Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

Clayton Moore said:
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?
Click to expand...

So your reasoning is that since she needed money and since American Airlines was a large target she chose to LIE and sue AA for damages.

Ok then, if I need a new car then I am justified in setting it on fire in my driveway and claiming vandals did it so as to collect the insurance money.

Correct?

You know Clayton, it does not matter WHY one steals or lies. The reasoning will not justify the lieing and stealing.
 
ozeco41 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The "They" would be the police and/or district attorneys as is the case with all criminal charges. The offense would be fraud universally defined as: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. The jurisdiction would be the city, state (or district in the case of Washington DC) where she originally filed the claim against AA.

She already accepted a monetary judgement in her favor, that judgement explicitly relied on an American Airline jet having crashed into the Pentagon. This is a fact and cannot be disputed.

She is now claiming that in fact no jet (American Airlines or other) ever hit the Pentagon and that it was some nefarious scheme using high explosives as directed by top White House officials. This would mean that she accepted money for a compensation that she knew she wasn't entitled to.

Unless I am mistaken that is insurance fraud. This is why I asked the question I did here. I was wondering if there was some legal reason for not charging her with fraud.
 
Counsel for the defendants filed their brief submissions on the first show cause order by way of a letter to the court, dated July 14/11.

Enjoy.
 
"Gallop’s attorneys have acted in bad faith, and have unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied these proceedings, throughout the course of this action."

:cheerleader2 :D :cheerleader2

Legaltainmenteriffic!
 
Brief and to the point.
thumbup.gif
 
Orphia Nay said:
"Gallop’s attorneys have acted in bad faith, and have unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied these proceedings, throughout the course of this action."

:cheerleader2 :D :cheerleader2

Legaltainmenteriffic!
Click to expand...

New Haven was a kangaroo court if there ever was one. It was a disgrace.
 
Oh, jeez. Now they've filed another 116 pages in the form of an "amicus brief" by another long-time truther lawyer named Earl Staelin.

Yeah, because affidavits from Robert Bowman and Niels Harrit are just what you need to get yourself out of the hole you've dug for yourself...

A bunch of those pages are repeats of what's already been provided (don't ask me why the fellow felt the need to copy the entire complaint as well as a second version of it with handwritten notes on it) but I won't bother repeating them, and instead will parse out the "new" parts tomorrow and scan the shorter version so that people need not wear out their scroll wheels.
 
LashL said:
Oh, jeez. Now they've filed another 116 pages in the form of an "amicus brief" by another long-time truther lawyer named Earl Staelin.

Yeah, because affidavits from Robert Bowman and Niels Harrit are just what you need to get yourself out of the hole you've dug for yourself...

A bunch of those pages are repeats of what's already been provided (don't ask me why the fellow felt the need to copy the entire complaint as well as a second version of it with handwritten notes on it) but I won't bother repeating them, and instead will parse out the "new" parts tomorrow and scan the shorter version so that people need not wear out their scroll wheels.
Click to expand...

Is there any point where the court can send the large men out with butterfly nets and straight jackets? I mean, I'm tellin' you all, either Gallop's counsel is certifiably nuts, or they're doing the most epic jailing-by-pissing-off-judge that's ever been done.
 
Update: Gallop's request for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc has been denied in a one-paragraph decision filed today.

Here it is.

Enjoy.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
I confess, I'm disappointed that there was no epic smackdown. Just a "(*Buzzer sound*) Denied!"
Click to expand...


Yeah, I hear you, but decisions on requests for rehearings are very often just "Bzzzzzzzt - denied." I think that the next 'smackdowns' in this case will be the sanctions decisions (two of them now) and the "amicus brief" decision. So there's still Legaltainment™ to be had. :)
 
Thanks, LashL!

LashL said:
Yeah, I hear you, but decisions on requests for rehearings are very often just "Bzzzzzzzt - denied." I think that the next 'smackdowns' in this case will be the sanctions decisions (two of them now) and the "amicus brief" decision. So there's still Legaltainment™ to be had. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed. Looking forward to it (even if I'm befuddled about what the "amicus brief" decision will decide).
 
Orphia Nay said:
Thanks, LashL!
Click to expand...


You're most welcome, Orphia!


Orphia Nay said:
Looking forward to it (even if I'm befuddled about what the "amicus brief" decision will decide).
Click to expand...


The decision wrt the amicus brief will be whether or not to admit it into the proceeding for consideration by the court in coming to its decision about the first show cause order relating to sanctions.

I expect the court's decision will be "No", but we'll see.
 
LashL said:
You're most welcome, Orphia!





The decision wrt the amicus brief will be whether or not to admit it into the proceeding for consideration by the court in coming to its decision about the first show cause order relating to sanctions.

I expect the court's decision will be "No", but we'll see.
Click to expand...

And I hope that is the entire decision. It would probably save the court a lot of time, not having to explain again.
 
jaydeehess said:
So your reasoning is that since she needed money and since American Airlines was a large target she chose to LIE and sue AA for damages.

Ok then, if I need a new car then I am justified in setting my existing vehicle on fire in my driveway and claiming vandals did it so as to collect the insurance money.

Correct?

You know Clayton, it does not matter WHY one steals or lies. The reasoning will not justify the lieing and stealing.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for Clayton to answer this for me.

How about a different scenario then Clayton?

If a single mother is strapped for cash she is justified in embezzleing money from her, large corporate, employer, according to your moral standards?
 
jaydeehess said:
Still waiting for Clayton to answer this for me.

How about a different scenario then Clayton?

If a single mother is strapped for cash she is justified in embezzleing money from her, large corporate, employer, according to your moral standards?
Click to expand...

The government says AA was negligent during incident X and AA agrees that it was negligent during incident X. You and your child were injured during incident X. What are your options? What is your obligation to yourself and your child?

Does your obligation change if you know the government and AA are lying?

Do you go the wrong way on a one way street when all the other roads are flooded out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom