THERE WAS A CROOKED MAN WHO RAN A CROOKED GOVERNMENT...

It seems like the current mis-administration treats multi-billion dollar lawsuits like minor traffic citations. How proud the Bushbots must be, for instance, that we have a Secretary of Defense who can't even travel to Europe for fear of being apprehended as a war criminal. In his State of the Union address, Dubya urged lawmakers to rewrite tort law rules to do away with class action lawsuits. With the list below in mind, this seems akin to bin Laden asking the FAA to discontinue baggage screening.

My personal favorite lawsuits are presented in no particular order. This is a list, presumably, with rock-solid growth potential that will be updated as I stumble across more of them on the 'Internets.'

INAUGURAL DAY STRANGLEHOLD
January 14, 2005

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition and other anti-war activists, banned from protesting, file a lawsuit challenging what they call "the unprecedented exclusion of the public" from President Bush's inaugural parade route. In 2001, thousands of demonstrators were able to stand on sidewalks along the parade route as Bush's motorcade passed. This time around, The lawsuit claims, the National Park Service is illegally blocking the general public from access to vast portions of Pennsylvania Avenue reserved solely for guests screened by the Presidential Inaugural Committee (presumably in an effort to deprive Michael Moore of any more sexy 'egg on limo' footage to use in his movies).

FIRST AMENDMENT SQUASHED
September 23, 2003

ACORN et al. v. City of Philadelphia et al., Civil Action No. 03-4312, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before Judge John Fullam

Witold Walczak, Legal Director of the ACLU of Greater Pittsburgh and a member of the national ACLU legal team, files a suit charging officials with a "pattern and practice" of discrimination against those who disagree with government policies. The case states: "At events attended by President Bush and other senior federal officials around the country, the Secret Service has been discriminating against protesters in violation of their free speech rights."

GLOBAL GAGGING ORDER
June 6, 2001

CRLP v. Bush

Janet Benshoof, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, launches the first lawsuit focusing on the limitations on free speech promoting abortion law reform under President Bush's Global Gag Rule. "President Bush took away my right to speak because I support a position with which he disagrees," said Benshoof. "The Global Gag Rule is global censorship that violates fairness, freedom, and democracy."

The Global Gag Rule bars foreign organizations that receive U.S. aid from using their own money to speak freely about abortion law reform. Groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights and its foreign partners that support abortion rights are gagged, even in nations where abortion is legal, while organizations working to criminalize abortion or to increase restrictions on abortion access are not censored by the U.S. government. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, support the Center for Reproductive Rights' lawsuit against President Bush.

BUSH RAPE CASE?
December 2000

Several complaints on record with both the River Bend and Sugar Land police departments in Texas, and a now defunct (due to suicide of plaintiff) rape accusation on the books

Margie Denise Schoedinger, a 38-year old Houston resident and former Dubya love interest, died in September 2003 still waiting for a court date to pursue her sexual assault lawsuit against one George W Bush. Of course, the very giant possibility exists that she was only an attention seeking wackjob, but isn't it usual to treat even the most dubious accusations of serious sexual misconduct with at least a modicum of official scrutiny?

Considering the furor regarding Clinton's illicit skank fingering and the column inches generated by Rush Limbaugh's pharmaceutically inspired fantasies about the ex-prez being responsible for forty murders, the lack of prurient media interest in the Schoedinger case seems odd (or predictable given the supine nature of today's corporate media). Apparently, the only paper in the country to even mention the lawsuit was Texas' Fort Bend Star in December 2002. Just the mention of the case prompted an outraged reader to write in to demand the immediate dismissal of the reporter who referenced the accusation.

Not to push the Clinton comparisons too much, but let's imagine the stink if an ex of his had been pursuing a rape case against him and was found shot in the head in an apparent suicide a couple of years later. Pretty stinky huh? See The Strange Death of the Woman Who Filed a Rape Lawsuit Against Bush

OHIO VOTING IRREGULARITIES
January 13, 2005

Citing fraud, lawyers representing 37 Ohio voters ask the court to look into discrepancies with voting procedures in the 2004 presidential election.

Predictably, Republican Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court dismisses the action. The case of Moss v. Bush becomes the vehicle for an aggressive, but short-lived, investigation that culminates in the anti-climactic congressional challenge to the 2004 Electoral College.

DEFORESTATION IN CALIFORNIA
February 1, 2005

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer files a lawsuit to force the Bush Administration to ditch plans to cut down more previously protected trees in 11.5 million acres of the Sierra Nevada National Forest. "With no basis in science and no new facts, the Bush Administration has jettisoned the product of more than 10 years of study, public participation and consensus building," said Lockyer.

CUTTHROAT TROUT RUB-OUT
February 04, 2005

A lawsuit is filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Rivers Council and WaterWatch contends that denial of federal protection for conservation areas in the region was "not based on the best science and that it violated the Endangered Species Act." It's not easy to pet a trout and they tend not to vote, but why the fuck should a species that's been around for millions of years be erased so Bush's buddies can make another buck?

THE UNFRIENDLY ATOM
January 14, 2004

Kenny Guinn, Brian Sandoval, Nuclear Energy Institute, inc. v. US Environmental Protection Agency

Suit alleges that the EPA illegally set its radiation release standards for groundwater for the proposed high-level radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Bush government was keen to dump 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles outside of Las Vegas. So keen, in fact, that they lied to cover up potential dangers with regard to the radioactive half-life of the materials and the geological stability of the site.

On July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and effectively killed off the project. Yup, that one had a happy ending.

GOT MERCURY?
February 17, 2004

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Sierra Club v. US Environmental Protection Agency

A lawsuit is filed against the Bush Administration asserting that the Bush EPA is failing to protect the public health, and violating the Clean Air Act, by ignoring tons of unaccounted for mercury emissions each year. In some years, as much as 130 tons of mercury has disappeared from nine plants that still use mercury in an outdated process for making chlorine.
"These nine chlorine plants are losing more mercury every year than the entire power plant industry as a whole emits," said Jim Pew, the Earthjustice attorney who is handling the suit. "It's clear the Bush administration is not serious about reducing the public's exposure to this toxin." Well, durr...

FISH APOCALYPSE
August 24, 2004

Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island file suit against the government, charging the EPA with violating the mandate of Congress under the Clean Water Act. "The EPA has caved in to the demands of the power industry, and completely abdicated responsibility under the Clean Water Act," says Reed Super, Riverkeeper senior attorney and lead counsel in the suit.

The action was taken after the EPA opted to allow existing power plants and other industrial facilities to continue using cooling water systems which kill trillions of fish, shellfish, and other organisms in American rivers every year - despite a unanimous decision by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that allowing massive destruction of wildlife in cooling systems did not fulfill the Clean Water Act requirement to use the "best technology available" to mitigate environmental damage.

KID POISONING
September 15, 2003

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly and New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey sue the Bush Environmental Persecution Agency (EPA) for failing to protect children from the risks of eating food containing excessive pesticide residues.

Because of the special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticides, a 1996 Food Quality Protection Act directed the EPA to set pesticide residue standards ten times stricter than those considered acceptable for adults. In this lawsuit, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey assert that the EPA has failed to do so.

GLOBAL WARMING? NAH...
October 23, 2003

Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, American Samoa, the District of Columbia; the cities of New Yorks and Baltimore join with Bluewater Network, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, International Center for Technology Assessment, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists and US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) to sue the Bush EPA for its failure to regulate greenhouse gas pollutants, the leading cause of global warming.

SHOW US THE MONEY
December 15 , 2003

The Sierra Club sues the Bush administration over its secretive links with major polluters/GOP financiers."We're seeking to hold the Bush Administration accountable for shutting the public out. The American people have already waited far too long to find out exactly how energy industries influenced our national energy policy." says David Bookbinder, senior attorney for the Sierra Club.

In July, a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals said the Bush Administration is subject to "discovery," and must comply with requests for information. The Bush Administration attempted to delay releasing information about secret meetings by asking for a rehearing of the appeal by the entire court. The Court of Appeals denied their request. The Bush Administration then asked the Bush Administration - sorry - the Supreme Court to hear their appeal. The Supreme Court responded that the plaintiffs had sought "everything under the sky" and that the decision by the D.C. appeals court granting the plaintiffs access to energy task force records was "anything but appropriate." Not so easy playing the bastards on their own pitch I guess.

GETTING MEDIEVAL ON IRAQ'S ASS...
January 29, 2005

The American human rights organization Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and four Iraqis who were tortured by American military personnel in Iraq bring legal proceedings in Germany against the US government. The indictment drawn up by the Berlin-based lawyer Wolfgang Kaleck maintains that what the Pentagon euphemistically called "abuse" amounted to "torture and other grave violations of humanitarian law." This is why a warrant-dodging Rumsfeld will not be attending this year's Munich Security Conference.

9/11 CHARGE #1
November 26, 2003

Ellen Mariani, as Personal Representative of the estate of Louis Neil Mariani, deceased, and others similarly situated v. George W. Bush, et.al at United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania as Case No. 03-5273

Phillip Berg, former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and 9/11 widow, Ellen Mariani, file a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) suit against the Bush government for malfeasant conspiracy, obstruction of justice and wrongful death with regard to 9/11. See 911forthetruth.com for details and transcripts.

9/11 CHARGE #2
August 13, 2004

Stanley G. Hilton - former senior advisor to Senator Bob Dole and former buddy of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz - files a $7 billion class action lawsuit in Federal court against high officials in the current Bush administration (including the federal government, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Mueller, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft), for complicity in aiding and abetting and facilitating the 9/11 attacks. Hilton - who can safely be regarded as an inside source - reasons that the whole deal was orchestrated by elements in the highest echelons of the Bush administration and will be viewed by history as Bush's very own burning of the Reichstag.

Sure enough, dissenting elements within the US and abroad are now experiencing Bush's very own kristallnacht - they have simply replaced Jews with Muslims, Dachau with Gitmo, and world domination with... err... world domination. See Government Insider Says Bush Authorized 911 Attacks

9/11 CHARGE #3
October 22, 2004

Rodriguez v. Bush, et al., Civil Action No. 04 CV 4952 filed in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.

William Rodriguez, a former WTC maintenance worker who single-handedly rescued fifteen 9/11 survivors, later became president of the Hispanic Victims Group, Director of the 9/11 United Services Group, and a member of the Family Advisory Council of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. He is Plaintiff in the action against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld and others alleging that they and others were complicit in the 9-11 attacks, and either planned the attacks, or had foreknowledge of the attacks and permitted them to succeed.

9/11 CHARGE #4
March 10, 2004

A coalition of New York community, tenant, environmental, small business, religious and labor organizations sue Bush's EPA for failures to adequately deal with contamination and meet the health needs of local people exposed to the pollution caused by the collapse of the WTC.

9/11 CHARGE #5
November 24, 2004

Several Ground Zero workers also sue the federal government for allegedly lying about air quality after the World Trade Center attacks. The suit accuses officials of lying about the level of dangerous contaminants released into the air after the twin towers were destroyed. The plaintiffs say they were sent to work without proper protective gear, exposing them to a butt load of potentially lethal airborne crap.

Scientists Dr. Cate Jenkins, Dr. Marjorie Clarke, Paul Bartlett, and others, warned about inhaling toxic dust and fumes, but were ignored by the agencies in charge. Dr. Marjorie Clarke testifies that toxins and pollutants in the air at Ground Zero, which the White House said was "safe to breathe," included: over 400,000 pounds of lead; over 200,000 pounds of asbestos; enough mercury to contaminate 2,500 city blocks; radioactive americium 241 from thousands of smoke detectors, and the highest levels of vanadium ever recorded.

Clarke noted that children in nearby schools have developed serious respiratory problems and half of those who cleaned ground zero have serious health problems. Of 700 Ground Zero workers in a treatment program at Mount Sinai Medical Center, three-quarters still suffer from upper-respiratory problems brought on by working at the World Trade Center site. Said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the hospital's Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine: "Many of our patients have become disabled, they have no income, no health insurance and, in the absence of a philanthropically funded program, no way to get any care."

IRAQI INVASION CENSORED
January 31, 2002

Getty Images News Service, Corp., v. Department of Defense et al. Civil Case No. 02-0171

Media monolith sues Bush's Defense Department for First and Fifth Amendment violations and unequal treatment after its photographers are excluded from the military protected media pools and, therefore, effectively prevented from covering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Getty currently operates the world's largest photo library which supplies thousands of images for domestic and international media. Obviously, the easiest way to avoid embarrassing pictures of US casualties and dead civilians cropping up in the papers, is to stop people from taking them in the first place.

On March 7, 2002 by Judge John Bates of the US District Court, DC, pledged his unwavering support for Bush by dismissing the action.

HUSTLER SCREWED
October 10, 2001

Larry Flynt and LFP, Inc. v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Department of Defense et al. Civil Action No. 01-2399

Flynt sues the born again crusaders for, strangely, excluding Hustler magazine's war correspondent(?!) from the media pool for the US invasion of Afghanistan. "I'm sure that if we get access, we could provide an unusual perspective to the war -- maybe the girls of Afghanistan, or something," he said. Pretty much the same as the Getty case above, but weirder.

On January 8, 2002 Judge Paul L. Friedman gives Flynt the thumbs down. Like you didn't guess?

GITMO GULAG
January 31, 2005

A federal judge, in response to a suit brought by 50 detainees at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, rules that foreign terror suspects held in Cuba can challenge their confinement in U.S. courts. Judge Joyce Hens Green says: "The war on terror cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years." Thanks, Joyce.

GITMO GULAG #2
February 11, 2005

John Does Nos. 1-570 v. Bush. Civil Action No. 02-299, etc.

Attorneys acting for the Center for Constitutional Rights file a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the hundreds of unrepresented people who remain detained by the United States Government at Guantanamo Bay. These nameless detainees join more than 70 whose cases challenging their continued imprisonment are already being addressed in federal court. "We call these petitioners 'John Does,'" explained CCR Deputy Legal Director Barbara Olshansky, "because they have no names and no faces. They have been disappeared by an Administration that shows as little regard for an order of the Supreme Court (see below) as it does for international law and human rights."

GITMO GULAG #3
February 11, 2005

Shafiq Rasul, Detainee, Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base et al v. George Walker Bush

The suit accused Bush of illegally incarcerating British citizens Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal and Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib. On June 28, 2004, The Supreme Court rules in favor of the detainees and affirms their right to challenge their detention in U.S. Courts. Rasul and Iqbal are freed, Hicks and Habib are at least brought to trial.

"...a disaster for the war effort. Aliens held at Guantanamo Bay, not a part of the United States or within the jurisdiction of any federal court, were held to have a right to a habeas petition. The result would seem to be that captured alien combatants held by the U.S. military anywhere in the world can henceforth litigate their status in federal courts." Squeaked The Washington Post. Some might view the facts differently when even a tame Supreme Court cannot justify ruling in favor of Bush's continuing violations of international law. (See CCR Web site for more on post 9-11 suits)

FRIENDLY FIRE
April 7, 2004

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift v. George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

A military defense lawyer and Navy lieutenant commander, sues the government in federal court over a case to which he has been assigned. The lawsuit names as defendants President George Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others. It calls the military commissions proposed by Bush "an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and dangerously unchecked expansion of executive authority." Key aspects of the system the suit aims to derail include: no independent judge, secret trials, indefinite detention without charges, unappealable verdicts, depriving detainees of POW protections by designating them "enemy combatants," denying detainees any legal representation unless and until they are designated as subject to a commission, and denying detainees the right to know what they are charged with or how long they will be held. See original article Military Lawyer Battles the Commissions

OUTSOURCING TORTURE
December 20, 2004

CCR, Maher Arar et al v. U.S. Justice Department

Maher Arar, a Canadian-Syrian, was on his way home from a family vacation in Tunisia to his home in Canada when he was pulled aside while changing flights at JFK, detained for 13 days and later deported to Syria (without being accused of any offense) where he was tortured repeatedly and held in an underground cell not much larger than a grave for 10 months. He was eventually released, and, working with the Center for Constitutional Rights, launched a media campaign and a lawsuit charging U.S. officials with wrongfully sending him to Syria for interrogation under torture.

Mr. Arar’s case was the first publicly-known example of the practice of "rendition" whereby the U.S. sends foreign nationals to be interrogated to third-party countries that engage in torture. News reports have confirmed other instances of rendition but Arar is the only person known to have survived and told his story.

As of February 2005, the Bush junta are invoking the bullshit catch-all "state secrets privilege" in an attempt to get the case dismissed.

WAR WHORES
January 17, 2005

Doug Wallace v. Bush, Cheney and 100 "John Doe" defendants

Retired Reno attorney, Doug Wallace, files suit in US District Court against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over the war in Iraq. His suit alleges that the president and vice president have acted outside the scope of their jobs in waging a war against Iraq andclaims the two entered into a private treaty without the approval of Congress.

Wallace's complaint alleges that Bush, Cheney and Defense Department employees have covertly implemented a plan to dominate the world, outer space and "Cyberspace." He says the plans call for fighting wars against Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as firing nuclear rockets from spy satellites, "to suppress any challenge to US global domination." The suit seeks restitution from the defendants to the US Treasury for the cost of the war and to make them individually liable to civilians injured as a result of the war.

HATE IS... NEVER HAVING TO ASK
February 18, 2003

Charles Richardson, Nancy Lessin & other plaintiffs v. George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and Members of Congress file a lawsuit in federal court in Boston challenging President George W. Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the President from launching a military invasion of Iraq, absent a congressional declaration of war. U.S. Representatives John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich are leading the Members of Congress who are serving as plaintiffs. "A war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war will be illegal and unconstitutional," says John Bonifaz, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney. "It is time for the courts to intervene." Didn't go so well I'm guessing...

STICKING BY HIS FRIENDS...
November 4, 2004

Shirin Ebadi v. George W Bush, et al.

Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize and praise from President Bush for her pro-democracy work. But now she's suing the U.S. government, trying to get permission to publish her book here. Blasting what she calls "enforced silence," the Muslim lawyer says in an affidavit filed in federal court, "I very much want this new book to reach an audience in the United States."

Once a Bush buddy, now GW stands back as Ebadi is persecuted by the courts in Iran — but what can she expect after she is quoted on Al Jazeera saying that a US invasion of Iran probably wouldn't be a smart move or a major contribution to world peace? "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (George Bush, 2001)

BACK TO IRAQ...
January 11, 2005

David Qualls v. George W Bush, et al. Civil Action No. 04-2113

David Qualls and seven others are challenging the military's "stop loss" policy that allows it to indefinitely extend active-duty deployments during times of war or national emergencies. They say the enlistment contracts they signed made no reference to any such policy. Qualls filed the lawsuit while home on leave. He requested a restraining order that would have allowed him to stay home while the suit is being considered but the judge gave that the thumbs down. The eight soldiers are believed to be the first active-duty personnel to file such a lawsuit.

(February 7, 2005: Motion denied by Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the US District Court, DC)

SPY SUES SPIES
January 3, 2004

John Doe former CIA operative v. CIA

A senior CIA operative who handled sensitive informants in Iraq asserts that CIA managers asked him to falsify his reporting on weapons of mass destruction and retaliated against him after he refused. The lawsuit marks the first public instance in which a CIA employee has charged directly that agency officials pressured him to produce intelligence to support the administration's prewar position that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a grave and gathering threat, and to suppress information that ran counter to that view. "Their official dogma was contradicted by his reporting and they did not want to hear it," said Roy Krieger, the officer's attorney.

Back Pages

Fried Wire Policy and Disclaimer | Hatemail | Hmm... | Fanmail