(Con'td) Anthony Hilder Sues Mike Ruppert

9-11 - THE GREATEST LIE EVER SOLD (DVD or VHS)
http://www.preferrednetwork.com/html/anthony_j__hilder.htm

For and on the record of this Honorable Court, the Plaintiff acquiesces and avers that the Defendant continues to make reference in the aforementioned May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast that the Plaintiff has produced videos about “unprovable Illuminati and a hundred other off-the-wall subjects (Even UFOs I think).” Then in contrast and contradiction of the essence of his blatant, knowing, wanton and willful character assassination of the Plaintiff is “a big hypnosis buff who some credible sources have told me has been connected with CIA’s MK-ULTRA mind control program,” then goes on to state “as one example: I met with Ed Asner last Friday night. Asner, who I have known since I confronted CIA Director Deutch in 1996, advised that Hilder has just finished briefing him about how FEMA personnel had arrived in New York the day before 9/11.” This confirms the Plaintiff’s indecisiveness about the Defendant and the lengths that he has gone to purposely interfere with the Plaintiff’s business and livelihood, while using his position of trust and special skill as the publisher of From The Wilderness Publications in order to manipulate, coerce, extort and in essence blackmail the 911 Commission Members of the Board and Advisory Board at the expense of the Plaintiff’s integrity and character for obvious ulterior motives.

The Plaintiff further places for and on the record of this Honorable Court that the Defendant continues to dig at the integrity and character and good name of the Plaintiff in the subject May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast by continuing to state “I debunked this story almost two years ago,” here proving the Plaintiff’s point that the Defendant has an ulterior motive and has in effect aggressively implemented a concerted effort to assassinate the character of the Plaintiff so that the Defendant’s story and view about the unfortunate September 11, 2001 orld Trade Center incident in the DVD/Video format would stimulate sales in distribution and to hamper, if not all but destroy any chances for distribution, marketing and sales of the Plaintiff’s DVD/Video about the same subject matter. To further allow and enable this Court to ascertain the ulterior motive of the Defendant, the Plaintiff continues to beg this Court’s indulgence to take into consideration the next comment of the defendant in the subject e-mail broadcast in which the Defendant continues to state “A member of the Hyannis Fire Department, Tom Kennedy, was interviewed by Dan Rather after working for nearly 50 hours at Ground Zero. He said ‘We arrived Monday night and started immediately.’ 9/11 was a Tuesday.” Plaintiff believes and hereby moves this Court to find and rule in his favor by this acquiescence and averment and to therefore ascertain and derive the conclusion that because of the unique nature of the position of inherent skill and trust that the Defendant possessed due to his affiliation with his From The Wilderness Publications, that he had the ear and trust of the 911 Commission Board Members and Advisory and thereby abused this position of trust to undermine the integrity and character and good name of the Plaintiff.

To make himself look important in the eyes of the 911 Commission, Defendant continued to state “I contacted the Hyannis Fire Department and spoke to the Chief. I also spoke to several members of the Fire Department. No. The entire Hyannis FD Emergency team, which was seconded to FEMA as a result of the attack, left Tuesday Night, Sept. 11th. There are video tapes of send the off with wives and children saying ‘God Bless America’ ‘We Love NY’ all of which were clearly made after the attacks and Kennedy was in them. There are multiple witnesses. For Christ sake! Kennedy has been on a day off. He gets called up, drives many hours to New York and works fifty hours straight. For him 9/11 was the first day of his work week and he misspoke.” Note - The mere fact that the Defendant went to such extremes as to discredit the Plaintiff in the subject e-mail broadcast clearly demonstrates the Defendant’s ulterior motives in that he admits that he too undertook several interviews of certain key witnesses to the events that transpired in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center tragedy and that he was infuriated that the Plaintiff’s findings differed from his findings and potentially could have proven his point of view to be in error.

For and on the record of this Honorable court, the Plaintiff further avers and acquiesces that the Defendant was obviously frustrated that the 911 Commission Board Members and Advisory Board Members found the Plaintiff’s findings to be interesting to such an extent and magnitude that many questions surfaced by the Members of the 911 Commission, which is verified by the Defendant’s next comment in the subject May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast, here noting that the Defendant continued to comment “I straightened Ed out quickly and he was glad he asked me. He knew to ask first. Others apparently do not.” This comment by the Defendant holds towards the Plaintiff, i.e. the motive for his defamatory, slanderous, libelous and unsubstantiated untrue comments that the Defendant made about the character and integrity of the Plaintiff.

In particular, the next comment made by the Defendant about the character, integrity and abilities of the Plaintiff is brought to the surface in the next comment made by the Defendant in the subject May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast in which the Defendant has stated “this is the difference between a journalist or experienced investigator and Anthony J. Hilder, and those gullible enough to talk to him,” here noting that the Defendant is demonstrating disdain towards the members of the 911 Commission who in essence chose to side with the findings brought by the Plaintiff. Note - The final comment in section 1 of the subject May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast states “but Hilder is much worse than that.”

For and on the record of this Honorable Court, the Plaintiff hereby avers and acquiesces that the Defendant states in paragraph 2 of his May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast that “One of Hilder’s best friends is a real head case named Ted Gunderson who had been the former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s offices in Dallas, Memphis and Los Angeles.” Plaintiff again states that the Defendant is entitled to his opinion about Mr. Gunderson being “a head case,” however, this statement combined with the additional forthcoming statements begins to clearly demonstrate the defamation, slander, libel and false statements that the Defendant has employed to discredit the Plaintiff, assassinate Plaintiff’s character and to undermine Plaintiff’s integrity to the degree of interfering with the Plaintiff’s business and livelihood.

The Defendant continued to state in paragraph 2 of his May 16, 2004 broadcast that “what happened in Dallas, that the CIA dealt drugs and went to the FBI asking for protection from LAPD.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff hereby places for and on the record of this Honorable Court by the acquiescence and averment that the Defendant has compromised the reputation, character and good name of Mr. Gunderson, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the Los Angeles Police and the Plaintiff in alleging their unilateral involvement in a drug conspiracy without any basis or truth. See California Civil Code S. 1572 “Actual Fraud.” See also Title 18 U.S.C. S. 1343: “wire Fraud” (e-mail is transmitted to broadband, i.e. wire mechanism). Note - The Defendant has claimed to be a professional journalist as well as a professional investigator, who in fact does run a publication known as From The Wilderness Publication, thereby subjecting him to a higher level of responsibility in reporting and/or conveying truthful and accurate statements in his writings based upon verifiable as well as ascertainable supporting evidence.

For and on the record of this Honorable Court, the Plaintiff further avers and acquiesces that the Defendant has clearly crossed the line and in fact has smeared the Plaintiff’s good name, assassinated his character, defamed his integrity and slandered him to the extent of fraud with malice intent in paragraph 3 of his May 15, 2004 e-mail broadcast in which he has stated “Anthony Hilder was at the Ambassador Hotel on the night Bobby Kennedy was murdered by the CIA.” As this Court knows, after an extensive investigation of the assassination of Robert Kennedy by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the United States Secret Service, two of the most highly trained Federal Law Enforcement agencies in the Nation, combined with the findings of the Los Angeles Police Department, there was no evidence of any kind pointing to the direction that Robert Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA and all evidence clearly demonstrated that Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman.

What is disturbing and nothing less than a blatant knowing, wanton and willful smear of the Plaintiff’s character and integrity is the next comment stated in the Defendant’s May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast in which the Defendant states about the Plaintiff “I have a copy of the LAPD intrview with him (the Plaintiff). What was he doing? He was heading/fronting for a group of right-wing anti-Castro Cubans who hated Bobby. Dammit, he was part of the freaking plot.” This clearly demonstrates that the Defendant has falsely accused the Plaintiff of being involved in a Murder Conspiracy of Robert F. Kennedy predicated upon an alleged interview that the Defendant claims to have obtained of the Plaintiff by the Los Angeles Police Department. Here again the Defendant is employing false statements and fraudulent comments to demean and to defame the character and integrity of the Plaintiff by accusing him of murdering Robert F. Kennedy. Note - Although the Defendant has continued to make references to the Plaintiff in the remainder of the subject May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast, the references are no longer extreme to extent of defamation of the Plaintiff’s character, nor are the comments slanderous or libelous, however, they are derogatory and aimed at interfering with the Plaintiff’s business and livelihood by attempting to induce the 911 Commission Board and Advisory Board to enjoin themselves from any film or project involving the Plaintiff.

III

GROUNDS TO SUPPORT COMPLAINT PERTAINING TO INTERFERENCE OF BUSINESS AND LIVELIHOOD

The Plaintiff hereby states for and on the record of this Honorable Court that the basic prerequisites of admissibility of evidence are relevance, materiality, and competence are present in this instant case at bar to ascertain and prove that the Defendant has in fact interfered with the Plaintiff’s business and livelihood to the extreme of causing the Plaintiff extreme financial hardship and duress. In general, if evidence is shown to be relevant, material, and competent, and is not barred by an exclusionary rule, evidence is admissable. See Federal Rules of Evidence Code S. 351; Fed. R.Evid. Rule 402. The Defendant has commented in his May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast that “I refuse to get involved with dilettantes (one particular board member should look up that word). And I refuse to let people I love and respect risk having their reputations sullied because dilettantes on this board are either seeking to make a personal profit out of the organization’s activities, promote other agendas, or are recklessly trying to swim in deep waters which they neither comprehend or even appreciate.” Albeit this comment is obviously directed at the Plaintiff, it nonetheless is geared towards coercing the 911 Commission and the Board Members as well as the Advisory Board to refrain from involving themselves with the Plaintiff or others who have aided with the Plaintiff’s view. Nonetheless, this comment does not indicate the Defendant’s blatant, knowing and wanton attempt to interfere with the Plaintiff’s business and livelihood unless it is viewed the comments that follow in the subject May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast.

The Defendant further states in paragraph 3 of the subject May 16, 2004 e-mail broadcast “so in ANY member of this board does ANY business with Anthony J. Hilder, puts him in any film or any project involving me or my friends and refuses to sever all ties [with] him immediately you will have my immediate resignation from the board and I am reasonably certain that my friends Catherine Austin Fitts and Faiz Khan will follow suit on my advise. I will also immediately contact my lawyer to enjoin any film or other project where I and Hilder are both featured from being produced, released or distributed.” This proves to a reasonable degree of certainty that the Defendant has in fact interfered with the Plaintiff’s livelihood and business causing the Plaintiff to suffer financial harm and monetary damages.

Regardless, the Plaintiff further avers and acquiesces and states for and on the record of this Honorable Court that the issues in this instant case at bar must be decided and determined by the pleadings, any formal stipulations or admissions, and the applicable law. Therefore, the Plaintiff hereby moves this Court to find and rule in his favor and decree that the Defendant has in fact caused irreversible monetary damages to his business and has in essence unlawfully interfered in the Plaintiff’s livelihood by using duress and coercion likened to “Blackmail” on the very people the Plaintiff was depending upon to earn his livelihood with, i.e. the 911 Commission Board members and Advisory Board, by employing tactics of fraud, deceit spin-doctored half-truths, unsupported and unsubstantiated comments as well as defamatory, slander and liable as a means to execute the Defendant’s hidden agenda.

IV

CONCLUSION

THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of Complaint Pursuant To code Of Procedure S. 382: ‘Defendants who Are Joined,’ Citing ‘Defamation, Slander and Libel’ Pursuant to Cal. Rules Of Court Rules 982.2 - 1800 Thru 1812, the Plaintiff moves this Court to find and rule in his favor and to thereby grant the relief [that] he is seeking hereunder, to immediately order the Defendant to refrain from any further defamatory, slanderous or libelous statements about the Plaintiff’s character, integrity or reputation, to order the Defendant to refrain from making any further false statements about the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s business dealings or motives and to find and rule that the Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars (USD 250,000.00) in-lost earnings due to the financial harm that the Defendant has inflicted upon the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is the prayer and hope of the Plaintiff that this Court find and rule in his favor and therefore grant the order that the Defendant refrain from any further defamatory, slanderous or libelous statements about the Plaintiff’s character, integrity or reputation, to order the Defendant to refrain from making any further false statements about the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s business dealings or motives and to find and rule that the Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars (USD 250,000.00) in lost earnings due to the financial harm that the Defendant has inflicted upon the Plaintiff.

Respectfully Submitted,
ANTHONY HILDER - PLAINTIFF
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/hilder.html
=================

The making of the terror myth

Since September 11 Britain has been warned of the 'inevitability' of catastrophic terrorist attack. But has the danger been exaggerated? A major new TV documentary claims that the perceived threat is a politically driven fantasy - and al-Qaida a dark illusion. Andy Beckett reports
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html