Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

[ozeco41]

...Would it be far-fetched to call this reply the leqal career equivalent of a "suicide by mod"?

The analogy is spot on.

 

[Myriad]

That is funny on so many levels.

Indeed. Is that last part a bizarrely inside-out version of the fallacy of authority? "A non-authority declined to say anything about X, therefore X must be true."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[LashL]

In for a penny, in for a pound I guess...

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



Would it be far-fetched to call this reply the leqal career equivalent of a "suicide by mod"?

Words fail me.

OK, someone has watched way too many episodes of 24.

Can they be fined for spreading lies and nonsense? How about being stupid?


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.

Indeed. And if you keep reading, it gets stupider by the nanothermite-thermate-therm*te-nanosecond.

 

[LashL]

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

I don't know. Here, we'd call something like this a "document dump" but here, there are limits on the number of pages that can be submitted to appellate courts without leave, and the court would not even have accepted the filing of hundreds of pages of stuff without leave of the court, but it appears that the same is not true of NY appellate courts since someone accepted and filed the documents.

It seems to me that this is an attempt by Gallop and her counsel to get in through the back door what they couldn't get in through the front door, since it's pretty much the same stuff that they tried to get admitted in the District Court in order to bolster their insufficient pleadings in the first place. The District Court correctly refused to consider the "appendix" submitted at the time, as did the appellate court, because filing a bunch of affidavits from others cannot correct an improper pleading on a motion to dismiss. There is a long history of precendents that support that determination and I've no doubt that the decision was correct in that regard.

However, I haven't looked into the rules about what's admissible on a show cause hearing, as there's no such thing here. Here, costs follow the event, and that's as it should be, in my view. In a "show cause" jurisdiction, maybe the court opened the door to the hundreds of pages of nonsense being introduced when it compelled Veale et al to show cause why they ought not be dinged with sanctions? I don't know. That said, I would be surprised (and disappointed) if one was permitted to introduce hundreds of pages of nonsense in a show cause hearing that was essentially the same stuff one tried (unsuccessfully) to introduce at first instance, in the circumstances of this case.

If that were truly the state of affairs, it seems to me that it would be entirely dysfunctional.

 

[Mikey T]

Okay, I've got these posted up at my Legaltainment™ site; here are the latest documents.

Memorandum

Affirmation of Veale

Affirmation of Cunningham

Affirmation of Ndanusa

Affirmation of Gallop

Enjoy!

Good Lord that be a lotta woo!!!

I'm speechless. No really, I am seriously speechless.

I almost wish this went to trial just so their case could be torn to shreds point by moronic point. However, in no way do they deserve any kind of credible platform to present these points, but it would be fun to watch. A high school debate team could tear this apart given a little coaching advice from Gravy or someone like that.

LashL if you could be so kind to offer your opinion. It seems the attorneys are upset that the claims they have made haven't been individually dismissed by the courts, therefore they aren't "frivolous" until the courts prove they are indeed "frivolous". Am I reading at that part correctly?

If so, what are the chances that Alicia Simmons, the assistant US district attorney, comes back with a complete rebuttal (debunking as we would call it) of every claim? Reading something like that would be pure comic gold.

Thanks for posting LashL.

 

[Clayton Moore]

That is funny on so many levels.

It will be real funny when the real perpetrators of 9/11 are revealed.
As in not unlike the fate of Homer Simpson.

 

[Mikey T]

It will be real funny when the real perpetrators of 9/11 are revealed.
As in not unlike the fate of Homer Simpson.

And then one of the townsfolk could say at the end of the trial...

"Who was that masked man?"

Don't be afraid to dream a little dream there Clayton.

 

[Orphia Nay]

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.

Is he trying to get Veale in MORE trouble? Surely saying Veale put his name to court documents fraudulently is throwing him under the bus?

 

[Oystein]

It will be real funny when the real perpetrators of 9/11 are revealed.
...

Do you know who they are?
Are defendants of the Gallop case among them?
Can you name the defendants of the Gallop case?
How do you know they are among the real perpetrators of 9/11? Evidence, please!

 

[Orphia Nay]

However, I haven't looked into the rules about what's admissible on a show cause hearing, as there's no such thing here. Here, costs follow the event, and that's as it should be, in my view. In a "show cause" jurisdiction, maybe the court opened the door to the hundreds of pages of nonsense being introduced when it compelled Veale et al to show cause why they ought not be dinged with sanctions? I don't know. That said, I would be surprised (and disapointed) if one was permitted to introduce hundreds of pages of nonsense in a show cause hearing that was essentially the same stuff one tried (unsuccessfully) to introduce at first instance, in the circumstances of this case.

If that were truly the state of affairs, it seems to me that it would be entirely dysfunctional.

Yes, aren't they supposed to show cause why the appeal/case was not frivolous, not produce more frivolity?

 

[beachnut]

It will be real funny when the real perpetrators of 9/11 are revealed.
As in not unlike the fate of Homer Simpson.

the real perpetrators died on 911, 19 murderers

April's lawsuit is nonsense. Nothing you can do will change that.

April says.

58. I was located inside the building on September 11, 2001. I was located less the 50ft from the alleged place of impact. If it really was flight 77, I and my child should be dead. I have always maintained and continue to maintain that I saw no evidence of plane debris or anything else. I further assert, I saw no plane debris while awaiting triage for medical assistance on the Pentagon lawn.

The fact is, if you are involved in an event with the energy of 1200 pounds of TNT, you want that event to be 50 feet away, and in the form of a KE weapon, not a 1200 pound bomb. You most likely will die with a 1200 pound bomb 50 feet away, and have a better chance of living in a KE event that close. April does not seem to have combat experience, or understand why she lived.

If it was really 77? Gee, the passenger DNA was found, as was the FDR in the Pentagon, 50 feet away from April's office. How can see ignore reality, like you do, yet she was there, and you are just fooled by liars and frauds.

April saw no aircraft parts? Gee, it would be in reality aircraft debris since the impact was a Kinetic Energy event of 2,590,000,000 Joules (equal to 1200 pounds of TNT), the parts of 77 are now debris, with the heavy stuff entering the Pentagon.

And then there is photographic evidence, showing aircraft "parts", like debris from a high speed impact.
Inside the Pentagon, guess being knocked out and not a fireman, she missed this part inside the Pentagon.

Looks like part of a landing gear, what do you think?
And all over the lawn the tiny bits of destroyed aircraft, thousands of them, what you find at high speed impacts. This is called evidence, it debunks April, makes her claims delusional nonsense.

Aircraft parts, from a high speed impact. April failed to look and comprehend what a hight speed impact does to an aircraft.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Words fail me.

This contradicts Gallop's own Memorandum, in which she describes at length the crime Dick Cheney allegedly committed: He failed to protect the people at the Pentagon (by evacuation or military means) when he had reports about an unknown flying object, severally identified in Gallop's story as "AA77".

There were either bombs and explosions at the Pentagon; in this case ther entire story about radar, SAMs, satellites and this unknown boy saying "it's 30 miles out" is irrlevant. Or it was a plane; in which case the allegation of bombs is nonsense.

The account of Gallop leaved no possibility of two events (plane and bombs), for she clearly descibes only one violent incident.

 

[akama1]

Things I thought i would never read in an appeal

“alternate historical reality”, shared by a substantial number of sentient Americans...

For example, the buildings collapsed at free-fall speed.....

21. Nanothermite, a constituent element of a substance capable of cutting through
steel instantaneously and producing extremely high temperatures, has been identi-
fied, in a peer-reviewed paper by academics of chemistry and physics, in four sepa-
rate, independently-collected samples of dust and debris from Ground Zero, con-
firming the views of over 1500 architects and engineers that the Twin Towers and
Building 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.....

published in the online Journalof911studies.com.....

Voice-morphing, again, referred to above, has been in existence for a number of decades, most recently featured on the television program “30 Rock,”.....

I am not currently admitted to practice before this Court (although I
was once, and was dropped from the rolls without notice)......

Thou this did make me laugh, did he realise what he wrote at the time?

It is quite difficult, indeed, to imagine a seasoned lawyer deciding to make the al-
legations we have made, to file a lawsuit accusing three of our most exalted leaders
with unspeakable, unimaginable atrocity without sufficient facts to sustain the be-
lief.

he forgot to add "but here we are"

Man , the level of crazy is at an all-time high here. My brain was melting by the final link. They really going for the "down in a blaze of glory", Pity they don't understand what Glory actually means.

LashL, having now looked over this, what do you think will be the fallout?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, aren't they supposed to show cause why the appeal/case was not frivolous, not produce more frivolity?

Apparently they think the burden of proof is the other way.

[...] if we don‟t get fair consideration of our response to the claim that our case is frivolous, the judgment that we should be punished for bringing it will also be unfair, and unfounded

​

​

​

​

​

So let me get this straight: the court needs to respond to their argument as to why the original case was not frivolous. Since this argument is based on exactly the same evidence that was the basis for the original case, which has already been judged as frivolous, they're arguing that the court must give a new ruling on the frivolity of the case before the original ruling can be accepted. And then, of course, they'll argue that the court's ruling on the argument must also be subject to a further ruling on the frivolity of the argument against the frivolity of the original case, based on presenting the same evidence again. And so on, when they offer the same evidence yet again as a counter-argument.

In other words, they're trying to present a case that is not just frivolous, but infinitely regressive.

Dave

 

[Cuddles]

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

So they're basically trying a version of the Gish Gallop? I guess that makes it a Gallop Gallop.

 

[Sunstealer]

Is there an unbiased mind that can create a mental construct that explains how those pieces of bone, none bigger than a centi-meter, got up onto that roof in that condition, that involves only fire and gravity? Fire does not turn the human body into minute pieces of bone. It turns them into charred remains whole. The fragments were 41 stories up and exploded to virtual dust. Is a consideration of these matters an exercise in frivolity?

These documents are just one exercise in winning the Stundies forever.

 

[Sunstealer]

OMFG this is hilarious.

d. Susan McIlwain witnessed a low-flying plane, or missile, as she was driv-ing her car near the crash site outside of Shanksville, PA. The object, solid white and without rivets, came from her right, in front and just above her, ascended over a stand of trees, banked right out of sight, at which point there was an explosion at what is known as the Flight 93 crash site.

So the object was close enough to her that she could determine it wasn't constructed using rivets but she couldn't tell if it was a massive 757 or a missile. Priceless.

 

[Sabrina]

Apparently they think the burden of proof is the other way.

​

​

​

​

​

So let me get this straight: the court needs to respond to their argument as to why the original case was not frivolous. Since this argument is based on exactly the same evidence that was the basis for the original case, which has already been judged as frivolous, they're arguing that the court must give a new ruling on the frivolity of the case before the original ruling can be accepted. And then, of course, they'll argue that the court's ruling on the argument must also be subject to a further ruling on the frivolity of the argument against the frivolity of the original case, based on presenting the same evidence again. And so on, when they offer the same evidence yet again as a counter-argument.

In other words, they're trying to present a case that is not just frivolous, but infinitely regressive.

Dave

Frivolity inside frivolity... Frivolution?

 

[leftysergeant]

OMFG this is hilarious.

So the object was close enough to her that she could determine it wasn't constructed using rivets but she couldn't tell if it was a massive 757 or a missile. Priceless.

And did you catch her description or the noise the engine made?

 

[Sunstealer]

20. Likewise, true believers must discount the undoubted, photographed presence of pools of still-molten metal, uncovered in the ruins days and even weeks afterwards, clearly not made that hot by gravity

How can anyone write this crap? It's cringe worthy.