Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

[Unsecured Coins]

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Not so. Try reading the judgment for comprehension... 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.

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

... 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?

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

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.

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

... 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.

... 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?

... 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.

... 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.

... 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.

 

[Pinch]

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?

Couple of observations.

One, I heard somewhere this jammponious dude was british. If so, there's really no doubt nor any question why the Brits lost their empire.

Second, is this guy the best the Truthers can put out there? is this it? Is this the latest and greatest from the Truther side of the aisle? Recycling years-old canards and half/no truths is their idea of engagement? Is there *any* institutional learning capability with these people?

In any event, ignorance is bliss, which is quite clearly why he seems so...blissful.

 

[beachnut]

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.

An explosion would have destroyed her; her brain would have been mush. The only thing that could have crated the impact damage at the Pentagon was a Boeing 757 flying at 483 KIAS; Got Physics? Not yet, but you do have delusions jet engine parts are Plymouth wheel-covers.

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.

lol, like your world view with jet fuel that does not burn and beam weapons that turn steel to dust is real? LOL

The day of reckoning for 911 came on a clear day in September 2001, 19 terrorists you apologize for killed people from all over the world in NYC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania where the Passengers of Flight 93 figured out 911 and took action. Something you failed to do in 8 years.

911 truth is a delusional group of failed individuals who have without evidence fooled you. Your ideas on 911 are delusional and would be judged delusional.

My world view is 16 hour days of work; does the day of reckoning make that 16 hours at the beach? one can hope

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Jam, you're arguing with a lawyer. I'd stop digging your pit. Oh, whilst we're here:

"I would say that April Gallop should have a good chance on appeal … she has little chance on appeal."

Er - what? Hang on, another point:

" - when the real story of 9/11 is revealed and the question is asked whether there were people living in this era - "

"era", eh? Era. Hmmm. Forgive me, but this seems to assume that the mighty 9/11 Truth movement's success is pitched far, far into the future.

Ah! Final confirmation:

"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."

You'd better get a move on with the reckoning schedule, then. I understand that beachnut ain't a spring chicken any longer. But feel free to hold your breath until that day.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Can you appeal something that was dismissed with prejudice?

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Couple of observations.

One, I heard somewhere this jammponious dude was british. If so, there's really no doubt nor any question why the Brits lost their empire.

We did not "lose" our empire! We willingly gave it away in a spirit of enlightened benevolence to all our subjects, except for those pikers westwards across the Atlantic ...

I think jammonius is a citizen of the Confederacy of Dunces. Which is politer than my original thought, that he's a complete frickin' *******.

Edited by LashL: 

Do not swear in your posts or mask curse words in an attempt to avoid the auto-censor. (Rule 10)

 

[Macgyver1968]

I take it "pikers" ain't a good thing.

 

[dudalb]

This is what Lash L just did to jammonius:





What never ceases to amaze me is how Truthers constanly pick fights with experts,get their heads handed to them on a platter,and never learn from the experience.

 

[dudalb]

I take it "pikers" ain't a good thing.

It was a 19th century term for a stingy cheapskate.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

This is what Lash L just did to jammonius:

which is why this got posted

If I was any good at photoshop I would have put a gavel where the gladius was, but I'm too lazy for that

 

[LashL]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/gladiator-movie-russell-crowe.jpg

Ohhhhhhh, very nicely done, that. I like it!

 

[LashL]

Can you appeal something that was dismissed with prejudice?

Yes, one can appeal a decision to dismiss an action, whether it was dismissed with or without prejudice, because any such appeal would have to be made to an appellate court, seeking to overturn the decision at first instance, while the "with prejudice" part means that Gallop cannot amend her complaint to try to keep it alive in the court of first instance by way of "amended complaint" or otherwise.

ETA: I half hope she does attempt to appeal, actually, for the Legaltainment™ value alone.

 

[Garb]

which is why this got posted
[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/gladiator-movie-russell-crowe.jpg[/qimg]

If I was any good at photoshop I would have put a gavel where the gladius was, but I'm too lazy for that

There you are.

 

[tfk]

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.

Sloppy.
"... were injured by the plane crash 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;

Sloppy.
The judge did not accept her pleadings as "true".

He made it exquisitely clear that he did NOT believe her assertions, when he said:

"... the fact that she did not see any sign of a plane, assuming that to be true, does NOT mean that no plane hit the Pentagon." [Emphasis added.]

He also made it clear that he did not believe her when he wrote his note at the bottom of page 10. "It should be noted that in a prior lawsuit, Gallop took the position that a passenger airliner did crash into the Pentagon."

He said that even if he assumed to be true the VERY FEW factual assertions that Gallop made (specifically that "gov't officials missed warnings & fighter jets had time to intercept the hijacked airplanes but failed to do so"), she STILL would have no case. Because she had presented zero evidence of any of the conspiracy that she alleged.

The only thing she presented were her wild, unsupported speculations.

Those who support the common storyline do not allow themselves to imagine that storyline is not credible, let alone true, and never proven.

Horse pucky.
More of your sloppiness.

We can easily allow that some people might be evil enough to try to do something like this. We find that there is zero evidence in favor of your speculations. And mountains of evidence against it.

And that, right there, - The Total Absence of Evidence - is what makes your (& Ms. Gallop's) speculation "factually frivolous", "fanciful", "fantastic" AND "delusional".

Although I would have tossed in "brain-dead" myself...

I would say that April Gallop should have a good chance on appeal, based on law and legal theory.

Yeah, but there are three thing that

1. You say lots of things. None of them seem to bear the slightest resemblance to the real world.
2. You appear to have zero appreciation of either law or legal theory.
3. As evidence of 2. above, you don't appear to understand what the phrase "with prejudice" means.

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.

Sure thing. When your "Rebel Alliance" defeats the Empire...

Whatever you say, Luke.

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.

What Cheney did on 9/11 is documented down to the minute.

Your repeated assertion that "unless it is proven in a trial, then it didn't happen" is your personal delusion.

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.

More of your delusions.

The judge's ruling was based precisely, not "approximately", precisely, to zero extent on the actions of Dick Cheney on 9/11.

The fact that this is the BESTEST delusion that you can come up with for your Merry Pason moment shows how pathetically lame your contentions really are.

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.

Big talk from small boys.

 

[tfk]

Lash,

Nice summary. Wish I'd read yours before I bothered with mine.

But you're likely going down to defeat in this discussion.

The only things that you were able to bring were an accurate rendition of the judge's ruling and an informed interpretation of relevant principles of law.

What value are these against Jam, when he said things like "... ipso facto ..." & "... affirmative declaration ..." & "... unreasoned in the uttermost ..." & "... accept and acknowledge ..." & "... prima facie ..."?

Now, I may not know squat about the law. But even I can tell that you didn't use nearly enough "ipso facto"s to win a law debate.


Tom

 

[jammonius]

[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/tko-boxing-boxer-athlete-smiley-emo.gif[/qimg]

Greetings elmondo,

Originally Posted by LashL

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?

--------------------------------

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?

Are we having fun yet?

Permit me to suggest we allow the dialogue to speak for itself, without the embellishment. Those who might like to review the thread can decide for themselves which posts they agree with and which they disagree with. Chances are those posts that fit the former category for whosoever is reviewing them will find such posts to be convincing and persuasive; and, vice versa. You agree?

 

[JamesB]

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?

I was planning to take a trip to Vegas this summer, I would definitely take the opposing odds. Easiest money I would ever make. You can't lose in a battle against people with no ties to reality.

 

[BigAl]

Greetings elmondo,



Alternative claims and throries are an everyday, commonplace occurrence

Yes, but the theory that best fits ALL the evidence is the preferred one, especially of there are no other theories that fit ANY of the physical For the Pentagon, the best theory is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

We have DNA for all passengers and crew. We have 100+ tons of airplane parts and surviving luggage scraps and personal effects and jewelry and dental records.

We have hundreds of eyewitnesses.

We have black box data, cockpit speech via the flight voice recorder,
Cockpit-to-ATC radio conversations, passenger Air-phone calls,
passenger cell phone calls, phone company data identifying the
location where the plane was when the calls were made, radar track
data that identifies the entire path the plane took, and operations
records at Dulles airport.

We have boarding manifests. We have credit card records and parked
cars that show that the people on the manifest paid for their tickets
and went to the airport, checked in and never returned.

We have multiple pieces of evidence identifying Khalid Almihdhar Majed, Moqed Nawaf, Alhazmi Salem Alhazmi, and Hani Hanjour as people that planned a hijacking, trained for a hijacking, boarded Flight 93 and did hijack flight 93. One example of evidence of many, is the martyrdom videos left by some of the 19 hijackers that captured 4 jets on 9/11.

 

[alienentity]

Those who might like to review the thread can decide for themselves which posts they agree with and which they disagree with

I think it's fairly clear that almost nobody agrees with your posts.
'nuff said.

TFK opined to LashL 'But you're likely going down to defeat in this discussion. '

I disagree; LashL brought a gavel to the fight, Jammonius brought an imaginary Light Sabre, a device quite irrelevant in a legal fight.

Garb - love the photoshop rendering!!!