Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

[Sunstealer]

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

No not yet. I'm sure it's a classic.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Geez, I wonder if the court would accept an unsolicited Amicus brief from a complete stranger. I'd write one that consists of nothing more than Sunstealer's posts (for the Bentham nonsense) and links to Gravy's page, 911 Myths, Debunking 911, and Ref's Guide.

 

[tsig]

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!

There is no way in law that either Court was empowered to weigh evidence
and find facts in this fashion, at the pleading stage, when the plaintiff was
absolutely entitled to have her version taken as true.
**

If the court isn't empowered to weigh evidence then who is? Why would the plaintiff be entitled to have their story accepted as true?

 

[JamesB]

I think they are referring specifically to her personal testimony. Unfortunately for her that was "I didn't see a thing" which is not exactly the most compelling story.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think they are referring specifically to her personal testimony. Unfortunately for her that was "I didn't see a thing" which is not exactly the most compelling story.

Unfortunately for her that was "I already sued AA for letting their plane crash into the Pentagon and took their money" which is not exactly the most compelling story

 

[000063]

Frivolity inside frivolity... Frivolution?

The case is collapsing!

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

by any chance can the court order a mental health evaluation of ms. Gallop? It seems like this is a woman with a trauma-induced mental illness being exploited by con-artists and crooks???

 

[jaydeehess]

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

The funniest part is you posting that.

As in not unlike the fate of Homer Simpson.

,,and that. (If I could figure out exactly what you meant by it that is Were you drunk when you posted?)

 

[jaydeehess]

I think they are referring specifically to her personal testimony. Unfortunately for her that was "I didn't see a thing" which is not exactly the most compelling story.

Unfortunately for her that was "I already sued AA for letting their plane crash into the Pentagon and took their money" which is not exactly the most compelling story

In the first case she was saying that an AA aircraft was the cause of her pain and suffering.
Now she is saying that because she did not see an aircraft there was no aircraft and that the gov't manufactured the whole thing,,,,,,,,,,, inwhich case AA is off the hook as their aircraft was apparently no where near the Pentagon (Gallop did not see it after all).

How does one keep mutually exclusive memes in one's head, believeing both at the same time, and still wish to be taken seriously? The mind boggles.

Perhaps Clayton could shed some light on how this is accomplished.

 

[000063]

I'm sure the Truthers would claim that the gov't made her make her earlier, false claim. If so, why did they stop? What leverage did they lose over her? She still has her kid, right?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

by any chance can the court order a mental health evaluation of ms. Gallop? It seems like this is a woman with a trauma-induced mental illness being exploited by con-artists and crooks???

To heck with Ms. Gallop; is there any way they can order that for her counsel?

 

[Orphia Nay]

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

Yep!

I thought this (from April Gallop) was a ripper:

"If the plane did strike the Pentagon? Where is the plane?"
(Point 56, page 18.)

 

[Clayton Moore]

The funniest part is you posting that.

,,and that. (If I could figure out exactly what you meant by it that is Were you drunk when you posted?)

Did you wiki Homer Simpson?

 

[Clayton Moore]

In the first case she was saying that an AA aircraft was the cause of her pain and suffering.
Now she is saying that because she did not see an aircraft there was no aircraft and that the gov't manufactured the whole thing,,,,,,,,,,, inwhich case AA is off the hook as their aircraft was apparently no where near the Pentagon (Gallop did not see it after all).

How does one keep mutually exclusive memes in one's head, believeing both at the same time, and still wish to be taken seriously? The mind boggles.

Perhaps Clayton could shed some light on how this is accomplished.

What was her alternative?

If you knew cpr and your child needed cpr would you wait for the emts to arrive?

Think of all the reasons not to wait.
What would you personally think of someone who waited?

 

[TSR]

.
Her alternative is to decide whether there was a plane impact or not.

If there was, then her current suit is fraudulent.

If there was not, the previous lawsuit was fraudulent.

Pretty simple, really.
.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I still can't understand why she hasn't been charged with either fraud or attempted fraud. Do they have to wait for this fiasco to run its full course before they can charge her or what?

 

[Oystein]

I still can't understand why she hasn't been charged with either fraud or attempted fraud. Do they have to wait for this fiasco to run its full course before they can charge her or what?

Fraud is when you employ a lie to gain materially from another.

Is it fraud when you employ truth to gain materially from another, but privately think it's a lie?

 

[ozeco41]

I still can't understand why she hasn't been charged with either fraud or attempted fraud. Do they have to wait for this fiasco to run its full course before they can charge her or what?

I don't know all the facts but some relevant questions could include:

Who is the "they" who are to "charge" her?
That terminology implies a criminal offence...which therefore raise the questions what is the offence and in what jurisdiction?
Fraud raises matters in civil jurisdiction where AA would appear to have a potential interest.
...but what were the conditions of the settlement with AA in the earlier matter?
...do the terms of settlement preclude her from making contradictory later claims?

 

[akama1]

Who is the "they" who are to "charge" her?
That terminology implies a criminal offence...which therefore raise the questions what is the offence and in what jurisdiction?
Fraud raises matters in civil jurisdiction where AA would appear to have a potential interest.
...but what were the conditions of the settlement with AA in the earlier matter?
...do the terms of settlement preclude her from making contradictory later claims?

Would of thought this would of fallen under perjury, Swearing under oath two contradictory stances. She is either Perjuring herself now (which she clearly is) or earlier.

AA should not need to do anything for the courts to act.

 

[leftysergeant]

How does one keep mutually exclusive memes in one's head, believeing both at the same time, and still wish to be taken seriously?

If you were bat-crap crazy, would cognitive dissonance be that hard to deal with?

Perhaps Clayton could shed some light on how this is accomplished.

I could insert at least one major zinger here as to why Clayton would be the right person ask about the condition , but I woud probably wind up in the penalty box.