Morning, DUers! How'd you like a class action suit vs. PNAC

[babylonsister]

with your morning coffee? DUer Independent Liberal posted this last night, so
I thought I'd re-post in its entirety for those who hadn't seen this.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=188093&mesg_id=188093

Freedom Founders Defense Fund Press Release


Here's the latest I got from Doug Wallace, the retired attorney with the RICO case against the Bush Administration. I thought some of you would be interested.

<snip>

FOUNDERS FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND

P.O. Box 60958 Reno, NV 89506



PRESS RELEASE



Date: January 18, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



SUBJECT MATTER: YESTERDAY JANUARY 17th GEORGE W. BUSH AND DICK CHENEY

WERE SERVED LONG DELAYED SUMMONS AND

COMPLAINT





The lawsuit filed on January 14th 2005 in US District Court in Reno, Nevada by retired Washington State attorney Douglas A. Wallace was served upon the Defendants at the office of the Attorney General in Washington D. C.



The class action lawsuit seeks an injunction against the Defendants from further implementation of the Plan for the New American Century (PNAC) without a Constitutional 2/3 vote of the Congress and full education of the American public.

The lawsuit alleges the plan was the basis for deception behind the Iraq war.



The suit alleges that defendants acted in a conspiratorial manner among themselves in deceiving the Congress and the American public of the need to go to war with Iraq. Hence a private treaty among the conspirators to violate Constitutional restraints upon Bush and Cheney.



The delay in serving the defendants was the result of efforts to organize a support base among Americans to pay for the expenses of the lawsuit. Additionally, Wallace is currently seeking a re-instatement of his license to practice with the Washington State Supreme Court so that he may represent the class member plaintiffs.



In addition to the injunction Wallace seeks a ruling by the court that the conduct of the Defendants has been outside the scope of their official duties and that they are liable for damages to all persons injured as a result of the act of taking the country to war and for restitution to the Treasury of the expenditures for the war.



The lawsuit may be read by visiting www.wallacevbushlawsuit.com



For further information email Wallace at: [e-mail]
Edit to add: http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0118-04.htm

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. This is silly,

yet very funny. :)

[babylonsister]

8. What's so silly about it, pray tell? nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. Well,

A class action suit against the government to prevent implementation of an extremely vague policy paper. That's not how the system works. I shouldn't have to explain that to anybody here.

[babylonsister]

21. Well, if Doug Wallace, the retired attorney with the RICO

case against the Bush Administration, thinks there's validity to it, that's good enough for me. I'm obviously not a lawyer, so will have to trust his judgement.
And please, don't bother explaining another thing to me. You need to lower your high horse.

[txindy]

10. That's not what's silly

That would be the comment in your profile. I suspect that isn't the real reason people wondered. Just a thought.

[babylonsister]

11. Well, the original thread

was entitled, "Freedom Founders Defense Fund Press Release". I wanted to get 'PNAC' in there, but had just had my first sip of joe. Mea culpa.

[txindy]

13. Huh?

I was responding to the first post about calling your thread "silly." I think you're doing great. :thumbsup:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. Mmhmm...

The fact that I find this pointless-yet-truthful lawsuit entertaining means I'm a freeper. Please explain to me how the court, any court, could have jurisdiction in this matter. As much as I despise the PNAC agenda, there's certainly nothing inherently unconstitutional about it. It's just a stupid, stupid idea.

[Straight Shooter]

19. How can any idea which brings the public's attention to PNAC be stupid?

bush has already declared this-and-that lawsuit to be frivolous, let him start yammering about PNAC, too.

Oh. Wait. Scotty will "refuse to comment on an ongoing investigation."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. No, sorry.

I meant that PNAC is stupid, not the lawsuit.

[Straight Shooter]

38. I see. No problem.

Well, for all their stupid ideas, PNAC certainly has caused a lot of death and destruction and debt that many Americans are still not aware of. It's as if some people's brains can only absorb so much and then they shut down.

[desi]

23. That Paula Jones lawsuit was also silly...

yet in the end it turned out to be not the least bit funny. Hopefully the USSC will rule the same for Bushco if it gets that far.

[onenote]

51. the Jones suit was factually frivolous

but at least it was based on a real legal theory (sexual harassment). If you read the complaint here you won't find anything remotely resembling a legal theory over which any court would take cognizance. For example, the complaint demands that the court require the COngress to vote by 2/3 majority before any of PNAC can be implemented. Where on earth in the Constitution would that come from? This is a silly suit. We're better off writing LTTE and posting messages on blogs etc attacking PNAC than we are relying on a suit that, if it gets the slightest bit of attention, will be mocked and used to discredit PNAC's credits as being flakes. This is serious stuff and should be treated seriously.

onenote

[BuyingThyme]

2. It's good to hear the name Doug Wallace again.

Sometimes names like that just fade from memory.

[rodeodance]

3. so, this is for real?--Serious?

[rodeodance]

4. I did click and see it also on commondreams--I am skeptical

[babylonsister]

5. Why wouldn't you think it's real?

Someone has to start somewhere; someone did.

[H2O Man]

7. It's a good idea.

Democrats need to come to understand the power of ideas. Combined with the power of the Constitution, it could lead to democracy .....

[babylonsister]

9. Thank you, H2O Man. I think it is, too. We have to start

somewhere. If this got any kind of traction, at least people might become aware of PNAC, which the majority isn't now.

[seemslikeadream]

12. yes babylonsister someone has to step up

Marcus Garvey's words come to pass,
Marcus Garvey's words come to pass,

Ain't got no food to eat,
Ain't got no money to spend, wo-oo-oo
Ain't got no food to eat,
Ain't got no money to spend, woo-oo-oo

Come, little one and let me do what i can do for you
And you and you alone
Come, little one, come wo-oo-oo
Let me do all i can do for you and you alone, woo-oo-oo

He who knows the right thing
And do it not
Shall be spanked with many stripes,

Weeping and wailing and moaning,
You've got yourself to blame, I tell you.
Do right do right do right do right do right,
Do right do right do right do right do righ
Tell ya to do right, woo-oo-oo
Beg ya to do right, woo -oo- oo

Where is bagawire, he's nowhere to be found
He can't be found
First betrayer who gave away Marcus Garvey
Son of satan, first prophesy,

Catch them, Garvey old

Prophesy fullfilled
Catch them Garvey, catch them woo-oo-oo
Hold them Marcus, hold them woo-oo-oo
Marcus garvey, marcus woo-oo-oo

[rodeodance]

31. maybe I was just surprized. So mnay things have gone nowhere (dsm).

But, glad to see it.

[stepnw1f]

6. GOOD!

Millions should get on board of they really want change.

[johnaries]

16. Anything to help raise public awareness of PNAC is good,

even though I'm afraid the lawsuit itself doesn't have much of a chance.

[Midlodemocrat]

39. I completely agree with you.

Even some of my lib friends don't know much about PNAC. The website used to have Cheney and Wolfowitz's name on it, but the last time I looked, admittedly a while ago, those names weren't there.

The message and implemenation of the plan is still there, however, and people need to be made aware of and fully understand the evil that this administration intends to perpetuate on us and the Middle East.

I think ANYTHING that makes the average person cognizant of PNAC in any form is a good thing.

That's just my $.02 YMMV.

[meganmonkey]

17. This is fucking awesome

Gave it its 5th rec.

:thumbsup:

[onenote]

22. actually, this is fucking stupid

It has zero chance of going anywhere. To the extent it gets any publicity at all it will be when the court dismisses it, a result that will implicity suggest to casual observers (which is pretty much everyone) that the PNAC is no big deal.

SEtting up strawmen to get knocked down does not advance the ball for our side. Over reaching undercuts the valid arguments. Its amazing how some folks don't understand that.

onenote

[meganmonkey]

28. I beg to differ

I think fighting against the PNAC needs to be done on many fronts.

I don't understand how this "undercuts the valid arguments". It is quite true that the PNAC is influencing our foreign policy in frightening ways, ways that are destroying the lives and economy of the American people, and it is doing so without the permission of the American people (who are, of course, the ones who the government is supposed to work for).

Will this bring down the PNAC? Unlikely. But it may be one small step in a huge fight we have in front of us.

Knocking down the efforts of folks who are trying to expose the existence and power of the PNAC "does not advance the ball for our side".

"Its amazing how some folks don't understand that".

:patriot:

[onenote]

29. not when all the public will hear is "Silly suit against PNAC" tossed

The effect is make the PNAC seem innocuous and those opposing seem like flakes.

onenote

[meganmonkey]

35. Why don't you keep saying it, then

Just to make sure that's what the public hears.

Repeat it over and over as loud as you can, maybe get some bumperstickers made:
SILLY LAWSUIT AGAINST PNAC

Because THAT will REALLY help get rid of the PNAC influence.

Good lord.

[onenote]

42. what you or I say on this board isn't the issue

Its what the world outside this board will hear if and when the press pays this case the slightest bit of attention, which most likely will occur when it gets tossed as frivolous (if at all).

Shoot the messenger if you want, but it won't change the message.

onenote

[bonito]

18. K&R!

[meganmonkey]

20. Is the new Press release supposed to be dated in 2006?

I think maybe it is a typo. They refer to a long delay between filing and summons, since the lawsuit was filed Jan 14 2005, I am assuming this is 2006...

(not good to have a typo like that in a press release?!)

[babylonsister]

24. I just e-mailed Commondreams to ask them. Will keep you posted. nt

[babylonsister]

40. Commondreams wrote back; their press release is

from last year (and one I included as that was the first hit I got when I googled, and was a good source.); Doug Wallace's suit is up-to-date having been filed 2 days ago.

[leftofthedial]

26. pretty much everyone in the world is a potential plaintiff

these guys are criminal thugs, plain and simple

[mom cat]

27. I signed on several months ago. He is dead serious.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Nice to see DUers defending PNAC.

PNAC mobsters don't qualify for RICO?

Fuck you bastards.

[meganmonkey]

32. I think it is indicative of

why the Dems fail. There is a fear of speaking the TRUTH. From the politicians in DC I expect it, but here, on DU? It's so depressing :(

[babylonsister]

33. There are people on this board and this thread who seem

to be inciters, for whatever reason. They turn up over and over (I noticed the same name on an earlier thread by you, BT). Over and over, all they can do is be negative about any issue that's brought up. They're not even decent or logical, just flip and abrasive. I've decided to just ignore the heck out of them, though I do wonder what their ulterior motives are.

[BuyingThyme]

34. I think they're marginal, but don't know it.

You can talk about things the media might talk about, but when you get right to the issues, they close their eyes.

[QuettaKid]

36. Kicked and recommended. nt.

.

[onenote]

43. who has defended PNAC?

You don't have to be defending PNAC to know that this lawsuit is going absolutely nowhere. I've been a practicing attorney for nearly 30 years and I can tell you that this will be dismissed outright and the plaintiff will be lucky not to be cited for filing a frivolous suit. For example, under what conceivable theory of law could a court decide that the policy objectives of the PNAC, as odious as they may be, require a 2/3 vote from Congress? Where in the constitution does that come from. If you read the complaint you'll see that no court, not one, will give this the time of day. And if it gets any publicity at all, it will be negative publicity...negative not about PNAC, but negative about those who are critical of and opposed to PNAC. So how exactly does this lawsuit help? IMHO it trivializes an important subject by making its opposition look ridiculous.

onenote

[BuyingThyme]

45. There is no scenario that would make PNAC look good here.

Your comments are less than empty.

[onenote]

46. I think they are a lot more full than yours.

Here's what the public will see: Headline "Lawsuit claiming Bush and others conspired to take over country dismissed as frivolous" If anything is said about PNAC it will be that "the court dismissed out of hand allegations that that a policy paper developed by conservatives was a blueprint for the alleged conspiracy."

Do you really think the MSM would do anything different? I'd rather people flood blogs and write letters to the editor criticizing PNAC then have the first time most people here about it be in the context of a lawsuit being dismissed as basically a joke.

Your turn: tell me how you think the lawsuit plays out and how it makes PNAC look bad.

onenote

[BuyingThyme]

47. Anything that exposes PNAC will make PNAC look bad.

And there's no frivolity of any kind. None.

Why do you actively support PNAC and attempt to legitimize their crimes? I'd really like to know how people like you get to where you are.

[onenote]

48. exposes? how will this suit "expose" PNAC?

Do you think the MSM is going to write more than two sentences about this lawsuit (if that) and that what they write will do anything other than make it look like an innocuous policy document that the average person is not going to give a damn about?

onenote

[BuyingThyme]

49. You just said there would be damaging headlines.

That was the entire basis for your previous argument. Remember?

Do you want to start over?

[onenote]

52. Right: Headlines damaging to the critics of PNAC

Headlines that make out those who attack PNAC as being frivolous kooks whose lawsuit was tossed out as having so little merit that it didn't even get a hearing.

That's the worst case scenario. The best case scenario: the case is dismissed and no one thinks its even worth writing about.

So is it worth the risk of the bad outcome when the "good outcome" is simply to be ignored?

I don't think so. I think PNAC needs to be criticized seriously, with serious arguments, not the bunch of crap that fills the complaint in this case. If you have read the complaint and think that the average person would think that its anything other than nonsense, you and I will just have to disagree.

onenote

[earth mom]

37. Glad to see this!

And I'll say it: Screw the naysayers! :grr:

[Independent_Liberal]

41. Kick and thanks for reposting my message babylonsister!

[Swamp Rat]

44. Excellent!

Now watch the trolls poo poo this idea because it gets to the core of the problem! This must scare the PNACers SHITLESS! :D HAHA!

Now let's RICO those lizards!

[Just Me]

50. In addition to this, I'd love to see a class action suit re wiretapping.

Wouldn't it be great if we could gather a $20 per class member to finance these suits? :bounce:

[onenote]

53. that would be a worthwhile suit

Because it would be based on a real legal theory and provable facts.

onenote