYERS OF UNITED STATES OF CASE NO. CV-03-03927-SI 
AMERICA; STANLEY G HILTON; 
SCOTT MUNSUN, 
ABEL ASHES, 
 
PLAINTIFFS,  
 
V. 
 
GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL. , 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
FACTS: All defendants have been served. 
 
PLEADINGS: Plaintiffs desire to file a 2nd amended complaint to narrow down 
the case considerably. We wish to dismiss many of the original defendants, 
in fact we wish to dismiss from the case all original defendants except 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the federal government), BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, 
MUELLER, TENET, RUMSFELD, ASHCROFT. These defendants have been served in DC 
and local US Attorney. They were served in June 2004. The proposed 2nd 
Amended Complaint will more narrowly focus the case and clarify the issues 
at hand. 
 
FACTS OF THE CASE: 
 
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 (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. 
 
To the extent that the US Constitution is legally analogous to a "contract" 
between the government and the plaintiffs (taxpayers), it seems that 
deliberate fraud by defendants should nullify any unconstitutional acts by 
them, such as the aggressive war and occupation of Iraq and the Patriot 
Acts. 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
This case presents many issues of first impression which are important 
public issues, to wit: 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. 
 
Another reason why the suit must be allowed to proceed is that defendants 
continue to pose a clear and present danger to plaintiffs as taxpayers, 
because defendants have announced their intent to invade other countries, 
such as Iran, North Korea etc, in pursuit of their political goals, and 
these anticipated military misadventures all stem from the 911 events. 
 
DISCOVERY: Plaintiffs intend to take the depositions of defendants 
Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Mueller and Ashcroft, and also seek 
requests for production of documents, i.e., all air communications between 
the planes hijacked on 9/11/01 and ground control, all USAF and NORAD 
communications records of 911, all stand down orders to USAF that day, the 
entire Phoenix memorandum of July 2001 (warning of 911) and the August 6 
2001 briefing records of Rice to Bush, All records of all persons and 
entities who bought put options on United Airlines (UAL) and American 
Airlines (AMR) stock just before 9/11/01, at the Pacific Stock Exchange 
etc. the suit also seeks documents relating to defendants; ties to the 
Saudi Arabia government and that governments involvement in 911. 
 
ANTICIPATED LEGAL ISSUES 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
There is precedent for permitting depositions of sitting president and 
their top aides: In Paula Jones vs Clinton the high court ruled that a 
sitting president can be sued and deposed whilst in office. 
 
VENUE: Why is this case brought in US District Court for the Northern 
District of California? Plaintiffs live here and their rights have been 
violated here in the San Francisco area. Also, venue is right here because 
plaintiffs have been victimized here, one of the 4 skyjacked airliners on 
9-11-01 was heading to San Francisco from Newark, NJ, and most of the put 
options on UAL and AMR stock were bought and sold and traded on the Pacific 
Stock Exchange in San Francisco. Plaintiffs allege that the massive sales 
of put options on 9/10/01 reveals complicity by certain purchasers of the 
options, i.e., foreknowledge of 911, a theme prevalent as a motif 
throughout this case. The vast and pervasive evidence of foreknowledge by 
defendants of 911, and defendants' deliberately allowing of the 911 attacks 
to take place, is a motif of the case. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Plaintiffs believe they have the right to bring this suit as American 
citizens and that they face an imminent threat to their freedom from 
defendants, arising out of the entire orchestrated scenario of 911, the PA 
laws that were passed as a proximate result of 911, and the actions of 
defendants in infringing on their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. 
 
DATE: 8/1/04