It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

April Gallop Court Case Begins to Roll

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
and then yes, I am thankful that the US legal system, an entity completely foreign in concept and practice to tezz, will mean there is no chance at all.

In your alleged 25 year career as a DOD spook, trebor, you would have witnessed that corruption is a cancer within all forms of human control systems.

Swampfox admitted that the legal system can be manipulated by money.

Read that again if it hasn't sunk in. The legal system can be manipulated.

It doesn't matter which court, civil or criminal, the entire legal system can be manipulated, if need be.




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


No, what I said is that for corporations, many times it is less expensive to settle out of court than it is to take a case to court...even when you are in the right. Do not read anything else into the statement.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, what I said is that for corporations, many times it is less expensive to settle out of court than it is to take a case to court...even when you are in the right. Do not read anything else into the statement.

This is what you typed...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Unfortunately, thats how our legal system works anymore. A lot of times its cheaper for a corporation to pay someone off than it is to take it to court...even when you are in the right.

You've admitted that the legal system can be abused and subverted by money.

I've extended that to state that all legal systems can be manipulated by money, power, corruption, threats, lies and blackmail.

What do I base this upon? The legal system is a human construct that is designed to divide humans into classes, where the ruling class judge the slave class. Any system designed and run by humans, has corruption. Especially when the rewards for corruption far outweigh following the intended integrity of the system.

I bet that trebor, in his alleged 25 years of being a DOD spook, has seen corruption within his fellow ranks. If he hasn't personally seen it, then he would have heard stories about fellow DOD spooks being corrupt.

The legal system is evil.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Then you obviously missed the comment about 10,000 dead lawyers....or you are willfully ignoring the point I was making.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Then you obviously missed the comment about 10,000 dead lawyers....

No, I read that part as well.

Here's the hypocrisy though, which a lot of the government story believers put forth:

You, Swampfox, as a government story believer, admit that the legal system can be subverted by money and you're also stating that 10,000 dead lawyers would be welcome, more or less...

Yet, other government story believers then expect that truthers will be given a 'fair' and 'impartial' hearing in law courts and ask why they have not taken their evidence to prosecutors and district attorneys, etc...

It's false logic. Government story believers can not both admit that the legal system is sick and then claim that it is healthy enough to be impartial for truthers.

As long as one aspect (judge, lawyer, jury members, etc...) of the legal system is corrupt, then the whole system can not be trusted. That one single element of corruption might be in the very court that's hearing a case related to 9/11. This argument only gets stronger when there is more than one corrupt person within the legal system.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You're totally void of reality, arent you?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



Cut to the chase big boy. You have any evidence of 911 being an Inside Job or not? If so, I'm all ears. Just waiting to debunk you with my mass intelligence and common sense. Bring it on.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

While the anonymous 'egspurts' hide behind their keyboards, the professionals
and witnesses to this crime are hard at work. Let's hope this case goes to trial
and the media picks up the noise. Spread the word:


TF...Tino....dude....seriously. I really don't worry or care about who PfT pimps up as their "experts" - Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days. I really don't worry about the credibility of your organization when you have a lunatic like John Lear and his moon-based brain on your list of "experts". I really don't worry about your "experts" saying "Gosh! I couldn't fly a 757 like that!" when there are documented cases of casual and light-civil pilots, with nothing more than a C-172 license, climbing into a 757 sim and doing *exactly* that which your "experts" say they can't do - and the C-172 pilots do it over and over and over again.

But climbing onto this April Gallop joke of a lawsuit is simply...unbelievable, even for you PfT people. The "@gmail.com" email address of the filing lawyers notwithstanding, the errors of fact (claiming Burlingame was a "National Guard" reservist), the Gallop claims that missile batteries were "stood down" when there haven't BEEN any "missile batteries" for many, many, many years (a fact that "professionals" such as yourself should know by now) - the thing is simply rife with errors that will end up getting it thrown out in on that alone.

Why would you align yourselves with a legal vehicle that has simply so many errors and has absolutely no chance of success? Being stupid out of ignorance is one thing - being voluntarily stupid when you should know better is something totally different. I keep trying to give you PfT people the benefit of many, many doubts, but you keep lowering the stupid bar to new and heretofor unherald lows.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

No it doesnt mean that the plaintiff has a case. It means their money people have figured out how much in legal fees that the airline would have most likely ended up paying throughout the case and appeals.


Right, and the only way the legal fees are going to cost you is if the plaintiff has a case, otherwise it gets thrown out.


What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that defence attorneys work for free? If so, you have a singular lack of understanding on how the legal system works.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days


People less qualified than them.

Like you.

So lets have experts evaluate their claims in court, and utter ********** evaluate them on the net.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days


People less qualified than them.

Like you.

So lets have experts evaluate their claims in court, and utter ********** evaluate them on the net.


And you will blindly follow these "experts"?

Says a lot about gullibility and your ability (or inability, as the case may be) to think for yourself, in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Who said I blindly follow them? Who said I didn't evaluate the claims made on both sides of the fence and pick the most logical ones? Who said that I weighed the opinions of the "Truther pilots" more than the "OS pilots"?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


And you still just do not get it do you? Its not about manipulating the courts or the law. Its the fact that lawyers charge so doggone much money that a lot of time is it easier and cheaper for a company to settle out of court even when they are not liable. I did not think it was that hard a concept to understand.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Bumped because I want an answer.


Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan

While the anonymous 'egspurts' hide behind their keyboards, the professionals
and witnesses to this crime are hard at work. Let's hope this case goes to trial
and the media picks up the noise. Spread the word:


TF...Tino....dude....seriously. I really don't worry or care about who PfT pimps up as their "experts" - Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days. I really don't worry about the credibility of your organization when you have a lunatic like John Lear and his moon-based brain on your list of "experts". I really don't worry about your "experts" saying "Gosh! I couldn't fly a 757 like that!" when there are documented cases of casual and light-civil pilots, with nothing more than a C-172 license, climbing into a 757 sim and doing *exactly* that which your "experts" say they can't do - and the C-172 pilots do it over and over and over again.

But climbing onto this April Gallop joke of a lawsuit is simply...unbelievable, even for you PfT people. The "@gmail.com" email address of the filing lawyers notwithstanding, the errors of fact (claiming Burlingame was a "National Guard" reservist), the Gallop claims that missile batteries were "stood down" when there haven't BEEN any "missile batteries" for many, many, many years (a fact that "professionals" such as yourself should know by now) - the thing is simply rife with errors that will end up getting it thrown out in on that alone.

Why would you align yourselves with a legal vehicle that has simply so many errors and has absolutely no chance of success? Being stupid out of ignorance is one thing - being voluntarily stupid when you should know better is something totally different. I keep trying to give you PfT people the benefit of many, many doubts, but you keep lowering the stupid bar to new and heretofor unherald lows.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I know it is the weekend and that is probably why the CIT/PfT Team hasn't commented. I'll bump it one more time and look for an answer to my question (below) tomorrow.


Originally posted by trebor451
Bumped because I want an answer.


Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan

While the anonymous 'egspurts' hide behind their keyboards, the professionals
and witnesses to this crime are hard at work. Let's hope this case goes to trial
and the media picks up the noise. Spread the word:


TF...Tino....dude....seriously. I really don't worry or care about who PfT pimps up as their "experts" - Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days. I really don't worry about the credibility of your organization when you have a lunatic like John Lear and his moon-based brain on your list of "experts". I really don't worry about your "experts" saying "Gosh! I couldn't fly a 757 like that!" when there are documented cases of casual and light-civil pilots, with nothing more than a C-172 license, climbing into a 757 sim and doing *exactly* that which your "experts" say they can't do - and the C-172 pilots do it over and over and over again.

But climbing onto this April Gallop joke of a lawsuit is simply...unbelievable, even for you PfT people. The "@gmail.com" email address of the filing lawyers notwithstanding, the errors of fact (claiming Burlingame was a "National Guard" reservist), the Gallop claims that missile batteries were "stood down" when there haven't BEEN any "missile batteries" for many, many, many years (a fact that "professionals" such as yourself should know by now) - the thing is simply rife with errors that will end up getting it thrown out in on that alone.

Why would you align yourselves with a legal vehicle that has simply so many errors and has absolutely no chance of success? Being stupid out of ignorance is one thing - being voluntarily stupid when you should know better is something totally different. I keep trying to give you PfT people the benefit of many, many doubts, but you keep lowering the stupid bar to new and heretofor unherald lows.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by jprophet420

No it doesnt mean that the plaintiff has a case. It means their money people have figured out how much in legal fees that the airline would have most likely ended up paying throughout the case and appeals.


Right, and the only way the legal fees are going to cost you is if the plaintiff has a case, otherwise it gets thrown out.


What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that defence attorneys work for free? If so, you have a singular lack of understanding on how the legal system works.


I'm suggesting that there is such a thing as due process. Do you know what that is? It means that all evidence has to be reviewed. You can swamp defense attorneys with this for some time but thats about it. If you present a case that doesn't have enough evidence, yes it will cost money to defend but it won't get far, won't cost a mountain. If you present a case that has enough evidence to make it to a jury it will cost them more money. If you present a case that has enough evidence to make it to a jury and possibly convince them, it's sometimes easier make a payoff at that point.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that defence attorneys work for free? If so, you have a singular lack of understanding on how the legal system works.


I'm suggesting that there is such a thing as due process. Do you know what that is? It means that all evidence has to be reviewed. You can swamp defense attorneys with this for some time but thats about it. If you present a case that doesn't have enough evidence, yes it will cost money to defend but it won't get far, won't cost a mountain. If you present a case that has enough evidence to make it to a jury it will cost them more money. If you present a case that has enough evidence to make it to a jury and possibly convince them, it's sometimes easier make a payoff at that point.


I'm sorry, but that is the lamest and most confusing explanation I have seen on ATS - and there are a *LOT* of lame and confusing explanations here!



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I'm sorry you don't understand and your use of the word lame reflects said lack of understanding.

If theres anything I can do to explain it in simpler terms I can try, or I can get my lawyer to explain it later.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
My brother in law had to answer a lawsuit not long ago. In the end judge threw the case out because the plantiff basically had nothing to support them and their claim that he had not completed a job. It cost him 3500 dollars to "defend" himself, 2500 dollar retainer, 500 for pre court meetings and then 500 for the actual two hours they spent in front of a judge.

3500 dollars on a 8,000 remodeling contract....because after the lady saw what her paint/wallpaper/carpet picks looked like in combination, she decided my BIL was going to have to redo the job at his expense and he refused.

So yes, even when a lawsuit is frivolous it is going to cost you money.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Bumped one more time to point out nobody - repeat, NOBODY - from the CIT/PfT Team, even the original poster, Turbofan, could defend this hilarious piece of "legal" comedy.

I suppose if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't want to defend it either. You lie down with dogs, or in this case insanely idiotic lawsuits, what do you get up with?

The Stupid Bar...at an all time low now. No worries here, though. I have faith it will go lower yet.


Originally posted by trebor451
I know it is the weekend and that is probably why the CIT/PfT Team hasn't commented. I'll bump it one more time and look for an answer to my question (below) tomorrow.


Originally posted by trebor451
Bumped because I want an answer.


Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan

While the anonymous 'egspurts' hide behind their keyboards, the professionals
and witnesses to this crime are hard at work. Let's hope this case goes to trial
and the media picks up the noise. Spread the word:


TF...Tino....dude....seriously. I really don't worry or care about who PfT pimps up as their "experts" - Kolstad and Wittenberg and Balsamo, et al really don't do anything other than make people wonder about the quality of airline pilots these days. I really don't worry about the credibility of your organization when you have a lunatic like John Lear and his moon-based brain on your list of "experts". I really don't worry about your "experts" saying "Gosh! I couldn't fly a 757 like that!" when there are documented cases of casual and light-civil pilots, with nothing more than a C-172 license, climbing into a 757 sim and doing *exactly* that which your "experts" say they can't do - and the C-172 pilots do it over and over and over again.

But climbing onto this April Gallop joke of a lawsuit is simply...unbelievable, even for you PfT people. The "@gmail.com" email address of the filing lawyers notwithstanding, the errors of fact (claiming Burlingame was a "National Guard" reservist), the Gallop claims that missile batteries were "stood down" when there haven't BEEN any "missile batteries" for many, many, many years (a fact that "professionals" such as yourself should know by now) - the thing is simply rife with errors that will end up getting it thrown out in on that alone.

Why would you align yourselves with a legal vehicle that has simply so many errors and has absolutely no chance of success? Being stupid out of ignorance is one thing - being voluntarily stupid when you should know better is something totally different. I keep trying to give you PfT people the benefit of many, many doubts, but you keep lowering the stupid bar to new and heretofor unherald lows.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by trebor451]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join