Those claims/statements put to the court which go to matters of fact about 9/11 as distinct from the matters of law involved in the first instance hearing and subsequent appeal processes. I was not implying that they are true facts.
Well, if a truther could ever make it past the pleadings stage, then they would move on to discoveries (depositions) and I imagine that the defendants would then bring a successful motion for summary judgment and the action would be dismissed at that stage.
However, if a truther ever did make it past pleadings and discoveries and on to a pretrial and trial, then the trial would be conducted just like any other trial. The plaintiff would call his/her witnesses, who would be cross-examined by the defendants' lawyers, and then at the close of the plaintiff's case, I imagine that the defence would bring a successful motion for non-suit/directed verdict. I really can't see any way that a truther's allegations of a vast conspiracy by government officials would ever make it to consideration by a judge/jury.
Going back to this action, it must be recalled that Gallop alleged in her complaint very little in the way of properly pleaded "facts":
what she experienced first hand- she didn't personally see a plane or wreckage
- some gov't officials ignored warnings
- fighter jets had time to intercept but failed to do so
She did try to get a whole lot of crap introduced by way of affidavits in response to the motion to dismiss, but it must be recalled that affidavits submitted on a motion to dismiss do not correct a deficient pleading. This is according to a long line of well established law, so the affidavit material could not and was correctly not considered.
Further, her claims were for a violation of her constitutional rights; conspiracy to cause death and great bodily harm; and a claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act for treble damages and lawyer's fees for being a U.S. national injured by an act of "international terrorism" (while failing to note that government officials are specifically exempt from having such claims brought against them pursuant to the provisions of that very Act). None of the "facts" she pleaded came even remotely close to being able to entitle her to the relief sought.
Could the judge punish him for his conduct? I mean, above and beyond sanctions?
I mean, if I walked into a court and told the judge that, it would most likely be thrown in jail. What can be done to this jackass lawyer?
I don't think the court will do anything beyond imposing further sanctions.
That said, I am genuinely amazed that these guys have the audacity to have written that petition for rehearing as they have. They are not only being blatantly insulting to the judicial panel and over the top with their rhetoric, but they're still trying to introduce inadmissible evidence after they've been told in no uncertain terms that it won't be considered, in accordance with the law. Further, it's silly to keep claiming that the District Court erred in not permitting Gallop to amend her complaint when they didn't even ask on her behalf to be permitted to do so. There's a long line of cases that says quite clearly that - to paraphrase - a court cannot be criticized as being in error for failing to grant a request that was never made.
ETA: I'm just reading through the petition for rehearing again, and I'm starting to think that it might, indeed, rise to the level of being contemptuous.
