April Gallop: Who Will Show Her The Love?

As most of you are aware. Pentagon attack survivor April Gallop once again failed at her attempts at suing the United States government. She has filed many lawsuits and for the most part, they have been dismissed.

The most most recent one was quite ridiculous as she was claiming that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.The lower court judge decided that the case was "frivolous". Gallop and her legal team filed an appeal to decide if he acted within the law to do this. The higher court found that the lower court acted within the law. In doing so, the judge also decided to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This law states:

Rule 38. Frivolous Appeal - Damages and Costs

If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.

www.law.cornell.edu...

The court raised the matter of sanctions notra sponte citing Rule 38 as well as their inherent jurisdiction to do so.

Ms. Gallop's and her lawyers' show-cause brief was due on May 27th where they had to show cause why they should not be penalized $15000 for wasting the time of the court with a frivolous appeal which had no chance of succeeding.

Did her attorneys warn her of this potential sanction? If they did, did she ignore them. Either way, they are all in the hole for 15K! I want to know.... where is the lover?

What truthers will step up to help her with her legal fees? Box Boy Gage travels the globe on your dime, pays himself 70K a year and does nothing. April stepped up and attempted to sue the people you blame! She lost and is now left with yet another financial burden. Will you help her? If not... why not?

reply to post by Six Sigma


Wow, the silence is deafening. If April Gallop were serious she would sue her attorney's for malpractise. They should have never exposed her to that kind of risk.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

Wow, the silence is deafening. If April Gallop were serious she would sue her attorney's for malpractise. They should have never exposed her to that kind of risk.

Here's the sad thing; up until 9/11 she was serving her country in uniform and leading a productive life. Only later was she taken in by the 'theorists'. She's probably a good person on a basic level.

Richard Gage is another sad story. He basically gave up everything; job, family, home... to become essentially a travelling preacher, armed with the gospel of 9/11 truth. I suppose he gets a level of notoreity from his actions.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

Wow, the silence is deafening. If April Gallop were serious she would sue her attorney's for malpractise. They should have never exposed her to that kind of risk.

Here's the sad thing; up until 9/11 she was serving her country in uniform and leading a productive life. Only later was she taken in by the 'theorists'. She's probably a good person on a basic level.

Richard Gage is another sad story. He basically gave up everything; job, family, home... to become essentially a travelling preacher, armed with the gospel of 9/11 truth. I suppose he gets a level of notoreity from his actions.

She may or may not have been warned by her attorney. Either way, she is a misguided soul who should be concentrating on her little boy. (although he is probably 11 years old now) Instead, she is lawsuit happy searching for the big payday.

Gage is a modern day snake oil salesman. The oil he sells is nothing but fear, hate, and lies. There are plenty of idiots out there that open their wallets for that.

Gallop could very well be looking to land a payday, I really don't know. You all may belittle her and dismiss her story because this or that judge decided to do so, that's fine. Let's all just keep in mind that this woman is trying to expose the gov't in what would be the greatest scandal of human history by getting a judge, who is part of that gov't, to hear her case. Not just any case either, a case where the gov't has withheld evidence from the very beginning, evidence that could very well prove her case...or disprove it. However, instead of her case making it to court where evidence must be submitted, subpoenas compell witnesses to testify under threat of perjury, and a jury of average Americans decides what to believe...its a whole lot easier to just dismiss it out of hand. After all, what proof does she have? If she had evidence from inside the Pentagon, she'd have already been forced to turn it over, right? Does anyone believe that her opposition would just give it back to her? More than likely her case will hinge upon subpoena power to force others to speak about what happened. Those geniuses in gov't realize that if they don't allow her to get a case, she can never subpoena anyone and the whole damn mess doesn't get talked about.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. You same five guys have been dilligently defending the OS and GUM'T for years on this site. Its always the same old tired routine...at first it pisses you off, then it becomes amusing, and finally it just makes you want to go somewhere else. The bottom line is...9/11 is the greatest example of why gov'ts should not be trusted. Whether they failed to protect us through apathy and overconfidence, planned the entire thing out years in advance, or any degree of culpability in between...one thing is absolutely certain...they have not and will not tell us the truth. That means they have something to hide. What is the word used to describe someone who actively chooses to hide the truth? What word is used to describe someone who opposes another person?

reply to post by budaruskie


You know, I think your statement is unfair to us. From the first post there has been skepticism about the merit of her lawsuit, but compassion for her as a human being, and a patriot who was wounded in the line of duty, even if she was a file clerk outside any combat zone.

The sad thing is that the worst sort of the conspiracy crowd want to sacrifice people like her on a cross made of nano-thermite levitated by space beams. It's a travesty of justice that she was misled, in part by conspiracy theorists, into this lawsuit. But I mostly blame the lawyers, who should have served her more honorably.

Originally posted by budaruskie
Gallop could very well be looking to land a payday, I really don't know. You all may belittle her and dismiss her story because this or that judge decided to do so, that's fine. Let's all just keep in mind that this woman is trying to expose the gov't in what would be the greatest scandal of human history by getting a judge, who is part of that gov't, to hear her case. Not just any case either, a case where the gov't has withheld evidence from the very beginning, evidence that could very well prove her case...or disprove it. However, instead of her case making it to court where evidence must be submitted, subpoenas compell witnesses to testify under threat of perjury, and a jury of average Americans decides what to believe...its a whole lot easier to just dismiss it out of hand. After all, what proof does she have? If she had evidence from inside the Pentagon, she'd have already been forced to turn it over, right? Does anyone believe that her opposition would just give it back to her? More than likely her case will hinge upon subpoena power to force others to speak about what happened. Those geniuses in gov't realize that if they don't allow her to get a case, she can never subpoena anyone and the whole damn mess doesn't get talked about.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. You same five guys have been dilligently defending the OS and GUM'T for years on this site. Its always the same old tired routine...at first it pisses you off, then it becomes amusing, and finally it just makes you want to go somewhere else. The bottom line is...9/11 is the greatest example of why gov'ts should not be trusted. Whether they failed to protect us through apathy and overconfidence, planned the entire thing out years in advance, or any degree of culpability in between...one thing is absolutely certain...they have not and will not tell us the truth. That means they have something to hide. What is the word used to describe someone who actively chooses to hide the truth? What word is used to describe someone who opposes another person?

First of all, Ms. Gallop deserved to be compenstated for the injuries she sustained and for the injuries of her baby. Ms. Gallop declined compensation from the Victims Compensation Fund and decided to file several law suits. She made attempts to sue a bank in Saudi Arabia, filed suit against AA and AA Security firm. She settled out of court with AA and their security firm for an undisclosed amount of money. I have not heard anything regarding the bank in a couple years. She was suing the bank becasue she claims they aided the terrorists by funding them. She sued AA because of flight 77 getting slammed into the Pentagon where she got hurt.

She now does a turn around in an effort to "expose the governement" as you said and sue again. You need to learn about the law, my friend. You can't just walk into a court of law and accuse someone of conspiracy to commit mass murder, mass murder, etc WITHOUT EVIDENCE! She has NONE! She brought opinions from a pack of clowns that know nothing about the law. (Rob Balsamo for one)

This has already been discussed in several threads. What I want to know is budaruski: How much are you going to donate to her? She is portrayed by some truthers as a single mom struggling to make ends meeet and a "patriot". She is no in the hole another 15K for filing and then appealing a frivoulous lawsuit. Where is the little "CHIP IN" banner seeking donations? Have the truthers spent all their milk money on Richard Gage's Comedy Tour??

Of course they appealed it.

During discovery how could the defendants possibly submit evidence that has not been released? Obviously they can't.

In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on law suits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. The term does not include cases that may be lost due to other matters not related to legal merit. While colloquially, a person may term a law suit to be frivolous if he or she personally finds a claim to be absurd, in legal usage "frivolous litigation" consists of a claim or defense that is presented where the party (or the party's legal counsel) had reason to know that the claim or defense was manifestly insufficient or futile.

There is no way to tell if the claims April made are frivolous or not until the evidence is reviewed, the evidence is not available as it is held by the government.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Of course they appealed it.

During discovery how could the defendants possibly submit evidence that has not been released? Obviously they can't.


There is no way to tell if the claims April made are frivolous or not until the evidence is reviewed, the evidence is not available as it is held by the government.

Are you kidding me? Is this how the trial should work:

Judge: "Will the Plaintiff state her complaint?"

April Gallop: "Yes your honor, the United States Governemnt is guilty for Conspiracy to Commit Mass Murder and guilty of mass murder for the thousands killed on Sept. 11, 2001. Further more, I would like to add that although I collected a settlement from American Airlines, I now beileve that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon where I sustained my injuries."

Judge: "Um, okay now... what evidence do you have to back this up?"

April Gallop: " I don't have any! The United States Government has is all!"

Judge: " huh?"

April Gallop: " Yeah, they do. There are thousands of us truthers that know this for a fact!"


JP.... how much are you donating to her to help her with the 15K she ows the courts?

April on the lawn



She claims in her lawsuit that she walked out of the fiery hole the aircraft made in the front of the pentagon.

Aipril
Does this lawsuit make me look fat ?

edit on 15-6-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by jprophet420
Of course they appealed it.

During discovery how could the defendants possibly submit evidence that has not been released? Obviously they can't.


There is no way to tell if the claims April made are frivolous or not until the evidence is reviewed, the evidence is not available as it is held by the government.

Are you kidding me? Is this how the trial should work:

Judge: "Will the Plaintiff state her complaint?"

April Gallop: "Yes your honor, the United States Governemnt is guilty for Conspiracy to Commit Mass Murder and guilty of mass murder for the thousands killed on Sept. 11, 2001. Further more, I would like to add that although I collected a settlement from American Airlines, I now beileve that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon where I sustained my injuries."

Judge: "Um, okay now... what evidence do you have to back this up?"

April Gallop: " I don't have any! The United States Government has is all!"

Judge: " huh?"

April Gallop: " Yeah, they do. There are thousands of us truthers that know this for a fact!"


JP.... how much are you donating to her to help her with the 15K she ows the courts?

You said this lawsuit was about flight 77 hitting the pentagon. The defense has had their evidence confiscated. Your troll post of "how it should have gone" does not match your OP.

Originally posted by waypastvne
April on the lawn

She claims in her lawsuit that she walked out of the fiery hole the aircraft made in the front of the pentagon.

Wow, she sure looks good to have been sitting mere feet from the impact point of a 757 full of fuel, does she not?

Makes you wonder...

Originally posted by Six Sigma
You need to learn about the law, my friend. You can't just walk into a court of law and accuse someone of conspiracy to commit mass murder, mass murder, etc WITHOUT EVIDENCE!

I can't argue with that!

But, you can invade another country and kill hundreds of thousands, confiscate billions in assets, and charge the whole damn thing to the American taxpayer on a cost-plus basis all-the-while sacrificing the families of those same taxpayers...can't you?

Oh yeah, and since I make less than half of what I made two years ago, I can't afford to help her or anyone else by donating money...which is worthless anyway.

Originally posted by jprophet420
You said this lawsuit was about flight 77 hitting the pentagon. The defense has had their evidence confiscated. Your troll post of "how it should have gone" does not match your OP.

Try to keep up. The ORIGINAL lawsuit was her claims that a plane did not hit the Pentagon and Bush, Cheney were at fault. The APPEAL she made was questioning the legality of the dismissal. She lost and got hit with a 15K court charge.

Now, will you be disclosing how much you will be donating to her legal fund, or are you working on 50% less salary like the poster above?

Originally posted by budaruskie


I can't argue with that!

That's good. Too bad April and her legal team doesn't have the common sense you seem to posses!

Originally posted by budaruskieBut, you can invade another country and kill hundreds of thousands, confiscate billions in assets, and charge the whole damn thing to the American taxpayer on a cost-plus basis all-the-while sacrificing the families of those same taxpayers...can't you?

I can't and will not argue with that either....as long as you're talking about Iraq. (I support the war in Afghanistan)

Oh yeah, and since I make less than half of what I made two years ago, I can't afford to help her or anyone else by donating money...which is worthless anyway.

www.linkedin.com That is a professional social media site. I have had many headhunters contact me. It's free and you can post your resume. I hope you get another job soon. It sucks out there.

Originally posted by budaruskie


Wow, she sure looks good to have been sitting mere feet from the impact point of a 757 full of fuel, does she not?

Makes you wonder...

She'd presumably look like this if she was in an office hit by a bunker buster missile.

I mean, what a ridiculous comment. Truthers claim that a missile was used so as to be more penetrative and kill more people and you're using her apparent lack of injuries - although she did sustain some - as suspicious. And ignoring all the people who actually died. Do they look surprisingly good too?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Anybody know what's up with her clothing in that screencap? Is she in a blanket, or does she wear that to work in the pentagon, is her clothing burned or what?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by budaruskie


Wow, she sure looks good to have been sitting mere feet from the impact point of a 757 full of fuel, does she not?

Makes you wonder...

She'd presumably look like this if she was in an office hit by a bunker buster missile.

I mean, what a ridiculous comment. Truthers claim that a missile was used so as to be more penetrative and kill more people and you're using her apparent lack of injuries - although she did sustain some - as suspicious. And ignoring all the people who actually died. Do they look surprisingly good too?

Who said anything about a "bunker buster"? You seem to think that a missile would presumably do more damage than a 757? What about planes exploding with such force they knock down buildings they don't even hit, i.e. WTC 7? I'm sure that I'm in the majority when I expect her to be, I don't know, burned or have some sort of major trauma considering a friggin' huge airplane "supposedly" crashed through the side wall of her office. Talk about a ridiculous comment.

Galloway is a fraud.

1 - Of the 18.5K people working there that day - including people who were injured much worse than her, (and yet they still work there) - Truthers take *her* single story as gospel? Please.

2 - Galloway has been involved in 5 lawsuits. Two against AA - one she lost, and one was settled out of court - but involved a lack of security against terrorists. *Then*, she sues Rumsfeld and Cheney suggesting they were behind the whole thing. Doesn't this kind of detract from there being terrorists as stated in her suit against AA? She wasn't bright enough to takes the victim's assistance payment because she was looking for a bigger payday.

3 - While under oath - Galloway was unable to accurately locate the position of her desk with respect to the impact point. Her firm claim was that she was within 40' of impact, when in fact, expert analysis shows she was 150' away.

4 - She gets her 15 minutes of fame thanks to that moron Ventura -but breaks the interview short claiming that she's in fear for her life? Seriously? Once interviewed, her chances of being "knocked-off" dropped to precisely zero - but hey, it made for good drama didn't it?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Anybody know what's up with her clothing in that screencap? Is she in a blanket, or does she wear that to work in the pentagon, is her clothing burned or what?

I pulled that screen shot off of this video. I just recognised her and grabbed the shot. The only thing they seem to be treating her for is shock. I expected her to look a little worse off from her testimony. I'm pretty sure that is a dress not a blanket.