Where are the TORT liars (lawyers) of 911

Where is the UNITED states Bar ASSociation when it comes to 911?

From-- Reference.com


tort - Reference Center
Tort, in law, the violation of some duty clearly set by law, not by a specific agreement between two parties, as in breach of contract. When such a duty is breached, the injured party has the right to institute suit for compensatory damages. Certain...more

News | Images | Videos

Where did you come from? Somebody nailed your head on properly when you were young.

I know in Canada there are restrictions on the sort of situation under which the government may be sued. That includes institutions such as police departments etc.

Suing the US Air Force for example, for impersonation of the Keystone Kops on 9/11 might not be possible due to exemptions from tort law. Airlines have been sued but not air forces.

The whole area of the response to 9/11 in the courts and the legal labyrinth surrounding 9/11 is fascinating. Abu Graib, Guantanamo, the secret trial of Moussaouai, the immunity of Saudi Arabia from lawsuits due to the refusal of the Bush administration to declare it a sponsor of terrorism, the refusal to demand the extradition of General Ahmad of Pakistan's ISI, the thwarting of the FBI investigations prior to 9/11, etc., etc.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Sweet.
Yeah pop used carpet tacks with a framing hammer.
I have the follow up post coming . Are you A Canadian solicitor?

reply to post by Donny 4 million


This is an attempt to attract members of the American Bar Association. Ones that participate on these ATS threads, to comment on the lack of Judicial oppertunity to make billions in law suits.
The 911 matters are a little more important than a cup of hot coffee stupidly spilled in ones crotch IMO.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

Are you A Canadian solicitor?

Believe it or not I was accepted to two law schools, largely based on my LSAT results and a couple of good recommendations from profs, but I didn't go for personal reasons.

There was a conference back in '07 or '06 I believe at which the ground work for legal action in the 9/11 arena was being put together. I saw a video presentation of it on the web. Nothing seems to have come of it though.

That's one of the biggest problems of the truth movement. Not one prosecution for anything. No watchdog activity and no one watching the watchdogs. 9/11 is a weird, weird story.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by ipsedixit]

Here's your best bet:

lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com...


Let usknow how it goes.

reply to post by ipsedixit


As you say, it is very interesting. The lack of any meaningful action in the courts is quite mysterious.
You would think that the Bar would be as active as, a recently disturbed beehive.
Do you think the Bar has become impotent instead of important?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Here's your best bet:

lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com...


Let usknow how it goes.

If this is the best they can muster, it's sad.
Thirty five lawyers of various degree.
Eleven from foreign countries.
Oh yeah, and they wrote a letter signed by four of them.
I would say all tolled---about as potent as a half glass of spilt water.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


I'm not saying that you're right or wrong because I'm not sure what point you are trying to get at. There are plenty of civli litigators (tort lawyers) on both sides, right now. Please, explain a bit more.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

This is an attempt to attract members of the American Bar Association. Ones that participate on these ATS threads, to comment on the lack of Judicial oppertunity to make billions in law suits.
The 911 matters are a little more important than a cup of hot coffee stupidly spilled in ones crotch IMO.

I think I understand what you mean, now. Well, I have a good friend who is a Port Authority Police Officer (for those who don't know, the Twin Towers were on Port Authority land and thus the Port's beat). He dug down at Ground Zero for a year and a half resulting in a loss of lung function. As far as I know, most City and Port worker's with 9/11 lawsuits are being handled by the same crew of lawyers.
On another note, it is illegal for lawyers to solicit people. I'm really not sure how many lawsuits are pending for 9/11 but they could take years and years to get to an outcome.
Do you have any data on how many 9/11 lawsuits are pending? As far as I know there are quite a few.

Originally posted by really

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

This is an attempt to attract members of the American Bar Association. Ones that participate on these ATS threads, to comment on the lack of Judicial oppertunity to make billions in law suits.
The 911 matters are a little more important than a cup of hot coffee stupidly spilled in ones crotch IMO.

I think I understand what you mean, now. Well, I have a good friend who is a Port Authority Police Officer (for those who don't know, the Twin Towers were on Port Authority land and thus the Port's beat). He dug down at Ground Zero for a year and a half resulting in a loss of lung function. As far as I know, most City and Port worker's with 9/11 lawsuits are being handled by the same crew of lawyers.
On another note, it is illegal for lawyers to solicit people. I'm really not sure how many lawsuits are pending for 9/11 but they could take years and years to get to an outcome.
Do you have any data on how many 9/11 lawsuits are pending? As far as I know there are quite a few.

Give my regards to your valiant friend. I think we Veterans of Foreign Wars embrace those guys as Brothers.
I guess I could have thought of a better title for the thread.
Illegal, for a lawyer? Huuum!
They can now solicit as you see in advertisements.
My goal with the thread is to bring front and center the lack of pending lawsuits. Just my opinion.
If you and others know of any please post them and let's talk.
So far, I see every attempt at Jurisprudence thwarted.

reply to post by really


Here is one fairly recently squashed,

From the New York Times

www.nytimes.com... Justice Dept. Backs Saudi Royal Family on 9/11 Lawsuit
by ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: May 29, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is supporting efforts by the Saudi royal family to defeat a long-running lawsuit seeking to hold it liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attac

The Justice Department, in a brief filed Friday before the Supreme Court, said it did not believe the Saudis could be sued in American court over accusations brought by families of the Sept. 11 victims that the royal family had helped finance Al Qaeda. The department said it saw no need for the court to review lower court rulings that found in the Saudis’ favor in throwing out the lawsuit.

The government’s position comes less than a week before President Obama is scheduled to meet in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah as part of a trip to the Middle East and Europe intended to reach out to the Muslim world.

Lawyers for the Saudi family said that they were heartened by the department’s brief and that it served to strengthen their hand before the court, which has not decided whether to hear the case.

But family members of several Sept. 11 victims said they were deeply disappointed and questioned whether the decision was made to appease an important ally in the Middle East. The Saudis have aggressively lobbied both the Bush and Obama administrations to have the lawsuit dismissed, government officials say.

“I find this reprehensible,” said Kristen Breitweiser, a leader of the Sept. 11 families, whose husband was killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center. “One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.”

ks.

A huge problem any lawyer would face trying to sue somebody for 911 is getting an enforceable judgment. As other posters pointed out, some potentially culpable parties like the US government are immune from suit. It would be nearly impossible to enforce a judgment against other parties like Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaida, so trying to sue them would be pointless.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
A huge problem any lawyer would face trying to sue somebody for 911 is getting an enforceable judgment. As other posters pointed out, some potentially culpable parties like the US government are immune from suit. It would be nearly impossible to enforce a judgment against other parties like Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaida, so trying to sue them would be pointless.

A Judgment has been rendered.

Con Edison vs Port Authority.
Judge Hellerstein-- the same guy that seems to have denied individuals the right to pursue lawsuits.
Negligent Construction Contributed to WTC 7 Collapse.
One out of four counts awarded.
Although no triumph for 911----- a small chink in the wall?



[edit on 27-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

You would think that the Bar would be as active as, a recently disturbed beehive.
Do you think the Bar has become impotent instead of important?

Sorry. Didn't see this post.

That's a good question. I'd have to look into it though. I suspect that the "bar" would only take an interest in cases that came to trial. I'm not sure how they responded to aspects of the Moussaoui trial or to the goings on in the military tribunals out of Guantanamo. Only so much time in the day, sadly.