Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

[ozeco41]

Thanks for the update.

Your prognosis of "no defendants costs claim" seems reasonable to me. The sort of decision a public sector agency would take - i.e. defendants cut losses so as to not give plaintiffs/appellants excuse for further nonsense.

 

[LashL]

Thanks for the update.

My pleasure.

Your prognosis of "no defendants costs claim" seems reasonable to me. The sort of decision a public sector agency would take - i.e. defendants cut losses so as to not give plaintiffs/appellants excuse for further nonsense.

Especially since they've now received $15k in any event. They may very well feel that that's good enough and prefer to close off the opportunity for further frivolity by Gallop and her lawyers.

 

[ozeco41]

...Especially since they've now received $15k in any event. They may very well feel that that's good enough and prefer to close off the opportunity for further frivolity by Gallop and her lawyers.

As a former public servant at the relevant levels it is the course I would tend to favour.

 

[pgimeno]

Thanks LashL for the update.

Both links you posted are broken, but I assume they were these:

https://sites.google.com/site/legal...renon-receiptofpayment.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

https://sites.google.com/site/legal...repaymentfromVealerecd.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

It's one of the best tools available to discourage frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.

I agree. Maybe they have mercy this time. Anyway I think the $15,000 and the menace of double costs should be discouraging enough in this case.

I'm looking forward to see what the court decides about these responses.

 

[LashL]

Thanks LashL for the update.

My pleasure.

Both links you posted are broken, but I assume they were these:

https://sites.google.com/site/legal...renon-receiptofpayment.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

https://sites.google.com/site/legal...repaymentfromVealerecd.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

Thank you, pgimeno. Those are, indeed, the documents. My apologies for the broken links.

Maybe they have mercy this time. Anyway I think the $15,000 and the menace of double costs should be discouraging enough in this case.

I agree.

I'm looking forward to see what the court decides about these responses.

Me, too.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It's one of the best tools available to discourage frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.

Which is not the case here. It's just a warning by the neocons to anyone who dares appeal to the US Courts to press for the truth of 9/11.

 

[TSR]

Which is not the case here. It's just a warning by the neocons to anyone who dares appeal to the US Courts to press for the truth of 9/11.

.
Which truth is that -- that a plane did or did not hit the Pentagon? You know she's said both, and tried to collect on both, right?
.

 

[ozeco41]

Which is not the case here. It's just a warning by the neocons to anyone who dares appeal to the US Courts to press for the truth of 9/11.

.
Which truth is that -- that a plane did or did not hit the Pentagon? You know she's said both, and tried to collect on both, right?
.

..and these recent decisions have nothing to do with the specific facts of Gallop's claim - either way.

They are about legal penalties which the lawyers brought on them selves by their misconduct.


And, speaking of lawyers:

Three people, a friendly lawyer, an honest politician and Santa Claus, are walking through a hotel foyer when they sight a $100 bill lying on the floor.
Who picks up the $100?

 

[Oystein]

...
And, speaking of lawyers:

Three people, a friendly lawyer, an honest politician and Santa Claus, are walking through a hotel foyer when they sight a $100 bill lying on the floor.

Who picks up the $100?

That one's easy

 

[ozeco41]

That one's easy

Then put a Christmas caption to this picture:

 

[Oystein]

Then put a Christmas caption to this picture:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webstuff/hhh.jpg[/qimg]

I give up

 

[DGM]

Then put a Christmas caption to this picture:
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webstuff/hhh.jpg[/qimg]

I give up

Ho, Ho, Ho.

 

[Triterope]

Which is not the case here. It's just a warning by the neocons to anyone who dares appeal to the US Courts to press for the truth of 9/11.

And what's the implied threat if they do? That their arguments will be formally denied, they'll be fined a few thousand dollars, and people on the internet will laugh at them?

 

[jaydeehess]

..and these recent decisions have nothing to do with the specific facts of Gallop's claim - either way.

They are about legal penalties which the lawyers brought on them selves by their misconduct.




And, speaking of lawyers:

Three people, a friendly lawyer, an honest politician and Santa Claus, are walking through a hotel foyer when they sight a $100 bill lying on the floor.

Who picks up the $100?

None of them. They are all fictitious characters.

 

[ozeco41]

None of them. They are all fictitious characters.

Spoil sport. The approved answer is "Santa Claus - because the other two are fictitious characters."

 

[rwguinn]

Spoil sport. The approved answer is "Santa Claus - because the other two are fictitious characters."

Not quite--The definition of an Honest Politician is "One who STAYS bought"...

 

[oody]

While googling around, I stumbled across a blog written for a few years by Gallop attorney William Veale. Apparently he made some attempt to run for Dianne Feinstein's seat in the U.S. Senate.

excerpt: "My name is Bill Veale. I have decided to run for the United States Senate, and I am seeking your support. After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government.
[...]
[because] Senator Dianne Feinstein’s response to my entreaties has demonstrated ignorance, or apathy, or complicity, I have decided to give the people of the State of California the choice to elect a leader who thinks their government has betrayed them in the most unspeakable manner [...]"


vealetruth.com

 

[SpitfireIX]

While googling around, I stumbled across a blog written for a few years by Gallop attorney William Veale. Apparently he made some attempt to run for Dianne Feinstein's seat in the U.S. Senate.

excerpt: "My name is Bill Veale. I have decided to run for the United States Senate, and I am seeking your support. After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government.
[...]
[because] Senator Dianne Feinstein’s response to my entreaties has demonstrated ignorance, or apathy, or complicity, I have decided to give the people of the State of California the choice to elect a leader who thinks their government has betrayed them in the most unspeakable manner [...]"


vealetruth.com

This sounds a lot like the garbage that got him sanctioned: "Any official who doesn't agree with me is either in on it or is unable to face the awful truth."

 

[Scott Sommers]

And here he is in all his glory.

 

[WildCat]

I agree. Maybe they have mercy this time. Anyway I think the $15,000 and the menace of double costs should be discouraging enough in this case.

I don't think fines can cure mental illness.