• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied

LashL said:
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. ;) ...
Click to expand...
I was not tracking the issue at that stage - my primary interest in 9/11 being engineering of WTC collapses. My legal interest has usually been triggered by discussions on another forum and the Gay Marriage issues - principly CA initiatives set against the US scene in general and comparisons to UK. I am slowly learning something of US constitutional law and the Fed v State interactions. Back on this topic the "*@gmail.com" times three something I did not know but it should be a loud alarm bell.
LashL said:
...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.
Click to expand...
That is my reading too. A bit of altruistic "sets share the agro" which the judges would see right through but no need for them to comment or act.

So they gave him, Cunningham, standing to appear so they could slap him down.
 
Horatius said:
Even worse, she's one of those sneaky Canadian Bush Lawyers!
Click to expand...
.
The problem is, she looks like Kinnie Starr which distracts the defendants because they're thinking about what kind of briefs she's using that day.

The joke's on them -- she's not wea...




Ummm. I'll be in my trailer...
.
 
I've been pretty busy lately and haven't had time to check on the ongoing saga of Gallop's frivolous lawsuits recently, but then thought to do so tonight and found that Dennis Cunningham filed his "mea culpa, sorta kinda, but it's still a huge freaking government conspiracy and why on earth can't you see that?" sort of response to the Appeal Court's Order to Show Cause. Back on October 14, the court gave Cunningham 30 days to file his response to the order and his "mea culpa sorta kinda" was filed on November 14. No other documents have been filed since, and I'm going on vacation later this week, so I'll take a peek back after Christmas to see what the court decides on the Cunningham show cause matter.

But whining to the court that they got it all wrong and trying to regurgitate the same crap that got you sanctioned in the first place is unlikely to win the hearts and minds of the court.

As an aside, the time for Gallop to appeal the dismissal of her frivolous lawsuit by the Appeal Court is running out; two more days, I believe. Tick tock, tick tock.

Lastly, I'm having some weird computer issues that prevent me from uploading the document to my Legaltainment™ site (and that prevent me from uploading images and such to here, even) so I've uploaded this document to scribd.com for now instead, so that at least it can be retrieved and read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75405134/162-Resp-to-SC-3

Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, LashL. :)

So Dennis Cunningham is basically saying, "sorry, but nuh-uh. You think those are frivolous claims? You ain't seen nothing yet":

He claims there were warnings of hijackers, so he's LIHOP.
Then he claims controlled demolition and changes to MIHOP.
He claims a stand-down in which they were told not to shoot a plane, but then claims there was no plane at the Pentagon.

Totally, barking mad and throwing crap at all the asylum walls.
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
Thanks, LashL. :)

So Dennis Cunningham is basically saying, "sorry, but nuh-uh. You think those are frivolous claims? You ain't seen nothing yet":

He claims there were warnings of hijackers, so he's LIHOP.
Then he claims controlled demolition and changes to MIHOP.
He claims a stand-down in which they were told not to shoot a plane, but then claims there was no plane at the Pentagon.

Totally, barking mad and throwing crap all the asylum walls.
Click to expand...

Amazing.
Cunningham said:
FAA flight controllers in Boston and elsewhere gave timely notice to military authorities that the four airliners were out of contact and possibly hijacked. According to normal protocol and practice USAF-NORAD jets would have been readily able to intercept all four planes, but launchings were inexplicably delayed and misdirected, and three of the planes got through to their targets.
Click to expand...
Yet
Cunningham said:
The evidence of one's own eyes also proves that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon, as claimed by authorities (and conspirators) in the aftermath of the bombing in which the plaintiff and her childwere injured. In view of the plain evidence, photographic and physical, and the telling, wholly implausible lack of such evidence supporting the official version,the withholding of 85 Pentagon surveillance videotapes, and the first-handtestimony of the plaintiff and numerous others, the claim that no airliner hit is certainly far from conclusory. It is entitled to be taken as true.
Click to expand...
Amazing!


Is this normal practice in legal defence to try to introduce claims for A AND NOT A at the the same time? Hoping that something will stick?
 
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...

Like I said, if you weren't at New Haven, you don't know squat.

And what was that Shakespeare quote?
 
Orphia Nay said:
Thanks, LashL. :)

So Dennis Cunningham is basically saying, "sorry, but nuh-uh. You think those are frivolous claims? You ain't seen nothing yet":

He claims there were warnings of hijackers, so he's LIHOP.
Then he claims controlled demolition and changes to MIHOP.
Click to expand...

The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Like I said, if you weren't at New Haven, you don't know squat.

And what was that Shakespeare quote?
Click to expand...

Thou Doth protest too much? Yes, your bunch of Truther friends certainly do.

And you also realize that everything that happened, we've been able to view the filings on? You also realize that this is PUBLIC information?

Yeah, better to quit while you're ahead.....Oh, wait, nevermind.......
 
triforcharity said:
Thou Doth protest too much? Yes, your bunch of Truther friends certainly do.

And you also realize that everything that happened, we've been able to view the filings on? You also realize that this is PUBLIC information?

Yeah, better to quit while you're ahead.....Oh, wait, nevermind.......
Click to expand...

You don't understand, tri, you had to be there to see the look of abject failure on the Truthers faces.
 
I would have LOVED to be there. I think I would have needed to excuse myself from the courtroom so as to not interrupt with my laughter!!
 
LSSBB said:
You don't understand, tri, you had to be there to see the look of abject failure on the Truthers faces.
Click to expand...
Would that be the look when they realized the judge wasn't going to look at the 27 8x10 color glossies with the circles and the squares and the arrows.................?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Like I said, if you weren't at New Haven, you don't know squat.
Click to expand...


You can have it that way if you like, but since I know more than you do, that would put you in rather a poor position.


Clayton Moore said:
And what was that Shakespeare quote?
Click to expand...


This one springs to mind:

"Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
Where most it promises; and oft it hits
Where hope is coldest, and despair most fits."

Is that the one you were thinking of?

Or perhaps it was this one:

"What's here? the portrait of a blinking idiot,
Presenting me a schedule! I will read it.
How much unlike art thou to Portia!
How much unlike my hopes and my deservings!
'Who chooseth me shall have as much as he deserves'
Did I deserve no more than a fool's head?
Is that my prize? Are my deserts no better?"

Is that the one you were thinking of?
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
You can have it that way if you like, but since I know more than you do, that would put you in rather a poor position.





This one springs to mind:

"Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
Where most it promises; and oft it hits
Where hope is coldest, and despair most fits."

Is that the one you were thinking of?

Or perhaps it was this one:

"What's here? the portrait of a blinking idiot,
Presenting me a schedule! I will read it.
How much unlike art thou to Portia!
How much unlike my hopes and my deservings!
"Who chooseth me shall have as much as he deserves"!
Did I deserve no more than a fool's head?
Is that my prize? Are my deserts no better?"

Is that the one you were thinking of?
Click to expand...


:clap::clap::clap:
 
Monkey Trial With a Kangaroo Judge

Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
 
beijingyank said:
Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
Click to expand...

The case was dismissed by a different judge. The judge you're thinking of (not GWB's cousin) was one of three judges who dismissed the appeal. Try checking your facts before accusing people of infanticide. :oldroll:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Would that be the look when they realized the judge wasn't going to look at the 27 8x10 color glossies with the circles and the squares and the arrows.................?
Click to expand...

The judge was barred from viewing any photographs, as they can't be used in a court of law. He or she would have had to be there in person to "investigate" it because photos are poor representatives of what they contain.

:boxedin:
 
beijingyank said:
Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the cousin of George Bush (the father) and none of that matters for two reasons.

1-George Bush (the son) was not named in the lawsuit
2-It was not required by law.

Cheers!
 
beijingyank said:
Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
Click to expand...

No, he was a cousin of George H.W. Bush, and as er court rule was too far removed from George W. to recuse himself.....besides the fact that GEorge W was not a name individual in the lawsuit.

Once again. troofers fail to get the the simplest of the facts correct.
Troofers fail again....<YAWN>
 
*Snort* As if a cousin of the Bushes was the reason the lawsuit was illogically written to begin with, and the reason the appeals have been nothing more than attempts to re-argue self contradicting 9/11 conspiracy talking points rather than deal with the fact the lawyers are getting dinged for procedural problems as well as substantive ones.

And as if that judge was the reason took money for the jet hitting the Pentagon, then tried to sue saying the jet never hit the Pentagon. Remember, folks: That's what the whole case ends up summing up to.

In short, the judge wasn't the reason the lawyers are committing malpractice to the point of being fined and possibly censured, nor was he the reason that their client actually is contradicting herself. Those failures are on the part of the lawyers, and exist independent of whatever judge is on the case.
 
LashL said:
I've been pretty busy lately and haven't had time to check on the ongoing saga of Gallop's frivolous lawsuits recently, but then thought to do so tonight and found that Dennis Cunningham filed his "mea culpa, sorta kinda, but it's still a huge freaking government conspiracy and why on earth can't you see that?" sort of response to the Appeal Court's Order to Show Cause. Back on October 14, the court gave Cunningham 30 days to file his response to the order and his "mea culpa sorta kinda" was filed on November 14. No other documents have been filed since, and I'm going on vacation later this week, so I'll take a peek back after Christmas to see what the court decides on the Cunningham show cause matter.

But whining to the court that they got it all wrong and trying to regurgitate the same crap that got you sanctioned in the first place is unlikely to win the hearts and minds of the court.

As an aside, the time for Gallop to appeal the dismissal of her frivolous lawsuit by the Appeal Court is running out; two more days, I believe. Tick tock, tick tock.

Lastly, I'm having some weird computer issues that prevent me from uploading the document to my Legaltainment™ site (and that prevent me from uploading images and such to here, even) so I've uploaded this document to scribd.com for now instead, so that at least it can be retrieved and read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75405134/162-Resp-to-SC-3

Enjoy.
Click to expand...


Just got around to reading this. Note 1, p.4:

However, a respected 1999 book by a World War II veteran, Robert Stinnett, provided abundant well-documented detail showing that President Roosevelt put in place an eight point plan to provoke the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, and to leave Pearl Harbor undefended, and that the purpose was to provide the motivation for the U.S. to declare war on Japan, and because of Japan’s mutual defense pact with Germany, to justify our getting into the war in Europe to stop Hitler, which otherwise the American people would not support. For many years, almost any American would have considered someone accusing Roosevelt of that betrayal a loony conspiracy theorist. [bolding mine]
Click to expand...


I suspect that as a matter of law this is all irrelevant anyway, but of course it's factually completely wrong. Here is everything anyone who's not a rabid conspiracist needs to know about Stinnett and his book.

As Gawdzilla summed up in his Amazon.com review several years ago:

Throughout Mr. Stinnett's book he gives examples of "proof" of the conspiracy, and in every case when the reader traces the material back to the source they find that he has misconstrued, misinterpreted or just plain lied about the material. If you bought this book, demand a refund. If you got it as a gift, demand an apology.
Click to expand...
 
beijingyank said:
Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
Click to expand...

Fail! :rolleyes:
 
9/11 was prepared for, set into motion, and allowed to happen by non responsive, in place, safeguards.

MIHOP annnnnd LIHOP.
 
pgimeno said:
Any update on this?
Click to expand...


I just checked PACER and no appeal has been filed. If I'm not mistaken, Gallop had 60 days to do so, and that time has now expired, and there is nothing on PACER indicating that she has filed any request for an extension of the time for appealing.

On December 15, though, this letter was filed by counsel for the defendants advising the court that the $15k in sanctions had not been paid by Veale and friends by December 13 as required by the court but that Veale had told counsel for the defendants that he'd mailed a cheque on Sunday, December 11. Then, on December 16, this letter and this declaration were filed by counsel for the defendants, advising the court that a $15k cheque from Veale was received on December 16.

So, it appears at this point that no appeal will be forthcoming. If that's the case, it's now basically just a matter of seeing what the court decides about the stupid responses to the orders to show cause that were filed by Gallop's lawyers, and that should be Legaltaining™ as well. I think there is also the matter of the defendants' lawyers filing a bill of costs, as the court ordered sanctions against Gallop's lawyers of $15k in addition to double costs, if memory serves correctly. I suppose if the defendants' lawyers don't file a bill of costs, that part of it might be moot, and I can see why they might just forego it as they are probably sick and tired of dealing with these idiots, but if I was them, I would pursue it. That said, I live in a "loser pays" jurisdiction where the general rule is "costs follow the event" so costs submissions and bills of costs are just a matter of course here. That's not the case in NY - although it should be, if you ask me. It's one of the best tools available to discourage frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom