Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

[lapman]

I dunno Beach....rumor has it that this plane and horse trailer were seen flying low over DC moments before the crash.....same with Shanksville. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[qimg]http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/WTC%20stuff/JetHorse.jpg[/qimg]

 

[jammonius]

I dunno Beach....rumor has it that this plane and horse trailer were seen flying low over DC moments before the crash.....same with Shanksville. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[qimg]http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/WTC%20stuff/JetHorse.jpg[/qimg]

alienentity,

I must give credit where credit is due. That is a nice photo.

 

[alienentity]

alienentity,

I must give credit where credit is due. That is a nice photo.

I polished the wheel-covers specially for you, Jammy.

Here's a slightly cleaned-up version - too late to edit that last message..

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I polished the wheel-covers specially for you, Jammy.

Here's a slightly cleaned-up version - too late to edit that last message..

What's up with the snake head just in front of the horse trailers door? It's some sort of Masonic sign isn't it? Tying the Masons to Adam and Eve... and 9/11. It's so clear now... you are quite obviously a modern Knight Templar using this forum to communicate with your fellow knights through subliminal messaging. There can be no other answer! The Knights Templar did 9/11. How could I be so oblivious to this for so long! Opus Dei must pay.

(Chant with me)
Opus Dei must pay.
Opus Dei must pay.
Opus Dei must pay.

Nobody? Aww poop...

nevermind

 

[TJM]

you forgot to put serial numbers on every god damned inch of it.

 

[drkitten]

I do not think the above is an accurate statement of the plausibility requirement. I think, in fact, that your statement is wrong both generally and as to its particulars. I consider the following to be a correct statement of the plausibility requirement:

"[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."

Shrug.

You're wrong. The "plausibility" requirement does not enter into this.

The plaintiff must plead factual content, not merely plausible content, for the court to be required to accept it in the context of a motion to dismiss.



From the decision:

First, I consider the factual content of the complaint, keeping in mind that I am obliged to assume the veracity only of well-pleaded factual allegations, and that mere conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth.

The pleading standard ... does not require either "detailed factual allegations," or matters that have been experienced personally, as you claim,

Yes, it does. Re-read the quotation. It not only requires "factual allegations," but it also requires them to be "well-pleaded." The judge's own words say that you're wrong.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

Which it didn't. Game, set, match.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

I think somebody in the truth movement must have misread this as "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient fecal matter". It would explain a lot.

Dave

 

[LashL]

Bumpedy bump.

I haven't seen any appeal filed yet.




Tick tock, tick tock.

 

[DGM]

Bumpedy bump.

I haven't seen any appeal filed yet.




Tick tock, tick tock.

Do you really expect her to appeal? I know nothing about law but, after I read the judges "comment" about her other suit I took it to mean, "we're on to your crap, now go away before we look more closely at your previous judgment".

Wouldn't she be completely foolish to pursue this any further considering her past suit (not just because how foolish this is in itself)? Could she be sued by AA considering her statement in this case (although I doubt AA would bother)?

 

[Stellafane]

Bumpedy bump.

I haven't seen any appeal filed yet.




Tick tock, tick tock.

Today would be the perfect date for it...

 

[LashL]

Exactly.

 

[LashL]

Heh - it turns out that Gallop did file a notice of appeal on April 1. Handwritten and all. April Fool indeed.

 

[Stellafane]

April fooled us.

 

[Orphia Nay]

No, April is a fool.

 

[Mince]

What idiot counsel would aid her in bringing this lawsuit? Were they not concerned for their reputation? What a sad, sad testimony for the quality of legal education in the United States.

 

[fitzgibbon]

A certain quality of 'counsel' haven't earned the epithet "ambulance chasers" for nothing, Mince.

 

[dudalb]

What idiot counsel would aid her in bringing this lawsuit? Were they not concerned for their reputation? What a sad, sad testimony for the quality of legal education in the United States.

It's probably more a case of we have more attorneys then the real legal needs of our society require, so you have a number of lawyers who are so desperate for a paycheck they will accept just about any case that comes their way, even if they know it has little or no merit and zero chance of suceeding.

 

[Orphia Nay]

What idiot counsel would aid her in bringing this lawsuit? Were they not concerned for their reputation? What a sad, sad testimony for the quality of legal education in the United States.

William Veale. One of the geniuses behind Lawyers for 9/11 Truth. Here's his political blog:

http://www.vealetruth.com/

He announced he was running for the US Senate in December 2006:

http://vealetruth.com/2006/12/01/senatorial-announcement/#more-37

I have come to say that I have spent my life trying to get people to do things they haven’t wanted to do, from prosecutors to judges to juries to colleagues to students to clients, and, of course, my own children.

Hmmm... that's worked out well for April Gallop.

 

[LashL]

Bump... for jammonius to take a stab at responding to LossLeader's posts above and my posts above and several other posts above that it appears he has ignored.

 

[chuck4842]

I think April just wants to know, and supports anyone seeking the same, why and how this happened. How can a developed society and technologically advanced peoples as America, allow a few savages with box cutters disrupt our democracy and freedoms that so many before us have died and worked hard to gain. It's a good question.