Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

[stewieg]

No surprise here. I would love to read the decision, but don't want to spend the money on PACER. I will wait until someone posts it.

http://911blogger.com/node/22940



Restores my faith in the justice system.

That's teh lawsuit that Captain Rob tried to hitch his wagon to when he said "While we bring our concerns to court". Which is yet another Balsamo lie.

 

[BCR]

Uh Oh, the Judge done gone and hurt Craig's feelings...

So apparently they did mention the north side in the final complaint:

18. Two investigators referring to themselves as the Citizen‟s Investigation Team interviewed a number of witnesses to the supposed flight of American Flight 77. They took statements from four such individuals, two of whom were Pentagon police officers, Sgts Lagassie and Brooks, both of whom exhibited a pronounced interest in refuting any conspiracy theories that suggested that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Each of the four witnesses asserted that the flight path of the aircraft they believed to be Flight 77 was north of the Navy Annex and the Citgo station. Subsequent interviews by the Citizen‟s Investigation Team of other percipient witnesses have corroborated, in large measure, the flight path described by the first four witnesses.

Victoria Ashley-Hoffman posted it on blogger.
It doesn't seem like the significance of the implications was stated at all.
Not sure why they never contacted us.
For instance the plane wasn't north of the Navy Annex, it was directly over the Navy Annex.
Other than that and adding an "s" to our name and spelling Lagasse's name wrong it's accurate.
Not that it matters. The judge can apparently throw out anything he wants that he deems "fanciful," "fantastic," or "delusional.". Denton v. Hernandez.

Poor Craig...all that work, only to be called "delusional".

 

[beachnut]

Uh Oh, the Judge done gone and hurt Craig's feelings...

Poor Craig...all that work, only to be called "delusional".

I watch movies for my fiction, Balsamo and CIT lives are fictional, defined more precisely as delusional.

I thought Balsamo was only in 911 for the money angle, but he is as stupid as his 2,223 gs.

 

[Arus808]

Although we cannot ship out of state due to fruit flies and the bunchy top virus. Yes, we have no bananas...

haole bananas suck compared to Apple Bananas. Everytime Im back in Hawaii, I head to the nearest farmers market to buy a bunch. Love it when its over ripe or just before it becomes ripe (still has a little green on the skin).

 

[Hokulele]

A bunch of apple bananas and a couple of Kau oranges. Mmmm, breakfast...

 

[Sam.I.Am]

A bunch of apple bananas and a couple of Kau oranges. Mmmm, breakfast...

No love for the Loco Moco? I has a sad.

And spam, spam, spam, spam eggs and spam.

(yes, I am past my life expectancy based upon my diet...)

 

[Hokulele]

I do loves me some loco moco, but I can make that anywhere I have access to hamburger patties, gravy, eggs, and rice. Apple bananas and Kau oranges can only be had at home. *Sob*

 

[tfk]

haole bananas suck compared to Apple Bananas. Everytime Im back in Hawaii, I head to the nearest farmers market to buy a bunch. Love it when its over ripe or just before it becomes ripe (still has a little green on the skin).

Well, it looks like we may all have to get used to a different variety of banana fairly soon.

"... too ripe ..." or "... not quite ripe ..."??

Just cain't stand "average", canya?

Tom

 

[jammonius]

A Judge discovers 911 truth is based on fantasy and delusions. I bet Balsamo's affidavit help prove the delusional side.

http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/Filed=20Affidavit=20Balsamo.pdf

I like the end of the affidavit where you say the "The foregoing is true and correct"; in Balsamo case should read " the foregoing is moronic rant made up due to insanity".

http://www.centerfor911justice.org/news/ How long will the nut case junk be posted on the internet?

April Gallop is making a career as a military person. She was working in the Pentagon on 9/11/01 and had her infant child in daycare within the Pentagon. Both she and her child were injured by the explosion seen to have occurred there.

Gallop lost her case based on a judge's use of legal ju jit su that required, on the one hand, that the judge accept all well-pleaded (that is to say, well said) claims in the complaint as true; but, the judge then concluded, ipso facto, that which had to be accepted as true was not plausible, on the other.

That is to say, the judge relied on the fallacy of incredulity and literally said, and I quote:

"Even assuming the factual allegations of the complaint are true, Gallop's claims are not plausible. It is simply not plausible that the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and other high-ranking officials sonspired to facilitate terrorist attacks taht would sesult in the deaths of thousands of Americans. It anything, the allegations are product of cynical delusion and fantasy."

One of Gallop's claims was that no jetliner hit the Pentagon.

April Gallop has done the USA great service by standing up to the forces that simply abide in the common version of what happened on 9/11, irrespective of the absurdity of the common version of events.

I am here choosing to respond to beachnut who is quite clear in his pronuncements that anyone who challenges the common storyline of 9/11 is crazy. This is a matter of belief. Those who support the common storyline do not allow themselves to imagine that storyline is not credible, let alone true, and never proven.

I would say that April Gallop should have a good chance on appeal, based on law and legal theory. However, based on the perception that the common storyline of 9/11 is true, sane, safe, secure, divinely ordained and otherwise not subject to questioning, she has little chance on appeal.

Still, when the real story of 9/11 is revealed and the question is asked whether there were people living in this era who figured out that the delusion was the other way around, the answer will by "yes" and April Gallop will be an example.

Posters, we do not know what the Vice President did on 9/11 do we? After all, he was not obliged to say what he did on 9/11 to the Commission appointed to investigate the event and whatever he did say was not recorded.

Thus, the judge's opinion of what the vice president did or did not do is simply based on the judge's buy-in, hook, line and sinker, no less, to the common storyline and the judge's incredulity that someone who was present and injured could question that storyline.

The judge's logic is nonexistent and the decision is wrong, but not at all surprising, given the enormity of the consequences associated with facing up to the truth of 9/11.

beachnut, the day of reckoning is coming. That day will likely be a difficult one for you as your world view will then come undone.

 

[DGM]

One of Gallop's claims was that no jetliner hit the Pentagon.

.

Are you aware in an earlier case (where she received judgment) she claimed there was a plane?

 

[carlitos]

There is a Mexican saying:

There are as many kinds of truth as there are (kinds of) bananas.

I think it works for "Truth" as well.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Still, when the real story of 9/11 is revealed and the question is asked whether there were people living in this era who figured out that the delusion was the other way around, the answer will by "yes" and April Gallop will be an example.

How did she figure this out? based on what evidence? CITs garbage? Both her and her baby received injuries in the crash and she passed out shortly after being helped out of the building.
So what is she a witnesses of? Big bang, chaos, pass out? And how would her testimony of not seeing any plane parts trump all the others (including pictures, DNA etc) that did?

your comments are dismissed, with prejudice!

 

[LashL]

Gallop lost her case based on a judge's use of legal ju jit su that required, on the one hand, that the judge accept all well-pleaded (that is to say, well said) claims in the complaint as true; but, the judge then concluded, ipso facto, that which had to be accepted as true was not plausible, on the other.

Not so. Try reading the judgment for comprehension. The court accurately set out the law: that on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a proper claim, while a court must accept as true properly pleaded factual allegations, a court need not accept as true allegations that are merely conclusionary, speculation or conjecture, and not factual allegations. The court properly determined that very little in Gallop's complaint rose to the level of factual allegations, and the bits that did reach that level were an insufficient basis upon which to ground the lawsuit. The court quite correctly found that Gallop's complaint was, as a matter of law, factually baseless.

One of Gallop's claims was that no jetliner hit the Pentagon.

Which is kind of silly, considering that she previously negotiated a settlement in another lawsuit (against airlines, et al) on the basis that a jetliner did, in fact, hit the Pentagon, causing injury to herself and her son.

I would say that April Gallop should have a good chance on appeal, based on law and legal theory. However, based on the perception that the common storyline of 9/11 is true, sane, safe, secure, divinely ordained and otherwise not subject to questioning, she has little chance on appeal.

No, she has little chance on appeal because her complaint is factually baseless.

Still, when the real story of 9/11 is revealed and the question is asked whether there were people living in this era who figured out that the delusion was the other way around, the answer will by "yes" and April Gallop will be an example.

Ms. Gallop may be an example of something, but not that which you purport to imagine. There's the inconvenient fact that she also sued the airlines (while simultaneously claiming that there was no airplane), and she also sued banks through which she alleged the terrorist highjackers' funds were channeled (while simultaneously claiming that there were no terrorists or airplanes). What's that an example of again?

The judge's logic is nonexistent and the decision is wrong, but not at all surprising, given the enormity of the consequences associated with facing up to the truth of 9/11.

Again, try reading the judgment for comprehension. The decision is correct, which is not at all surprising.

beachnut, the day of reckoning is coming.

When is that day? I'd like to pencil it into my calendar.

 

[The Big Dog]

beachnut, the day of reckoning is coming. That day will likely be a difficult one for you as your world view will then come undone.

I love when a multi-colored post ends with these little vaguely ominous promises of revelations to come. Talk about fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.

Rue the day, shall we, yes indeed RUE!

 

[Macgyver1968]

The "rue of the day" is a lovely combination of flour and butter...hmmm....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I love when a multi-colored post ends with these little vaguely ominous promises of revelations to come. Talk about fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.

Rue the day, shall we, yes indeed RUE!

Its the religious trick of promising second comings, raptures and judgement days etc.
The usual tricks to keep the gullible in line.

 

[The Big Dog]

The "rue of the day" is a lovely combination of flour and butter...hmmm....

You, huh? Well you won't get away with this. Doctor Hathaway's Judy Woods is gonna hear all about this. You'll rue the day!

 

[BasqueArch]

<snip>
Which is kind of silly, considering that she previously negotiated a settlement in another lawsuit (against airlines, et al) on the basis that a jetliner did, in fact, hit the Pentagon, causing injury to herself and her son.
...

Ms. Gallop may be an example of something, but not that which you purport to imagine. There's the inconvenient fact that she also sued the airlines (while simultaneously claiming that there was no airplane), and she also sued banks through which she alleged the terrorist highjackers' funds were channeled (while simultaneously claiming that there were no terrorists or airplanes). What's that an example of again?

"Getting a Piece of the Rock"

Prudential Insurance commercial. The ditty is at the end.

 

[jammonius]

Not so. Try reading the judgment for comprehension. The court accurately set out the law: that on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a proper claim, while a court must accept as true properly pleaded factual allegations, a court need not accept as true allegations that are merely conclusionary, speculation or conjecture, and not factual allegations.

I have looked at the post that you seem to take exception to. The part you are arguing with is, in fact, that which I quoted from the court's ruling. I quoted the court's statement of standard that must be applied to motions of the type the court had before it and the court's ipso facto, unsubstantiated, reliance upon what the court said was, or rather, was not plausible.

I don't know why you think you can expand upon what the court said; or, even if you do, why your declaration is any more substantiated than that of the court. It is one thing to claim something is implausible; or, to use your terms, that something is "merely conclusionary, speculation or conjecture, and not factual allegations" and it is quite anothert to substantiate that claim.

As I pointed out by way of example, it is not possible to make an affirmative declaration about what the vice president did as the vice president did not say what he did and did not provide a public record of his actions.

Given that the event itself was a tremendous humiliation for the US military apparatus that resulted in the nation's military HQ being hit and the entire military response apparatus being caught totally off-guard and "out to lunch" from top to bottom and all points in between, one can reasonably assert that somebody has "some splainin' to do." It is certainly unreasoned in the uttermost to claim April Gallop had not made a plausible statement without demonstrating its implausibility.

That is, unless we accept and acknowledge that the common storyline of 9/11 is sacrosanct. It isn't. However it will be very painful to examine what happened. I will concede that much.

The court properly determined that very little in Gallop's complaint rose to the level of factual allegations, and the bits that did reach that level were an insufficient basis upon which to ground the lawsuit. The court quite correctly found that Gallop's complaint was, as a matter of law, factually baseless.

Your repitition with different words of your same rationalization for the miscarriage of justice requires no further comment here. April Gallop's case should not have been dismissed as what happened at the Pentagon has not ever been explained.

Furthermore, just as a prima facie issue, the iconic video of the event plainly (no pun intended) does not show the presence of a jetliner. I here assert that as a matter of law, that piece of evidence should have been sufficient, standing alone, to defeat a motion to dismiss.

Which is kind of silly, considering that she previously negotiated a settlement in another lawsuit (against airlines, et al) on the basis that a jetliner did, in fact, hit the Pentagon, causing injury to herself and her son.

Alternative theories are not uncommon in lawsuits. However, that said, it does not appear the judge's decision is based upon that factor which would have involved use of different legal theories. Rather, the judge mentioned the prior lawsuit in a footnote and did not discuss or analyze that issue further.

No, she has little chance on appeal because her complaint is factually baseless.

She has little chance on appeal, but should, in my opinion take that chance. Her complaint has merit.

Ms. Gallop may be an example of something, but not that which you purport to imagine. There's the inconvenient fact that she also sued the airlines (while simultaneously claiming that there was no airplane), and she also sued banks through which she alleged the terrorist highjackers' funds were channeled (while simultaneously claiming that there were no terrorists or airplanes). What's that an example of again?

Alternative claims and throries are an everyday, commonplace occurrence and the fact that Gallop may have relied on alternative claims is neither unique nor surprising. Let me illustrate this further and ask whether you are aware of what position was taken by the airlines she sued?

Did they admit or deny liability?

If they denied it, to what extent did they do so? Did the denial extend to the issue of whether or not a jetliner crashed?

If you did not know the answers to those queries before posting what you posted, why did you imply that her pleading was improper?

Again, try reading the judgment for comprehension.

Do all who disagree with you do so solely because they do not read for comprehension? You make it sound almost as if you have a monoply on reading comprehension, LashL, and that I can't read for beans. Is it really necessary to place our disagreement in that context, LashL? Why can't we just have a disagreement in principle and not one based on a claimed lack of reading comprehension?

The decision is correct, which is not at all surprising.

The above is the essence of "conclusionary."

When is that day? I'd like to pencil it into my calendar.

Economics writer, Jim Willie, gives a 20% chance to the unraveling of the 9/11 coverup occurring during 2010. I'd say that is about right, as far as predictive ability is concerned.

I understand LasVegas casinos allow people to bet on almost anything. I wonder if there's a line on when the 9/11 coverup will unravel?

 

[LashL]

I have looked at the post that you seem to take exception to. The part you are arguing with is, in fact, that which I quoted from the court's ruling. I quoted the court's statement of standard that must be applied to motions of the type the court had before it and the court's ipso facto, unsubstantiated, reliance upon what the court said was, or rather, was not plausible.

I don't know why you think you can expand upon what the court said; or, even if you do, why your declaration is any more substantiated than that of the court. It is one thing to claim something is implausible; or, to use your terms, that something is "merely conclusionary, speculation or conjecture, and not factual allegations" and it is quite anothert to substantiate that claim.

I am not expanding upon what the court said; the court actually said the things that I pointed out; you have failed to read them, failed to comprehend them, or perhaps deliberately ignored them.

Your repitition with different words of your same rationalization for the miscarriage of justice requires no further comment here.

Again, read the judgment for comprehension. And spare me the drama of calling this a "miscarriage of justice". Doing so does a great disservice to actual miscarriages of justice.

April Gallop's case should not have been dismissed as what happened at the Pentagon has not ever been explained.

Gallop's complaint was correctly dismissed in accordance with the law because it was factually baseless.

Furthermore, just as a prima facie issue, the iconic video of the event plainly (no pun intended) does not show the presenc3e of a jetgliner. I here assert that as a matter of law, that piece of evidence should have been sufficient, standing alone, to defeat a motion to dismiss.

Clearly, you know nothing of the law. You can "assert" patent nonsense all you like, but the law will not bend to your erroneous assertions.

Alternative theories are not uncommon in lawsuits.

Gallop's contradictory allegations, however, are not alternative theories in a lawsuit; rather, she obtained money on the basis of allegations made in one lawsuit that are entirely contradictory to the allegations she has made in other lawsuits for which she also seeks money. Ever heard of estoppel?

However, that said, it does not appear the judge's decision is based upon that factor which would have involved use of different legal theories. Rather, the judge mentioned the prior lawsuit in a footnote and did not discuss or analyze that issue further.

No kidding. You might have noticed that some of us actually read and understood the entire judgment. You might have even read the posts in this very thread to realize that yes, we all get that. This was mentioned further in my post for your own edification as it appears that you were unaware of the extent to which Gallop has sued others and the extent to which her allegations are contradictory.

Alternative claims and throries are an everyday, commonplace occurrence and the fact that Gallop may have relied on alternative claims is neither unique nor surprising.

See above.

If you did not know the answers to those queries before posting what you posted, why did you imply that her pleading was improper?

I am not implying that her pleading was improper. I am stating plainly that her pleading was improper because, as a matter of law, it was improper as it did not plead sufficient material facts to support the relief sought.

Do all who disagree with you do so solely because they do not read for comprehension? As you sit here today, is it your claim you have a monoply on reading comprehension, LashL?

Nice strawman, jammonius. Try harder.

The above is the eswsence of "conclusory."

No, it is not. It is based on a sound knowledge of the law and the ability to apply the law, as previously set out.

Economics writer, Jim Willie, gives a 20% chance to the unraveling of the 9/11 coverup occurring during 2010. I'd say that is about right, as far as predictive ability is concerned.

Good luck with that.