[Merged] April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied - Page 14

Clayton Moore · 8th June 2011, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by George152

The aircraft hitting the Pentagon was the first indication to the 'people at the top' and those at the Pentagon that there was an attack on the Pentagon...
Sheesh !

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

TJM · 8th June 2011, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

Do tell.

Clayton Moore · 8th June 2011, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

What about April's lawsuit being nonsense, delusional claptrap; any comment?

Why do they mention April's Top Secret clearance? What does that have to do with anything?

They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee.

TJM · 8th June 2011, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee.

You mean like Bradley Manning?

Clayton Moore · 8th June 2011, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Do tell.

Not much of an answer.

Clayton Moore · 8th June 2011, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

You mean like Bradley Manning?

Are you trolling?

TJM · 8th June 2011, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Not much of an answer.

Oh, I see. You want an answer from me. No.

I'd like you to elaborate on these defenses the pentagon has, since you brought them up.

TJM · 8th June 2011, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Are you trolling?

It's a valid question. Manning had a security clearance and violated the trust of his employer.

Sabrina · 8th June 2011, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

You have CLEARLY never been to the Pentagon. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the air defense artillery batteries don't exist. There's no space for them. The Pentagon has a police force to protect it; that's it. They're very competent, don't get me wrong, but explain to me exactly how you think policemen ON FOOT are supposed to protect a building from a speeding plane?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee.

Yes, but in this instance her clearance had nothing to do with what she claims happened. The fact that her story has changed from one lawsuit to the next, on the other hand, does.

I have a high level clearance myself (I'd prefer not to say how high, before you ask), but trust me, that doesn't preclude me from lying. Nor does it preclude Ms. Gallop.

I am sorry for the injuries she suffered, and if she is truly being awarded a Purple Heart for what happened to her, she deserves it. But to try and exploit the events of that day for monetary gain loses her all respect in my eyes. And that is what she is doing; no more, no less.

TJM · 8th June 2011, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

I'd like you to elaborate on these defenses the pentagon has, since you brought them up.

Oh, and Clayton? Google isn't your friend.

ElMondoHummus · 8th June 2011, 07:03 PM

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentago...batteries.html

000063 · 8th June 2011, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

You have CLEARLY never been to the Pentagon. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the air defense artillery batteries don't exist. There's no space for them. The Pentagon has a police force to protect it; that's it. They're very competent, don't get me wrong, but explain to me exactly how you think policemen ON FOOT are supposed to protect a building from a speeding plane?

Especially when there's an airport, what a mile or so away, which, IIRC, regularly flies planes over the Pentagon?

twinstead · 8th June 2011, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by 000063

Especially when there's an airport, what a mile or so away, which, IIRC, regularly flies planes over the Pentagon?

Keep on making sense, and someday you'll get promoted to 000064 sir

Oystein · 8th June 2011, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

I suggest you turn this question into a statement or claim:

CM: "the Pentagon was prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack (in particular, attack with speeding airplanes)"

and then elaborate

what kinds of attack was the Pentagomn prepared to protect itself from? List specific kinds!
For each kind of attack, explain the methods and devices used to protect against it
For each method and device used to protect the Pentagon, point us ti evidence that in fact it was installed at/for the Pentagon

I highlighted one word, because you are always a little short on that.

twinstead · 9th June 2011, 05:27 AM

Shame on you Oystein for trying to make CM deviate from his delightful argument from simple incredulity debate tactic; it's just not fair.

Animal · 9th June 2011, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee.

You don't know much about security clearances

Animal · 9th June 2011, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

The Pentagon pre 9-11 was essentially a very large office building. regularly open for tours. Even the CIA building had tours on occasion.

(And then there is that little complex called Reagan International Airport about a mile away that troofers always forget. One of the runway's landing pattern is right over the Pentagon.)

Sabrina · 9th June 2011, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Animal

You don't know much about security clearances

This shocks you?

LashL · 9th June 2011, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I missed this thread the first time around so forgive my ignorance.

I assume the sanctions came about as a result of Rule 11 and Rule 12(b)(6).

Actually, in this case, the sanctions are imposed pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which simply states:

Quote:

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.

The court raised the matter of sanctions nostra sponte (on their own motion for those of you who don't want to look up the Latin) citing Rule 38 as well as their inherent jurisdiction to do so.

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

In light of the parts I've bolded, do you think it would be "reasonable" to charge a client for failing that badly?

Let me be put this in perspective: Judges rarely sanction people. If they do, you have probably ********** up in a spectacular way. Any attempt to pass that onto the client is flat out unethical and should get you disbarred.

Disbarment aside, if a lawyer tried to charge me for his sanction, I'd sue him for breach of contract. His sanctions are not a service and I'm not paying for them.

In this case, the court specifically decided that if Gallop and her lawyers cannot show cause why they shouldn't have to pay double costs and damages in the amount of $15k, then they will be jointly and severally liable for payment of same. They imposed joint and several liability on the basis that "attorney and client are in the best position between them to determine who caused this appeal to be taken".

That said, I agree with you that the lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway? The only ones who know that are Gallop and her lawyers, so it makes sense for the court to impose joint and several liability in the circumstances.

Triterope · 9th June 2011, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

How fitting. I point out that April Gallop is about to face a real-world hardship for fighting for what YOU believe in, and your first response is puke up yet another old, lame Truther meme. On the Internet.

You're not the sort I'd want to share a foxhole with, I can tell you that.

NoahFence · 9th June 2011, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

It would appear not.

Oystein · 9th June 2011, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Animal

...
(And then there is that little complex called Reagan International Airport about a mile away that troofers always forget. One of the runway's landing pattern is right over the Pentagon.)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...55747&t=h&z=15

A flight path to/from Runway 15 of Reagan National misses the north-east face of the Pentagon by just a few dozend yards.

It's 0.8 miles from the end of runway 15 to the easternmost corner of the Pentagon. A 757 that has a take-off speed of 160mph would get there in less than 18 seconds.

CptColumbo · 9th June 2011, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by 000063

Especially when there's an airport, what a mile or so away, which, IIRC, regularly flies planes over the Pentagon?

When I landed at DCA (Reagan National) once we flew almost over the Pentagon when we came in to land.

George 152 · 9th June 2011, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

Okay. How?
Considering there's an commercial airfield next door.
And roadways virtually all round the Pentagon.
How do you stop a 500 knot airliner aimed at you ?
Or a truck bomb being driven at you ?

DGM · 9th June 2011, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by George152

Okay. How?
Considering there's an commercial airfield next door.
And roadways virtually all round the Pentagon.
How do you stop a 500 knot airliner aimed at you ?
Or a truck bomb being driven at you ?

Piece of cake! Man each defense battery with a team of psychics and clairvoyants. Obviously they wouldn't shoot at a "friendly".

KingMerv00 · 9th June 2011, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

Actually, in this case, the sanctions are imposed pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which simply states:

That works too.

Quote:

That said, I agree with you that the lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway?

Then Gallop can sue for malpractice.

On second thought, someone that gullible should probably stay far away from all lawyers.

Triterope · 9th June 2011, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

The lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway? The only ones who know that are Gallop and her lawyers, so it makes sense for the court to impose joint and several liability in the circumstances.

It should be noted that the primary lawyer, William Veale, is all over the Internet as a "lawyer for 9-11 Truth." I don't think we can assume this was all Gallop's idea.

ozeco41 · 9th June 2011, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

Actually, in this case, the sanctions are imposed pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure...

Thanks LashL. My limited knowledge of US law takes another small step forward.

Originally Posted by LashL

...They imposed joint and several liability on the basis that "attorney and client are in the best position between them to determine who caused this appeal to be taken"...

Oops. I misread that "joint and several" as meaning the various lawyers - not lawyers and client. I must be out of practice.

Originally Posted by LashL

...That said, I agree with you that the lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway?

Which was the point I raised some time back leading to...

Originally Posted by LashL

...The only ones who know that are Gallop and her lawyers, so it makes sense for the court to impose joint and several liability in the circumstances.

..which naturally follows.

Thanks again.

Foolmewunz · 13th June 2011, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

we flew almost over the Pentagon

<snip>

I'm helping Craig and Aldo out. The above ought to be good for at least another two CD sales. Debunker admits to almost fly over!!!

LashL · 15th June 2011, 02:32 PM

Oh, I missed something on PACER earlier; Gallop's lawyers asked for an extension of time to show cause why sanctions shouldn't be imposed against them and 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. I haven't finished reading it yet but just the first few pages are enough to make me wonder how any of the three lawyers with their names on this will come through this without even more sanctions or further action against them.

I'll post the document up later tonight after I've finished reading it.

ElMondoHummus · 15th June 2011, 03:14 PM

Gallop did what? Are her lawyers trying to get themselves disbarred?

Myron Proudfoot · 15th June 2011, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

When I landed at DCA (Reagan National) once we flew almost over the Pentagon when we came in to land.

I live in northern Va so I've flown over the Pentagon from DCA many times, and even over CIA HQs in McLean. And DCA is known as the favorite of members of Congress flying back and forth from home. The idea that the Pentagon had anti-aircraft missiles ready and able to fire on 9/11 is, IMHO, one of the twoofers more stupid ideas..

TJM · 15th June 2011, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

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

After the verbal beat-down the court just gave them? I've never underestimated the ignorance of truthers, but this is definitely worthy of a Lifetime Stundie Achievement Award^TM.

I wonder how the court will react to that. Should be high comedy.

triforcharity · 15th June 2011, 08:55 PM

Can they say the word "dumbass" in a ruling? If so, it should be included.

Justin39640 · 15th June 2011, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

If they had used AK-47s and RPGs, even a T-72, they wouldn't have been very successful.

leftysergeant · 16th June 2011, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

On second thought, someone that gullible should probably stay far away from all lawyers.

I think somebody needs to take her by the hand and lead her to an attorney who specialises in suing people who take advantage of the mentally ill.

Slam-dunk, she gets her money back and her shysters pay the sanctions out of their own pockets.

She suffers PTSD and the drongos took advantage of that fact to convince her of an absurd and delusional cause.

TruthersLie · 16th June 2011, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Edited by kmortis:

Removed personal comments

You think the Pentagon wasn't prepared to protect "itself" from virtually every conceivable type of attack?

pathetic appeal to magic, argument from ignorance and incredulity.

provide any proof that it was "prepared to protect itself." Feel free.

George 152 · 16th June 2011, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

Piece of cake! Man each defense battery with a team of psychics and clairvoyants. Obviously they wouldn't shoot at a "friendly".

The conspiracy kooks just might believe that

Of course as there are daily 1200 or so aircraft movements through the area you'd also need psychologists and profilers and any other 'art' practitioners....

LashL · 16th June 2011, 02:28 PM

Sorry, I got very busy last night with ~~really important stuff~~ the Stanley Cup final and didn't get this latest piece-o-crap uploaded, etc.

I don't think I have ever seen a pleading this rude and insulting to the judiciary. I don't think it's going to go over very well.

Enjoy!

ElMondoHummus · 16th June 2011, 02:53 PM

Uh oh...

Quote:

Grounds are that the Panel overlooked, misapprehended and indeed scorned, without comprehending, or even minimally attending to, the vast bulk of the facts alleged in the appeal and the underlying complaint...

Lash: Wanna make some Legaltaining predictions on what the court's gonna do with that statement?

8th June 2011, 06:16 PM	#524
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,774	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee. You mean like Bradley Manning?
	__________________

8th June 2011, 06:18 PM	#525
Clayton Moore Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,508	Originally Posted by AJM8125 Do tell. Not much of an answer.
Clayton Moore Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,508

8th June 2011, 06:19 PM	#526
Clayton Moore Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,508	Originally Posted by AJM8125 You mean like Bradley Manning? Are you trolling?
Clayton Moore Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,508

8th June 2011, 06:22 PM	#527
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,774	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Not much of an answer. Oh, I see. You want an answer from me. No. I'd like you to elaborate on these defenses the pentagon has, since you brought them up.
	__________________

8th June 2011, 06:24 PM	#528
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,774	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Are you trolling? It's a valid question. Manning had a security clearance and violated the trust of his employer.
	__________________

8th June 2011, 06:32 PM	#530
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,774	Originally Posted by AJM8125 I'd like you to elaborate on these defenses the pentagon has, since you brought them up. Oh, and Clayton? Google isn't your friend.
	__________________

8th June 2011, 07:03 PM	#531
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,279	http://www.911myths.com/html/pentago...batteries.html
	__________________ "AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

8th June 2011, 07:27 PM	#532
000063 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by Sabrina You have CLEARLY never been to the Pentagon. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the air defense artillery batteries don't exist. There's no space for them. The Pentagon has a police force to protect it; that's it. They're very competent, don't get me wrong, but explain to me exactly how you think policemen ON FOOT are supposed to protect a building from a speeding plane? Especially when there's an airport, what a mile or so away, which, IIRC, regularly flies planes over the Pentagon?
000063 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,398	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...63#post7231363 "I have to think William of Occam is turning over in his grave about now, except that I'm sure someone would accuse the corpse of being a vicsim." - JayUtah

8th June 2011, 07:29 PM	#533
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,374	Originally Posted by 000063 Especially when there's an airport, what a mile or so away, which, IIRC, regularly flies planes over the Pentagon? Keep on making sense, and someday you'll get promoted to 000064 sir
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

9th June 2011, 05:27 AM	#535
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,374	Shame on you Oystein for trying to make CM deviate from his delightful argument from simple incredulity debate tactic; it's just not fair.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

9th June 2011, 05:42 AM	#536
Animal Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 2,094	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore They mention it because when you have a TS clearance you're considered a highly trustworthy employee. You don't know much about security clearances

9th June 2011, 05:53 AM	#538
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810	Originally Posted by Animal You don't know much about security clearances This shocks you?
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 9,810

9th June 2011, 08:16 AM	#539
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I missed this thread the first time around so forgive my ignorance. I assume the sanctions came about as a result of Rule 11 and Rule 12(b)(6). Actually, in this case, the sanctions are imposed pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which simply states: Quote: 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. The court raised the matter of sanctions nostra sponte (on their own motion for those of you who don't want to look up the Latin) citing Rule 38 as well as their inherent jurisdiction to do so. Originally Posted by KingMerv00 In light of the parts I've bolded, do you think it would be "reasonable" to charge a client for failing that badly? Let me be put this in perspective: Judges rarely sanction people. If they do, you have probably ********** up in a spectacular way. Any attempt to pass that onto the client is flat out unethical and should get you disbarred. Disbarment aside, if a lawyer tried to charge me for his sanction, I'd sue him for breach of contract. His sanctions are not a service and I'm not paying for them. In this case, the court specifically decided that if Gallop and her lawyers cannot show cause why they shouldn't have to pay double costs and damages in the amount of $15k, then they will be jointly and severally liable for payment of same. They imposed joint and several liability on the basis that "attorney and client are in the best position between them to determine who caused this appeal to be taken". That said, I agree with you that the lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway? The only ones who know that are Gallop and her lawyers, so it makes sense for the court to impose joint and several liability in the circumstances.

9th June 2011, 10:38 AM	#542
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,714	Originally Posted by Animal ... (And then there is that little complex called Reagan International Airport about a mile away that troofers always forget. One of the runway's landing pattern is right over the Pentagon.) http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...55747&t=h&z=15 A flight path to/from Runway 15 of Reagan National misses the north-east face of the Pentagon by just a few dozend yards. It's 0.8 miles from the end of runway 15 to the easternmost corner of the Pentagon. A 757 that has a take-off speed of 160mph would get there in less than 18 seconds.

9th June 2011, 11:56 AM	#543
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Lots of places Posts: 9,237	Originally Posted by 000063 Especially when there's an airport, what a mile or so away, which, IIRC, regularly flies planes over the Pentagon? When I landed at DCA (Reagan National) once we flew almost over the Pentagon when we came in to land.
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

9th June 2011, 02:28 PM	#545
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,734	Originally Posted by George152 Okay. How? Considering there's an commercial airfield next door. And roadways virtually all round the Pentagon. How do you stop a 500 knot airliner aimed at you ? Or a truck bomb being driven at you ? Piece of cake! Man each defense battery with a team of psychics and clairvoyants. Obviously they wouldn't shoot at a "friendly".
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

9th June 2011, 03:09 PM	#546
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,458	Originally Posted by LashL Actually, in this case, the sanctions are imposed pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which simply states: That works too. Quote: That said, I agree with you that the lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway? Then Gallop can sue for malpractice. On second thought, someone that gullible should probably stay far away from all lawyers.

9th June 2011, 03:20 PM	#547
Triterope Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 916	Originally Posted by LashL The lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway? The only ones who know that are Gallop and her lawyers, so it makes sense for the court to impose joint and several liability in the circumstances. It should be noted that the primary lawyer, William Veale, is all over the Internet as a "lawyer for 9-11 Truth." I don't think we can assume this was all Gallop's idea.
Triterope Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 916

9th June 2011, 04:56 PM	#548
ozeco41 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 7,597	Originally Posted by LashL Actually, in this case, the sanctions are imposed pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure... Thanks LashL. My limited knowledge of US law takes another small step forward. Originally Posted by LashL ...They imposed joint and several liability on the basis that "attorney and client are in the best position between them to determine who caused this appeal to be taken"... Oops. I misread that "joint and several" as meaning the various lawyers - not lawyers and client. I must be out of practice. Originally Posted by LashL ...That said, I agree with you that the lawyers ought to have known better, but who knows whether they told that to Gallop and she insisted on proceeding anyway? Which was the point I raised some time back leading to... Originally Posted by LashL ...The only ones who know that are Gallop and her lawyers, so it makes sense for the court to impose joint and several liability in the circumstances. ..which naturally follows. Thanks again.

13th June 2011, 07:42 AM	#549
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Originally Posted by CptColumbo we flew almost over the Pentagon <snip> I'm helping Craig and Aldo out. The above ought to be good for at least another two CD sales. Debunker admits to almost fly over!!!
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

15th June 2011, 02:32 PM	#550
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Oh, I missed something on PACER earlier; Gallop's lawyers asked for an extension of time to show cause why sanctions shouldn't be imposed against them and 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. I haven't finished reading it yet but just the first few pages are enough to make me wonder how any of the three lawyers with their names on this will come through this without even more sanctions or further action against them. I'll post the document up later tonight after I've finished reading it.

15th June 2011, 03:14 PM	#551
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,279	Gallop did what? Are her lawyers trying to get themselves disbarred?
	__________________ "AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

15th June 2011, 06:21 PM	#552
Myron Proudfoot Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Northern VA/DC Posts: 2,361	Originally Posted by CptColumbo When I landed at DCA (Reagan National) once we flew almost over the Pentagon when we came in to land. I live in northern Va so I've flown over the Pentagon from DCA many times, and even over CIA HQs in McLean. And DCA is known as the favorite of members of Congress flying back and forth from home. The idea that the Pentagon had anti-aircraft missiles ready and able to fire on 9/11 is, IMHO, one of the twoofers more stupid ideas..
	__________________ InfoWars. Punching logic in the face on a daily basis. (from Facebook)

15th June 2011, 07:25 PM	#553
TJM Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21,774	Originally Posted by LashL But the more entertaining bit is this: Gallop has filed a petition for rehearing. After the verbal beat-down the court just gave them? I've never underestimated the ignorance of truthers, but this is definitely worthy of a Lifetime Stundie Achievement Award^TM. I wonder how the court will react to that. Should be high comedy.
	__________________

15th June 2011, 08:55 PM	#554
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	Can they say the word "dumbass" in a ruling? If so, it should be included.
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

16th June 2011, 02:34 AM	#556
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 On second thought, someone that gullible should probably stay far away from all lawyers. I think somebody needs to take her by the hand and lead her to an attorney who specialises in suing people who take advantage of the mentally ill. Slam-dunk, she gets her money back and her shysters pay the sanctions out of their own pockets. She suffers PTSD and the drongos took advantage of that fact to convince her of an absurd and delusional cause.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

16th June 2011, 02:05 PM	#558
George 152 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 5,012	Originally Posted by DGM Piece of cake! Man each defense battery with a team of psychics and clairvoyants. Obviously they wouldn't shoot at a "friendly". The conspiracy kooks just might believe that Of course as there are daily 1200 or so aircraft movements through the area you'd also need psychologists and profilers and any other 'art' practitioners....
George 152 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 5,012

16th June 2011, 02:28 PM	#559
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Sorry, I got very busy last night with ~~really important stuff~~ the Stanley Cup final and didn't get this latest piece-o-crap uploaded, etc. I don't think I have ever seen a pleading this rude and insulting to the judiciary. I don't think it's going to go over very well. Enjoy!

16th June 2011, 02:53 PM	#560
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,279	Uh oh... Quote: Grounds are that the Panel overlooked, misapprehended and indeed scorned, without comprehending, or even minimally attending to, the vast bulk of the facts alleged in the appeal and the underlying complaint... Lash: Wanna make some Legaltaining predictions on what the court's gonna do with that statement?
	__________________ "AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."