Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

Oh, my. Veale and Co. have filed their response to the original show cause order. There are 'affirmations' from Veale, Cunningham, Ndanusa, Gallop, among other things, for a jaw-dropping total of 370 pages of the same old regurgitated arrant nonsense.

Something tells me the appellate court is not going to be impressed.
[/understatement of the year]

I'll post up some of the shorter (for varying definitions of "short" - man, these people are long-winded!) docs tonight but I'm not going to bother with the "appendix" at this point. They've filed the following:
Memorandum - 26 pages
Veale affirmation - 47 pages
Cunningham affirmation - 19 pages
Ndanusa affirmation - 21 pages
Gallop affirmation - 19 pages
"Appendix" - 238 pages

Sheesh!

Oddly enough, Cunningham is now saying that he was "lead counsel" in this matter throughout (even though he has apparently not been eligible to practice since the early 1980s) and that he prepared the Complaint and all of the other documents, including Veale's affirmation on the motion to recuse for which Veale is now subject to the second sanctions possibility, and he says that Veale shouldn't be the one to be subject to sanctions because Veale "merely signed" the document that Cunningham prepared. He goes on to ask the court to accept his bona fides summarily and admit him to appear in front of them so that the court can assign the "blame" to him.

Unreal.
 
LashL said:
Oh, my. Veale and Co. have filed their response to the original show cause order. There are 'affirmations' from Veale, Cunningham, Ndanusa, Gallop, among other things, for a jaw-dropping total of 370 pages of the same old regurgitated arrant nonsense.

Something tells me the appellate court is not going to be impressed.
[/understatement of the year]

I'll post up some of the shorter (for varying definitions of "short" - man, these people are long-winded!) docs tonight but I'm not going to bother with the "appendix" at this point. They've filed the following:
Memorandum - 26 pages
Veale affirmation - 47 pages
Cunningham affirmation - 19 pages
Ndanusa affirmation - 21 pages
Gallop affirmation - 19 pages
"Appendix" - 238 pages

Sheesh!

Oddly enough, Cunningham is now saying that he was "lead counsel" in this matter throughout (even though he has apparently not been eligible to practice since the early 1980s) and that he prepared the Complaint and all of the other documents, including Veale's affirmation on the motion to recuse for which Veale is now subject to the second sanctions possibility, and he says that Veale shouldn't be the one to be subject to sanctions because Veale "merely signed" the document that Cunningham prepared. He goes on to ask the court to accept his bona fides summarily and admit him to appear in front of them so that the court can assign the "blame" to him.

Unreal.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to suspect that you are making all this up just to test how much nonsense we are going to believe! :eek:
 
So their "Plan" is to offer up some inconsequential patsy as a sacrificial lamb in order to protect someone else from the consequences of their own dumb actions and hope nobody notices? How did they get an old copy of the NWO playbook? The MiB have some 'splainin' to do.
 
LashL said:
Oh, my. Veale and Co. have filed their response to the original show cause order. There are 'affirmations' from Veale, Cunningham, Ndanusa, Gallop, among other things, for a jaw-dropping total of 370 pages of the same old regurgitated arrant nonsense.

Something tells me the appellate court is not going to be impressed.
[/understatement of the year]

...

"Appendix" - 238 pages
Click to expand...


Could the length of that filing (assuming that it is found to be without substance and/or relevance) itself be cause for further sanctions? Is there some kind of rule against "fillibustering" the court system?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
LashL said:
Oh, my. Veale and Co. have filed their response to the original show cause order. There are 'affirmations' from Veale, Cunningham, Ndanusa, Gallop, among other things, for a jaw-dropping total of 370 pages of the same old regurgitated arrant nonsense.

Something tells me the appellate court is not going to be impressed.
[/understatement of the year]

I'll post up some of the shorter (for varying definitions of "short" - man, these people are long-winded!) docs tonight but I'm not going to bother with the "appendix" at this point. They've filed the following:
Memorandum - 26 pages
Veale affirmation - 47 pages
Cunningham affirmation - 19 pages
Ndanusa affirmation - 21 pages
Gallop affirmation - 19 pages
"Appendix" - 238 pages

Sheesh!

Oddly enough, Cunningham is now saying that he was "lead counsel" in this matter throughout (even though he has apparently not been eligible to practice since the early 1980s) and that he prepared the Complaint and all of the other documents, including Veale's affirmation on the motion to recuse for which Veale is now subject to the second sanctions possibility, and he says that Veale shouldn't be the one to be subject to sanctions because Veale "merely signed" the document that Cunningham prepared. He goes on to ask the court to accept his bona fides summarily and admit him to appear in front of them so that the court can assign the "blame" to him.

Unreal.
Click to expand...
The "I'm Spartacus" defense?
 
jaydeehess said:
It really looks like these guys are expecting legal martyrdom for "the cause".
Click to expand...

I was wondering earlier if the plan was to set up a part time job in retirement, speaking to twoofers on his martyrdom, accepting donations to help him fight the good fight. Travel to lectures would probably be tax-deductible. But I thought I was cynical. Now I dunno.
 
LashL said:
Oh, my. Veale and Co. have filed their response to the original show cause order. There are 'affirmations' from Veale, Cunningham, Ndanusa, Gallop, among other things, for a jaw-dropping total of 370 pages of the same old regurgitated arrant nonsense.

Something tells me the appellate court is not going to be impressed.
[/understatement of the year legal history since the time of Charlemagne]
Click to expand...


I normally hate to "fix that" for anyone, but . . . .
 
TjW said:
I was wondering earlier if the plan was to set up a part time job in retirement, speaking to twoofers on his martyrdom, accepting donations to help him fight the good fight. Travel to lectures would probably be tax-deductible. But I thought I was cynical. Now I dunno.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he was jealous of Gage?
 
LashL said:
Oddly enough, Cunningham is now saying that he was "lead counsel" in this matter throughout (even though he has apparently not been eligible to practice since the early 1980s) and that he prepared the Complaint and all of the other documents, including Veale's affirmation on the motion to recuse for which Veale is now subject to the second sanctions possibility, and he says that Veale shouldn't be the one to be subject to sanctions because Veale "merely signed" the document that Cunningham prepared.
Click to expand...

So it was a false-flag operation?
 
Apologies for not getting these docs posted last night; things got busy. I'll do my best to post them tonight. :)
 
Oh... My... God... They actually said that 9/11 was an "Inside Job" and cited the Bentham paper as proof.

:dl:

Legaltainment indeed!
 
Indeed, and not only the stupid Bentham paper; they've thrown the entire kitchen sink of years-old and long-debunked woo into this one.
 
jaydeehess said:
Perhaps he was jealous of Gage?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the style of thing I was thinking of.

LashL said:
Indeed, and not only the stupid Bentham paper; they've thrown the entire kitchen sink of years-old and long-debunked woo into this one.
Click to expand...

Would it be far-fetched to call this reply the leqal career equivalent of a "suicide by mod"?
 
Ms. Gallop was sitting about 40 feet from the front wall, where it is said the
plane hit, and she went out of the building through that wall where it was blown
off. Neither she nor anyone else inside the Pentagon saw a giant airliner or
enormous fiery hunks of it come roaring into their space at 500 mph, nor a large
fireball of burning jet fuel and plane wreckage everywhere. What she says
happened was: explosions or a bomb or bombs went off, she was hit in the head
and knocked out briefly, got up, got her baby and made her way out the front, with
others, along where the pictures show the front wall on the ground floor was blown
off.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

Words fail me.
 
Parts of an aircraft engine found at the scene of the attack on the Pentagon have been identified by some researchers as belonging not to a Boeing 757, but ra-ther an A-3 Skywarrior. It certainly may be argued that none of these matters is conclusive of anything, a notion that deserves dispute, but it is hard to imagine why the expert opinion, which is what it is, that a part of an engine of a plane other than a Boeing 757, is seen in a photograph of the clean-up efforts at the Pentagon should be dismissed without further inquiry. No fewer than two reporters from the New York Times have done precisely that when made aware of that very identifi-cation. The number of New York Times reporters who have published any of the evidence supporting the most important claims made in this lawsuit or by the 9/11 Truth Movement is zero. That, in and of itself, should stop any marginally in-formed observer in their tracks.
Click to expand...

That is funny on so many levels.
 
OK, someone has watched way too many episodes of 24.

Defendants made no effort to utilize any of the thousands of military or
commercial space based surveillance satellites at their disposal to assist
in locating AA Flight 77 after it disappeared from controller’s radar
screens at 8:56 a.m.
Click to expand...
 
Can they be fined for spreading lies and nonsense? How about being stupid?

​
WILLIM VEALE‟S
...
a. The site of the supposed crash of United Flight 93 does not agree with general ideas of what an airliner crash site looks like, as there are no substantial pieces of plane visible. The idea that the plane dove straight into the ground thus producing a crash site that is significantly different from those general ideas, has been terminally discredited by aviation experts who have studied the evidence available from the NTSB.
b. The pattern of damage to the surrounding vegetation contradicts the offi-cial version‟s flight path.
c. There is debris from Flight 93, including the engine, spread over a large area. The engine was found about a mile away, but other debris was located 8 miles away. Each of these facts is consistent with a plane shot down in the air and completely inconsistent with an intact airliner, or virtually intact airliner if one adopts one of the government-defender scenarios, crashing to the earth in a suicide dive.
Click to expand...
These guys are super stupid, like Balsamo's 11.2g moron math, then correcting it further into woo with 34g of a plane on a string.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom