April Gallop's case....dismissed! Whod'a thunk it?

Cut to the chase:

Judge Chin has just dismissed the Gallop case. He said that the allegations are frivolous and based on fantasy and delusion. I will attach the decision."

Let me guess, bought off by the NWO, 'them', Dick Cheney, debunkers, "pseudo skeptics" and sundry others, right? Or is it possible this whole quilt of crackpot speculation is nonsense?

Oh yes, of course, I'm a paid 'disinfo agent' (as though any 9-11 CT'er says anything worth employing full time employees in the first place).

Read it and weep (or go further down the rabbit hole) here.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Or is it possible this whole quilt of crackpot speculation is nonsense?

There was nothing nonsensical about the point in her suit which alleged that had an alarm been sounded at the Pentagon, something which they drilled for, lives would have been saved. Only people who can't seem to understand that are truly crackpots.

Oh, whoops, I guess that must mean the judge was a crackpot... What else is new?

Even if the crackpot threw out every other allegation, that allegation alone should have been pursued by the freak. Because it is true, and cost her son a serious injury, not to mention over a hundred people their lives. But what is worse is that they did not sound the alarm when they knew the plane was coming right at them. Shall I review Normal Minetta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, you know, the one that was omitted from the report so conveniently?

Oh, what's this? You forgot? Ok ok...Here we go, I shall, in the spirit of our newly rejuvinated 9/11 forum be the nice guy and go dig up the video for you:



She has every legitimate reason to sue on this point alone. No alarm, people dead. And she's lucky to be alive herself. You want to talk more about crackpots?

reply to post by TrueAmerican
It's funny how so few debunkers come around whenever Norman's testimony gets mentioned.

It's interesting that in a prior lawsuit April Gallop claimed that a jet did hit the Pentagon.

Whatever works, I guess.

See footnote #2 in the judge's decision.

Originally posted by mike dangerously
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

It's funny how so few debunkers come around whenever Norman's testimony gets mentioned.

That might have something to do with the fact that there's nothing incriminating about Norm Mineta's testimony.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Cut to the chase:

Judge Chin has just dismissed the Gallop case. He said that the allegations are frivolous and based on fantasy and delusion. I will attach the decision."

I just took a look at the text of April Gallop's case, and I can see right away how idiotic the lawsuit was. She approached it according to the presumption that it was already a pre-ordained fact that Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were "purposely aiding and facilitating the attack", and then turned around and admitting they were only guessing that they were involved in the attack since they didn't know HOW they aided and facilitated the attack (I.E. whether they hired mercenary terrorists, allowed a legitimate terorist attack to proceed, whether it was staged entirely by themselves, or whatever), while basing the claim entirely upon the lies and misrepresentations those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out (I.E. "no photographic evidence of aircraft wreckage"), which are easily disproven with a simple Google search.

Little wonder why she was laughed out of court- she made a lawsuit based upon an unproven and unprovable allegation while backing it up with false evidence. It's a textbook example of how NOT to proceed with a lawsuit.

Isn't it great how this works? April Gallop has a valid issue, as pointed out in my above post. Why will no one address that? Norman Minetta's testimony is incriminating, yes it is, in the sense I just stated above. They knew the plane was headed right at them, and yet sounded no evacuation warning- like they did at the White House. All those people could have been saved. But saving lives wasn't exactly on the mind of Cheney, now was it.

And further, I question why no one else besides Cheney, issued an evacuation order either. April in her position had no business being there- as was the case for many other people that died there.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Isn't it great how this works? April Gallop has a valid issue, as pointed out in my above post.

You just ignored why her case was thrown out. Do you think it is proper to assert one thing in one case and reject it in another? If so, explain how that works.

Her lawsuit was brought about by greed more than anything else she has/is claiming. The very context of her lawsuit had it been changed may have went somewhere but citing "conspiracy" as the prime motivator along with accusing G.W. (without solid evidence or proof) and Co. is far reaching. I agree with the decision, my conspiracy opinions notwithstanding here of course.

[edit on 3/25/2010 by mikelee]

Having read the summary of Ms. Gallup's allegations in the linked judgement, I am not surprised that her suit was dismissed and characterized as "frivolous". She alleges too many things that might be true but have not been proven in court and are not generally accepted in the mainstream as true.

There is no mention of Norman Mineta's statements about Dick Cheney's conduct with regard to the approaching hijacked plane. She should have focused on the simple fact of a failure to evacuate the building in the presence of an immanent threat.

I wonder what was in the mind of the lawyer who drafted the complaint and who was in charge of her case. Did they simply want to get a statement of truther allegations on a court document with no hope of a successful outcome to the case?

One thing in the judgement really does disturb me though, the second cause for dismissal, implausibility.

Even assuming the factual allegations of the complaint are true (which the court did not - ipesedixit), Gallop's claims are not plausible. It is simply not plausible that the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense and other high-ranking officials conspired to facilitate terrorist attacks that would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans. If anything, the allegations are the product of cynical delusion and fantasy.

I don't know much about American law, but is this now a citable precedent? Are courts now to assume automatically that such high personages are beyond suspicion of treason and exempt in American courts from that kind of charge.

This strikes me as a dangerous precedent, if indeed, it is a legal precedent that is citable in other cases.

Based on the summary, though, I just can't imagine filing such a suit. It was dismissed with prejudice too, which may mean she is on the hook for the defendant's legal costs. Ouch!!


[edit on 25-3-2010 by ipsedixit]

Gallop's suit is a good example of one of the main things wrong with the 9/11 truth movement. Everybody wants to throw the "Hail Mary pass". Nobody wants to score points or even to advance the ball in units of small yardage in court.

9/11 was the most egregious crime in American history and to date not one of the real felons has been convicted of so much as a parking ticket.

It's disgusting.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

No debunker will address "that" because "that" doesn't fit in with their world-view. If it doesn't fit the official conspiracy theory, debunkers will ignore it out-right or try to give a highly improbable explanation that often doesn't even make sense. Debunkers often think that if something doesn't fit the official story, it must be wrong.

Also, anyone who asks the obvious questions about 9/11, must be made to look like a loony, as to not let their critical self thinking skills become contagious.

I do have to admit that Gallop went about this lawsuit the wrong way, regardless of whether or not she had a valid point. In a "fair", "free" and "just" world, it would have been appropriate but it is more than clear that we are nowhere near any of those three. To me, it looked like her lawsuit was more about the podium, than actually suing over negligence. She would have had an entirely better chance had she went about it differently and in the end, she would have had that place at the podium that I can only assume she is after. Admittedly, I haven't followed this case very closely but I would think the wise thing to do was simply fight the lawsuit based upon the confines of the official conspiracy theory and then let the courts find the truth through discovery and other legal tools.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

9/11 was the most egregious crime in American history and to date not one of the real felons has been convicted of so much as a parking ticket.

Have you decided who the felons are? If so, what would be the purpose of a "new" investigation in your opinion?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Isn't it great how this works? April Gallop has a valid issue, as pointed out in my above post. Why will no one address that? Norman Minetta's testimony is incriminating, yes it is, in the sense I just stated above. They knew the plane was headed right at them, and yet sounded no evacuation warning- like they did at the White House. All those people could have been saved. But saving lives wasn't exactly on the mind of Cheney, now was it.

...and as per usual, you conspiracy people conveniently ignore the fact that at the time, noone had an inkling as to where the plane was headed. Even now, we don't know whether the pentagon was the actual target or whether it was targeted as a fallback option. She is essentially demanding that all of Washington D.C. should have been evacuated in the ten minutes of advanced warning they had.

I don't know of a single legal precedence where someone could be held liable for not being able to predict the future. Do you?

And further, I question why no one else besides Cheney, issued an evacuation order either. April in her position had no business being there- as was the case for many other people that died there.

It makes no difference whether she had business being there or not. There was a reasonable expectation that any given building would not normally expect a passenger Jet to have hit it.

Originally posted by jthomas
Have you decided who the felons are? If so, what would be the purpose of a "new" investigation in your opinion?

I have strong suspicions of who the main ones are. They are people either in or close to the Bush administration and allies of theirs in another government and in civilian life. I think there are perps in US agencies like the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service too and in the mainstream media and the insurance industry. Complicity in these crimes could well reach into numerous government agencies whose responsibilities overlap some area or other of the illegal activities.

Zacarias Moussaouai (forgive me if I have mispelled his name) might be a perp of sorts, but he is not one of the "real felons" in my opinion. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is higher up on the food chain, but he too doesn't really fill the bill, in my opinion. I'm suspicious of his confessions. I think he is a scapegoat, although undoubtedly a "terrorist" of some sort.

A serious investigation of these crimes should lead to a variety of charges against many perps and accessories both before and after the fact(s).

America will be a better place when these people are behind bars.

reply to post by ipsedixit

I have strong suspicions of who the main ones are. They are people either in or close to the Bush administration and allies of theirs in another government and in civilian life. I think there are perps in US agencies like the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service too and in the mainstream media and the insurance industry.

Ok, that narrows it down to about 6,000,000 people. Where should we start with the new investigation? Do we start wth affidavits from every member of record on 9/11 of the CIA, FBI and Secret Service? That should be no problem. Of course we would have to organize an entirely new government agency just to interview the "suspects", but hey, why not?

Originally posted by hooper
Ok, that narrows it down to about 6,000,000 people.

Experienced investigators would be able to reduce that number drastically in short order.

Where should we start with the new investigation?

That is an excellent question and one which is very seldom asked. I am not a legal professional or an experienced member of the NYPD fraud squad or an experienced member of the FDNY or an experienced insurance investigator or an experienced criminalist. The question you ask is one that would be best answered by people from those professions.

Keep in mind that the oldest magazine covering the fire fighting profession in the US referred to the investigation of WTC collapses as a "farce".

I would like to see a serious investigation of the collapse of WTC7 and it's owner.

I would not rush into war with Afghanistan, as the Bush administration did, while stalling on actually investigating the crime, unless I were a perp, of course, trying to lead attention away from me and my friends. But that's just me.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

...and as per usual, you conspiracy people conveniently ignore the fact that at the time, noone had an inkling as to where the plane was headed.

When you say, "you conspiracy people", I'm assuming you are talking about everyone, seeing how that just about everyone believes in a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Acording to the Google Dictionary, the definition of conspiracy is:

1. a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
2. a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
3. a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

It's not a question of whether or not a conspiracy took place but rather which conspiracy theory you believe in. Some believe that Al Qaeda conspired alone to commit the attacks that took place on 9/11, while others believe the government conspired to perpetrate the attacks. Still, others believe that both Al Qaeda and the government conspired together while others believe different theories all together. So, unless you believe that the events of 9/11 were purely coincidental accidents (or similar), then you believe in a conspiracy theory.

Frankly, I find the government's conspiracy theory or the "official" conspiracy theory to be among the less credible and highly improbable. While I tend to stay away from publicly stating any theory about what happened on that day, I can say with sheer certainty that the official conspiracy theory is not a very sound theory. Of course I have my own theories about what may have happened on 9/11, though I don't like to flaunt those theories as I find it more effective to simply state the facts and let others come up with their own theories (most of the time).
--airspoon

Edited to add "to" in the last sentence.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and as per usual, you conspiracy people conveniently ignore the fact that at the time, noone had an inkling as to where the plane was headed. Even now, we don't know whether the pentagon was the actual target or whether it was targeted as a fallback option. She is essentially demanding that all of Washington D.C. should have been evacuated in the ten minutes of advanced warning they had.

I am sorry, but that's an absolute load of hogwash. Those that have looked into it know that plane was being tracked live by secondary military radar, and had a flight path trajectory headed right towards the pentagon after the 270 degree turn. In addition, April herself questions why the thing wasn't blown out of the sky because of air defenses she saw herself on a classified tour of the defenses.

We have argued this point ad nauseum on here before. And the bottom line is no one will come forward to admit that there were anti aircraft defenses at the Pentagon on 9/11/01, because any talk of that is classified. So as usual, we are stuck with people like you, being able to easily hide behind that classification and pour out disinformation at will.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by jthomas
Have you decided who the felons are? If so, what would be the purpose of a "new" investigation in your opinion?

]I have strong suspicions of who the main ones are. They are people either in or close to the Bush administration and allies of theirs in another government and in civilian life. I think there are perps in US agencies like the FBI, CIA and the Secret Service too and in the mainstream media and the insurance industry. Complicity in these crimes could well reach into numerous government agencies whose responsibilities overlap some area or other of the illegal activities.

So, if I am reading you correctly, you have already decided these are the "felons."

A serious investigation of these crimes should lead to a variety of charges against many perps and accessories both before and after the fact(s).

America will be a better place when these people are behind bars.

And if any investigation found no such evidence and no charges were filed then would you accept the outcome, or believe that justice was not served?