Gallop's Appeal Dismissed

Discussion in '9/11' started by Hannibal, Apr 28, 2011.

  1. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sword works and worked for me; haven't you realized that that...YET?

    Oh yeah; look who I'm talking to.
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallop's lawyers haven't filed anything yet to show cause why they and Gallop ought not have to pay $15,000 in sanctions but they have until May 27 to file.

    In the meantime, as a matter of housekeeping, counsel for the defendants filed a letter asking for the deadline for their letter-brief in response to the plaintiff's 'show cause' submissions to be extended, since the court gave them 3 days to provide same after the plaintiff files, but if the plaintiff doesn't file until the 27th, that would mean the defendants' 3 days would fall entirely within a statutory holiday weekend. So, the court has treated the letter as a motion to extend time for filing and granted it, giving them until June 3.
     
  3. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow. That was earthshaking, and so very important. Thanks for the update. That certainly helps clear thing up. Case closed!
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    'Truthers' should be angry at her lawyers for 'holding back' all the 'proof' that would make the case worth hearing.
     
  5. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh...they are, they are! Hard to fight a corrupted City Hall sometimes though.
    2001 took us way deep in it, and the public is just now realizing it. Frogs take a while to boil, and sometimes they'll jump out anyway. You know, just because an administration SAYS something is legal, doesn't mean the Constitution does, despite all the Supreme court appointments from "the good old days".
     
  6. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Want some cheese with your whine?
     
  7. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No thanks. Keep the cheese for the rats. I'll continue to whine too.
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An update:

    Gallop's lawyers have asked for an extension of time to show cause why sanctions shouldn't be imposed against them. The court extended the time to July 11 for them to respond to the court's order to show cause.

    But the more entertaining bit is this: Gallop has filed a petition for rehearing.

    Source

    The language is insulting in the extreme, especially for a legal document. Gallop is digging a deep pit, here.
     
  9. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,856
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those who have been insulted, including the court deserve that and more. Gallop's lawyers are taking a courageous and patriotic stance in this effort. Their petition for rehearing is right on target in several areas. I found this section to be undeniably obvious:

    The court in this case is a typical corrupt bought and paid for entity. Anyone who reads the documents and rulings in this case with an open mind will see this fact clearly....

    Cheers
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The court in this case is an appeals court. You don't try to re-try your case in an appeals court. A first year law student knows this. Gallops lawyers are either incredibly ignorant, or they are milking her dry.

    Gallop has already sued successfully the company whose airliner hit the Pentagon. Now she is trying to 'double dip' and sue because she claims an airliner didn't hit the Pentagon. Should she not be required to return the money if she believes AA is innocent?

    No, this is simply another money making scheme by a greedy 'truther'. And it's about to bite her back hard.
     
  11. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Leftovers from the Bush administration?
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An update:

    The judges decided that April was being led astray by her leech-like lawyers. She is warned not file further frivolous lawsuits, and her lawyers fines have been doubled.

     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My favorite phrase from this blunt reply;

    Classic.
     
  14. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I still can't believe she's claiming no plane hit the pentagon after settling with the airline...
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cult-like behavior?

    Hmmm.
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,699
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    If they did I can think of several attorneys that would be on the unemployment line.

    Hell judges even label incorrect jurisdiction as a "frivolous" suit its todays judicial buzzword, much the same as "driving too fast for conditions"
     

Share This Page