• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

Clayton Moore said:
Fishing expedition? So what?
Click to expand...

If the plaintiffs don't have sufficient evidence to support their claim and are hoping that they can haul lots of people up to provide their evidence for them it is called an abuse of process.

Why should defendants submit to a what amounts to a process that is lengthy, and costly (and given Ms. Gallop's stated financial state her lawyers will probably ask that the defence bear the costs) process when there is no evidence that civil liability would attach to them?

You are able to sue anyone you wish in court, but without at least some evidence to back up your claim it'll be thrown out PDQ.
 
NoahFence said:
Were you?
Click to expand...
I believe he said he was. That proves he doesn't know squat.

What "truthers" understand about law goes hand in hand with what they know about.....................well.....................anything. Hell, they believe they're a movement.


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I believe he said he was. That proves he doesn't know squat.

What "truthers" understand about law goes hand in hand with what they know about.....................well.....................anything. Hell, they believe they're a movement.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
These recent stages of the ongoing Gallop saga have been simple straight forward matters of lawyers doing wrong things with the court processes and getting into disciplinary trouble for their misconduct. For the last several rounds it has been pure legal process matters. Nothing to do with 9/11 matters which were the initiating causes of claims. And the legal system works like that - clear separation of issues.

BUT if we go back to the initiating claims which were 9/11 related it is interesting to see how truther 9/11 delusions don't count for anything in a court of law.

There are two other threads which recently saw a lot of activity and emphasise the problem that, away from Internet forums, truther delusions don't carry much impact. Those other threads are "So there was melted steel" and "No evidence that AQ/OBL were behind CD of WTC".

At the core of both topics was the idea that a truther wanted to put OBL and Al Quaeda on trial for "mass murder"

The truther who started the idea simply could not/would not comprehend that:
A) Truther delusions expressed in the usual truther style of predetermined outcomes, partial truths, uncompleted logic, lies and innuendo simply would not survive in the cold bloodedly objective setting of a court hearing; AND
B) None of the truther heroes (Gage et al) would qualify as "experts" in the same objectively cold blooded court setting.

All three threads show the big disconnect between truther delusions and real world reality. And the legal setting of a court probably the best way to expose that disconnect from reality.

If they cannot put a case forward in a real court (this thread) or a pretend or "Moot Court" setting (the other two threads) what chance they will put anything of impact if they get a "new investigation". Answers near zero will pass. :)

The lawyers allegedly acting for Gallop seem to have been caught up in the same self delusions we see here with a number of truthers/trolls. Some lawyers. :(
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Were you there at New Haven? If not, you don't know squat.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

Unlike you, I'm actually a real, live, practicing trial lawyer/civil litigator in the real world. As such, I know a thing or two about the law and how courts work, and I am pretty darned good at analyzing and assessing a case's strengths and weaknesses. Ms. Gallop's case was destined to fail from the start because it was egregiously badly drafted, egregiously badly presented, did not understand or appreciate the applicable law, did not conform to the rules of pleadings, etc., from the outset. As it continued, it only got worse, with Ms. Gallop and her lawyers and a few other truthers adding to the mess that it was already was, and making it even worse for themselves from a legal perspective.

Just like Kevin Ryan's lawsuit; just like Willie Rodriguez's lawsuit; just like Judy Wood's lawsuits; just like Morgan Reynolds' lawsuit; just like NYCCAN's ballot initiative. I called them all, and I was right every time. So, yeah, I think I know a thing or two. (You can find threads here about those other cases as well, if you're so inclined.)
 
ozeco41 said:
These recent stages of the ongoing Gallop saga have been simple straight forward matters of lawyers doing wrong things with the court processes and getting into disciplinary trouble for their misconduct. For the last several rounds it has been pure legal process matters. Nothing to do with 9/11 matters which were the initiating causes of claims. And the legal system works like that - clear separation of issues.
Click to expand...


Indeed. And when not one of a trio of lawyers can manage to even understand the basics of pleading requirements or the basics of procedural requirements - let alone comply with them - the case is doomed from the outset.


ozeco41 said:
The lawyers allegedly acting for Gallop seem to have been caught up in the same self delusions we see here with a number of truthers/trolls. Some lawyers. :(
Click to expand...


Yes. It's unfortunate, indeed. Every profession - and lawyers are no exception - is bound to have a small proportion of its members succumb to mental illness and/or self-delusion, so it's not surprising that there are a handful of 'truthers' in the mix. Sad, but not surprising.
 
LashL said:
:rolleyes:

Unlike you, I'm actually a real, live, practicing trial lawyer/civil litigator in the real world. As such, I know a thing or two about the law and how courts work, and I am pretty darned good at analyzing and assessing a case's strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Your expertise/experience are "overkill" - except for dealing with stupid comments in this thread. Even this Aussie engineer who late in life did a law degree but never practiced could read the realities as the court cases progressed.
LashL said:
Indeed. And when not one of a trio of lawyers can manage to even understand the basics of pleading requirements or the basics of procedural requirements - let alone comply with them - the case is doomed from the outset....
Click to expand...
That's the part I find hard to accept - "not one in a trio". Did two let the one run with it then try to help him out when it was far too late? The horse changing in midstream from Veale to Cunningham could indicate such a scenario.
LashL said:
Yes. It's unfortunate, indeed. Every profession - and lawyers are no exception - is bound to have a small proportion of its members succumb to mental illness and/or self-delusion, so it's not surprising that there are a handful of 'truthers' in the mix. Sad, but not surprising.
Click to expand...
I haven't met a real truther face to face - unlikely in Australia given the usual national psyche. I would be interested in a face to face with an engineering truther - just to see how the mental disconnects could operate.
 
LashL said:
:rolleyes:

Unlike you, I'm actually a real, live, practicing trial lawyer/civil litigator in the real world. As such, I know a thing or two about the law and how courts work, and I am pretty darned good at analyzing and assessing a case's strengths and weaknesses. Ms. Gallop's case was destined to fail from the start because it was egregiously badly drafted, egregiously badly presented, did not understand or appreciate the applicable law, did not conform to the rules of pleadings, etc., from the outset. As it continued, it only got worse, with Ms. Gallop and her lawyers and a few other truthers adding to the mess that it was already was, and making it even worse for themselves from a legal perspective.

Just like Kevin Ryan's lawsuit; just like Willie Rodriguez's lawsuit; just like Judy Wood's lawsuits; just like Morgan Reynolds' lawsuit; just like NYCCAN's ballot initiative. I called them all, and I was right every time. So, yeah, I think I know a thing or two. (You can find threads here about those other cases as well, if you're so inclined.)
Click to expand...

..
 

Attachments

  • you_just_got_pwned.jpg
    you_just_got_pwned.jpg
    33.2 KB · Views: 6
ozeco41 said:
I haven't met a real truther face to face - unlikely in Australia given the usual national psyche. I would be interested in a face to face with an engineering truther - just to see how the mental disconnects could operate.
Click to expand...

I only know one personally in AU, whom is a friend who follows a few conspiracies. Thou he is a history major and not an engineer.
 
LashL said:
...Ms. Gallop's case was destined to fail from the start because it was egregiously badly drafted, egregiously badly presented, did not understand or appreciate the applicable law, did not conform to the rules of pleadings, etc., from the outset. As it continued, it only got worse, with Ms. Gallop and her lawyers and a few other truthers adding to the mess that it was already was, and making it even worse for themselves from a legal perspective.
Click to expand...

Other than that, it was great!
 
LashL said:
:rolleyes:

Unlike you, I'm actually a real, live, practicing trial lawyer/civil litigator in the real world. As such, I know a thing or two about the law and how courts work, and I am pretty darned good at analyzing and assessing a case's strengths and weaknesses. Ms. Gallop's case was destined to fail from the start because it was egregiously badly drafted, egregiously badly presented, did not understand or appreciate the applicable law, did not conform to the rules of pleadings, etc., from the outset. As it continued, it only got worse, with Ms. Gallop and her lawyers and a few other truthers adding to the mess that it was already was, and making it even worse for themselves from a legal perspective.

Just like Kevin Ryan's lawsuit; just like Willie Rodriguez's lawsuit; just like Judy Wood's lawsuits; just like Morgan Reynolds' lawsuit; just like NYCCAN's ballot initiative. I called them all, and I was right every time. So, yeah, I think I know a thing or two. (You can find threads here about those other cases as well, if you're so inclined.)
Click to expand...

Obviously a Bush Lawyer.
 
LashL said:
Indeed. And when not one of a trio of lawyers can manage to even understand the basics of pleading requirements or the basics of procedural requirements - let alone comply with them - the case is doomed from the outset.

Yes. It's unfortunate, indeed. Every profession - and lawyers are no exception - is bound to have a small proportion of its members succumb to mental illness and/or self-delusion, so it's not surprising that there are a handful of 'truthers' in the mix. Sad, but not surprising.
Click to expand...

But as of yet, they have not made themselves publicly visible unlike in my profession with the AE nutjobs.
 
ozeco41 said:
That's the part I find hard to accept - "not one in a trio". Did two let the one run with it then try to help him out when it was far too late? The horse changing in midstream from Veale to Cunningham could indicate such a scenario.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure, although I recall that all three of them had their names on the pleadings going back to when the matter was in the lower court (at least as far back as when they were responding to the defendants' motion to dismiss in the summer of 2009), and I recall mentioning that when the e-mail address that your lawyer puts on a court filing ends with "@gmail.com", you should be worried, and when you have three lawyers listed on your court filings and all three of them list e-mail addresses that end with "@gmail.com", you should be very, very worried. ;)

Nonetheless, it really does appear that Veale was the 'leader' of the bunch until the proverbial feces collided with the proverbial oscillating device, at which time Cunningham stepped up to try to deflect some of the inevitable mess from spattering on Veale.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom