Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

"...we conclude that Veale allowed his emotional reaction to the Court’s adverse ruling to further undermine his legal judgment and interfere with his duty to provide thoughtful and reasoned advice to his client. Enraged and embarrassed by the Court’s decision, Veale used the June 16, 2011 affidavit to air personal grievances against the Court, rather than to tailor his response to Gallop’s best interests."

Veale was projecting the whole time. :dl:

I still can't find any truther comments on this epic fail since the judgement was passed.

Are truthers too busy trying to think up a spin for this? Or maybe they're actually considering that their "whistleblower" April Gallop is actually deranged and/or a money-grubber.

So, will we see a fundraising campaign for Lawyers for 9/11 Truth to pay their fines? Or do they have buckets of money from all their successful court cases and careers? ;)
 
Some of my favourite lines from this judicial smackdown:

"The response of Gallop and her attorneys to our April 27, 2011 order to show cause fails to demonstrate that this appeal was anything but frivolous. Like other papers submitted by Gallop and her team of attorneys in this appeal, the response presents only irrelevant information in a jarringly disorganized manner, united solely by its consistently patronizing tone."​

and ​

"Conveniently, the apparent litmus test for whether a judge’s normal intellectual functions have been compromised such that he or she must be disqualified from hearing Gallop’s case is identical to the question of whether a judge agrees with the original panel’s determination that Gallop’s action is frivolous. But as Veale is surely aware, no party to litigation is entitled to a prescreened panel of sympathetic judges, and we have no patience for Veale’s homegrown psychosocial theories contrived to achieve that end."​
 
LashL said:
Some of my favourite lines from this judicial smackdown:

"The response of Gallop and her attorneys to our April 27, 2011 order to show cause fails to demonstrate that this appeal was anything but frivolous. Like other papers submitted by Gallop and her team of attorneys in this appeal, the response presents only irrelevant information in a jarringly disorganized manner, united solely by its consistently patronizing tone."​

and ​


"Conveniently, the apparent litmus test for whether a judge’s normal intellectual functions have been compromised such that he or she must be disqualified from hearing Gallop’s case is identical to the question of whether a judge agrees with the original panel’s determination that Gallop’s action is frivolous. But as Veale is surely aware, no party to litigation is entitled to a prescreened panel of sympathetic judges, and we have no patience for Veale’s homegrown psychosocial theories contrived to achieve that end."​
Click to expand...

OMG. Talk about a smackdown.

Lash, have you ever seen a writeup be that blunt before? Even from my layman's perspective, I get the sense that the language is a lot more direct than usual.
 
I'm guessing this is the end of it then?

April's a nutjob, but I think even she knows poking the bear again isn't a good idea and I highly doubt after this slapdown, the lawyers in question, would want anything to do with this case.

I really hope I'm wrong though. :D
 
I hereby make the following prediction:
  • An article with a headline to the effect of "9-11 Truth once again denied at the hands of bought and paid for Bush judges" will circulate through the Internet.
  • It will be written by William Veale himself.
  • It will mention the sanctions, and compare them to censorship and/or totalitarian repression.
  • It will omit the real reasons for the sanctions, and all of the court's language explaining them.
  • A disproportionately large section of the article will be devoted to the involvement of Judge Walker, who will be called a "Bush judge."
  • This section will not mention any of the following facts:
    • that Judge Walker has no relationship with any of the actual defendants in the case
    • that Judge Walker only participated in one part of the proceeding
    • that Judge Walker was only one of three judges at that point
    • that none of the several other judges involved in the case have any such "ties"
  • The story of April Gallop rescuing her child on 9/11 will be retold.
  • The story of April Gallop suing for, and being awarded, compensation from airlines will not be retold.
  • The article will be long, rambling, and poorly organized.
  • The "alternative media" will publish the article verbatim.
  • The "alternative media" will not fact-check or verify the article in any way.
  • The "alternative media" will not edit the article for length, or correct any spelling/grammar errors, of which there will be at least two.
  • The article will include requests for donations.
 
Triterope said:
I hereby make the following prediction:
  • An article with a headline to the effect of "9-11 Truth once again denied at the hands of bought and paid for Bush judges" will circulate through the Internet.
    ...
Click to expand...

You left out: "The Truthers will continue to demand an Independent Investigation by some as to be named body "with no government influence".
 
LSSBB said:
You left out: "The Truthers will continue to demand an Independent Investigation by some as to be named body "with no government influence".
Click to expand...

Don't forget ..................."with subpoena power".
Click to expand...

Nah, I think fresh off a $15,000+ legal smackdown they'll be more concerned with licking their wounds than resuming the good fight.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
OMG. Talk about a smackdown.

Lash, have you ever seen a writeup be that blunt before? Even from my layman's perspective, I get the sense that the language is a lot more direct than usual.
Click to expand...


It is a lot more direct and blunt than what is usually written in reasons for judgment, yes. I've seen some pretty strong smackdowns before, but they are usually couched in softer language, even when the message is a complete smackdown. This one would probably make my top 10 list insofar as bluntness goes, and it was well deserved.
 
LashL said:
It is a lot more direct and blunt than what is usually written in reasons for judgment, yes. I've seen some pretty strong smackdowns before, but they are usually couched in softer language, even when the message is a complete smackdown. This one would probably make my top 10 list insofar as bluntness goes, and it was well deserved.
Click to expand...


That's the nasty edge that Kangaroo courts have. I saw it first hand in New Haven.
 
Clayton Moore said:
That's the nasty edge that Kangaroo courts have. I saw it first hand in New Haven.
Click to expand...


It's not a kangaroo court, and the judges are perfectly entitled to deliver such a smackdown (even more strongly worded, if they choose) to idiots who persist in being idiots while wasting the court's time and resources and wasting the defendants' time and resources.
 
LashL said:
It's not a kangaroo court, and the judges are perfectly entitled to deliver such a smackdown (even more strongly worded, if they choose) to idiots who persist in being idiots while wasting the court's time and resources and wasting the defendants' time and resources.
Click to expand...

Were you there at New Haven? If not, you don't know squat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom