[Merged] April Gallop / Gallop lawsuit thrown out / Appeal denied - Page 16

Sam.I.Am · 18th June 2011, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert

On top of the 15K, can they get hit with more court imposed fines? If so, can you speculate on what those fines could be?

I'm not a lawyer or even close to it but I'm guessing that contempt charges could be involved. That can be fines (I'm pretty sure that there's an upper limit per charge but there's plenty of separate charges in there if they want to go that route) and I know that I've heard of people being locked up for contempt (or at least until they cough up the fines) so there's that too.

There's plenty of opportunities for even more legaltainment in this document.

LashL · 18th June 2011, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Those claims/statements put to the court which go to matters of fact about 9/11 as distinct from the matters of law involved in the first instance hearing and subsequent appeal processes. I was not implying that they are true facts.

Well, if a truther could ever make it past the pleadings stage, then they would move on to discoveries (depositions) and I imagine that the defendants would then bring a successful motion for summary judgment and the action would be dismissed at that stage.

However, if a truther ever did make it past pleadings and discoveries and on to a pretrial and trial, then the trial would be conducted just like any other trial. The plaintiff would call his/her witnesses, who would be cross-examined by the defendants' lawyers, and then at the close of the plaintiff's case, I imagine that the defence would bring a successful motion for non-suit/directed verdict. I really can't see any way that a truther's allegations of a vast conspiracy by government officials would ever make it to consideration by a judge/jury.

Going back to this action, it must be recalled that Gallop alleged in her complaint very little in the way of properly pleaded "facts":

what she experienced first hand
she didn't personally see a plane or wreckage
some gov't officials ignored warnings
fighter jets had time to intercept but failed to do so

She did try to get a whole lot of crap introduced by way of affidavits in response to the motion to dismiss, but it must be recalled that affidavits submitted on a motion to dismiss do not correct a deficient pleading. This is according to a long line of well established law, so the affidavit material could not and was correctly not considered.

Further, her claims were for a violation of her constitutional rights; conspiracy to cause death and great bodily harm; and a claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act for treble damages and lawyer's fees for being a U.S. national injured by an act of "international terrorism" (while failing to note that government officials are specifically exempt from having such claims brought against them pursuant to the provisions of that very Act). None of the "facts" she pleaded came even remotely close to being able to entitle her to the relief sought.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Could the judge punish him for his conduct? I mean, above and beyond sanctions?

I mean, if I walked into a court and told the judge that, it would most likely be thrown in jail. What can be done to this jackass lawyer?

I don't think the court will do anything beyond imposing further sanctions.

That said, I am genuinely amazed that these guys have the audacity to have written that petition for rehearing as they have. They are not only being blatantly insulting to the judicial panel and over the top with their rhetoric, but they're still trying to introduce inadmissible evidence after they've been told in no uncertain terms that it won't be considered, in accordance with the law. Further, it's silly to keep claiming that the District Court erred in not permitting Gallop to amend her complaint when they didn't even ask on her behalf to be permitted to do so. There's a long line of cases that says quite clearly that - to paraphrase - a court cannot be criticized as being in error for failing to grant a request that was never made.

ETA: I'm just reading through the petition for rehearing again, and I'm starting to think that it might, indeed, rise to the level of being contemptuous.

LashL · 18th June 2011, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert

On top of the 15K, can they get hit with more court imposed fines? If so, can you speculate on what those fines could be?

I think that they can (and will) be ordered to pay further sanctions, and I think that the amount will depend upon how much of the court's and the defendants' time they waste.

Triterope · 18th June 2011, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

and a claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act for treble damages and lawyer's fees for being a U.S. national injured by an act of "international terrorism" (while failing to note that government officials are specifically exempt from having such claims brought against them pursuant to the provisions of that very Act).

And also failing to note that a terrorist attack by the U.S. government on U.S. citizens would no longer be "international."

leftysergeant · 18th June 2011, 10:21 PM

Is being clincly insane grounds for disbarment? It looks to me as though some parties to this case may have long since crossed that line and burned the bridges and cratered the road back.

Orphia Nay · 18th June 2011, 10:44 PM

Is there are chance she'll be declared a Vexatious Litigant?

leftysergeant · 19th June 2011, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Is there are chance she'll be declared a Vexatious Litigant?

She has an out on the grounds of mental disability. Her arttorneys are quite another matter. They do not so clearly suffer from PTSD.

Gallop should be medically retired with 100% disability and a Purple Heart. She was among the first military casualties of the 9/11 attacks.

Her attorneys should be disbarred for exploiting a disabled person for thier personal gain (if they cannot be disbarred just for being blithering idiots.)

triforcharity · 19th June 2011, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by LashL

I think that they can (and will) be ordered to pay further sanctions, and I think that the amount will depend upon how much of the court's and the defendants' time they waste.

Awesome. Could the State Bar also bring sanctions or punishment?

triforcharity · 19th June 2011, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Is there are chance she'll be declared a Vexatious Litigant?

That sounded kinky untill I googled it.....

TruthersLie · 19th June 2011, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

That sounded kinky untill I googled it.....

It still sounds kinky AFTER I googled it.

ElMondoHummus · 19th June 2011, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by TruthersLie

It still sounds kinky AFTER I googled it.

That's because your mind's in the gutter.

Welcome to the club!

TruthersLie · 19th June 2011, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

That's because your mind's in the gutter.

Welcome to the club!

Get your mind out of the gutter.

It's blocking my way.

triforcharity · 19th June 2011, 05:11 PM

Why are you two playing in my head?

LashL · 19th June 2011, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Is there are chance she'll be declared a Vexatious Litigant?

She should be. If her multiple lawsuits had been brought where I live, she'd have had costs awards made against her in each and every one in which she failed as "costs follow the event" in the civil system here, and she would also certainly be a prime candidate for being declared a vexatious litigant. The U.S., for reason unknown to me, seems to be much more lenient in both regards.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

She has an out on the grounds of mental disability.

She's not mentally disabled. She's spent the past close to ten years looking for monetary payouts from anyone and everyone from whom she thinks she might collect.

triforcharity · 19th June 2011, 06:20 PM

She's a gold digger.......

Maybe a little NSFW

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

leftysergeant · 19th June 2011, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

She's not mentally disabled. She's spent the past close to ten years looking for monetary payouts from anyone and everyone from whom she thinks she might collect.

She has been delusional since the attack.

KingMerv00 · 19th June 2011, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

She has an out on the grounds of mental disability. Her arttorneys are quite another matter. They do not so clearly suffer from PTSD.

Insanity is generally not a defense in a civil matter. I believe these sanctions qualify.

Insanity would also be no defense in the event she were sued for abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

leftysergeant · 19th June 2011, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Insanity would also be no defense in the event she were sued for abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

I would still hold her less culpable than the attorneys exploiting her.

KingMerv00 · 19th June 2011, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I would still hold her less culpable than the attorneys exploiting her.

In theory that's possible but do we have any reason to believe she was exploited?

If she was paying on a contingency basis, the lawyers may have not made a dime.

LashL · 20th June 2011, 07:23 PM

Oh, my. I just popped in at PACER and found that now, Veale et al have filed another motion that, in my view, appears well beyond the limits of appropriate behaviour, that will try even the most patient of judicial patience, and that goes easily into the realms of contempt in the face of the court.

(There's a distinction here above the 49th parallel between contempt of court and contempt in the face of the court; the latter is worse and is treated as criminal contempt rather than civil contempt.)

I'm starting to think that these guys (Veale, Ndanusa, and Cunningham) might actually end up in jail before this is all over, I'm starting to think that that might actually be their goal (i.e., maybe they'll finally get some media attention if they go to jail over their ridiculous antics).

I'll post the documents as soon as I've finished reading them and get them uploaded to my Legaltainment™ site.

ETA: Only Veale put his name on this latest piece of utter nonsense so maybe he's the only one who wants to go to jail

triforcharity · 20th June 2011, 07:32 PM

Oh, please post those tonight! PLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEEEEE.................
........Bows in the direction of Toronto chanting "We're not worthy" over and over......

TjW · 20th June 2011, 07:41 PM

Assuming there is some additional sanction, I wonder if anyone could encourage him to mount a "sovereign citizen" defense?

LashL · 20th June 2011, 07:56 PM

The stupid continues to burn. Here you go:

Enjoy.

KingMerv00 · 20th June 2011, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by TjW

Assuming there is some additional sanction, I wonder if anyone could encourage him to mount a "sovereign citizen" defense?

That would be functionally indistinguishable from wearing garlic to court and reciting the judge's name backwards three times.

triforcharity · 20th June 2011, 08:09 PM

This part is absolutely disrespectful.

Quote:

Without question, abhorrent ideas often display the
power to immobilize or incapacitate normal intellectual functions, even of
extraordinarily gifted and experienced people. There is another, less wholesome
explanation for the court‘s treatment of the facts and law in this case, however: that
it is simply a rank, dishonest wielding of ordained power to silence criticism. We
still feel it unnecessary to adopt this view; but if it were true, it would also require
the action this motion seeks, of course.

Wow. I'd be SHOCKED if they don't receive LARGE sanctions, and as LashL pointed out, possible jail time for criminal contempt.

Amazing.

KingMerv00 · 20th June 2011, 08:21 PM

Read it. Some tips for these guys:

1) Do not spend 15 pages telling the judges they are hysterical lunatics.
2) Do not argue the facts of the case when you have been specifically told not to.
3) Do not threaten judges with Congressional investigations.
4) Do not bitch about that one time the judge interrupted you.
4a) Do not write a 175 word footnote to do so.
5) Do not ever take part in litigation again...ever.

NoZed Avenger · 20th June 2011, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

The stupid continues to burn. Here you go:

Enjoy.

Suicide by Judge.

WildCat · 20th June 2011, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

The stupid continues to burn. Here you go:

Enjoy.

Oh my!

triforcharity · 20th June 2011, 08:30 PM

Wow. Just wow.

Quote:

But the Panel has shown they will not be
impartial, and perhaps cannot be; and this may well be substantially a psychoemotional
matter, beyond their control, so to speak, grown from the great stress
and trauma of the 9/11 events on people here in New York, as noted; and that is a
reason why other judges may also be blocked from impartiality. This would be
more than plausible.

So, all judges who had ANY connection to 9/11 ( which means a person who was breathing) should be recused? Why didn't they just go to the UN?

******* morons. All of them.

CptColumbo · 20th June 2011, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Read it. Some tips for these guys:

1) Do not spend 15 pages telling the judges they are hysterical lunatics.
2) Do not argue the facts of the case when you have been specifically told not to.
3) Do not threaten judges with Congressional investigations.
4) Do not bitch about that one time the judge interrupted you.
4a) Do not write a 175 word footnote to do so.
5) Do not ever take part in litigation again...ever.

I don't think number 5 will be a problem for much longer.

JamesB · 20th June 2011, 08:51 PM

Quote:

As a threshold matter, however, because of an evidently unrestrained
prejudice against plaintiffs and counsel shown in the written decision, and the
nostre sponte sanctions order, we must demand and do hereby move that the three
panel members—and any other members of the bench of this Circuit who share
their feelings—be recused from further participation in the Court's consideration of
the case itself, and the order to show cause.

So let me get this straight? They want any judge who agrees that they are nutjobs recused from the case? Which leaves who exactly?

ProBonoShill · 20th June 2011, 08:56 PM

I can't wait to hear the courts reaction, these guys are playing with fire.

ElMondoHummus · 20th June 2011, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Why are you two playing in my head?

Because I love playing in wide, empty spaces.

... Wait. What?

KingMerv00 · 20th June 2011, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by JamesB

So let me get this straight? They want any judge who agrees that they are nutjobs recused from the case? Which leaves who exactly?

Andrew Napolitano

OK, technically he is an EX-judge from STATE court but I don't think Gallop's lawyers would know the difference.

ElMondoHummus · 20th June 2011, 09:08 PM

Anyway, Lash: What are the chances Veale's going to get his butt disbarred for this? It seems to me - an admitted layman - that he's making ridiculously manifest his intentional disregard for proper conduct. Yes, it's a single case, but going out of your way to commit malpractice is a pretty good indicator that a guy's lost all professional perspective. As a comparison, I can easily see a state board stripping a medical doctor of their license if they clearly show a deliberate willingness to act contrary to the established standard of care, to professional standards outside of patient care, etc. But, this is still a unique case. You see that possibly happening?

akama1 · 20th June 2011, 09:40 PM

Quote:

4.
In addition, we are well aware of the normal rule that a judge can‘t be
disqualified from a case for an action or ruling in that very case, but we feel the
exception lies here, because the sanction, and the ruling that the complaint and
appeal are frivolous, are so unjust, unfounded, and contrary to law.

Is going to burn him hard, Admitting he knows the rules, and then breaking them anyway. wow, Just wow. LashL thanks for digging the dirt where others fear to tread.

triforcharity · 20th June 2011, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by JamesB

So let me get this straight? They want any judge who agrees that they are nutjobs recused from the case? Which leaves who exactly?

Yep, that is what I gather from it. I could be wrong, as Legalease is not my forte, but that is what it appears.

I'm not sure who they could get. Maybe Gage or Jones could get elected?

triforcharity · 20th June 2011, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Because I love playing in wide, empty spaces.

... Wait. What?

----------------------------------------------

I see this ending very badly for Veale. I think I might call him tomorrow and ask him what he might have to offer. Just for SNG's really.

This guy seems to be WAY out of his league.

R.Mackey · 20th June 2011, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

I'm starting to think that these guys (Veale, Ndanusa, and Cunningham) might actually end up in jail before this is all over, I'm starting to think that that might actually be their goal (i.e., maybe they'll finally get some media attention if they go to jail over their ridiculous antics).

We've all noted before how deep conspiracy thinking is a self-fulfilling belief -- some of these guys actually want to live in a world that's out to get them, and they'll do anything to make it appear that their paranoia is in fact true.

Probably what we're dealing with here. They're convinced that they're in a "police state" and will wind up behind bars anyway, so naturally, they'll do whatever it takes to get there. So long as they have an excuse for their beliefs, who cares what the attendant cost to their normal lives is? Gage forsook his family and his career to chase his delusions, why not go a step further?

Conspiracy thinking is literally a cancer of the mind. Once it takes root, it will do anything it can to feed itself. Even if it sickens or kills the host.

Oystein · 21st June 2011, 12:20 AM

William Veale's signature:

Do we have any experts here who can analyse this handwriting?

18th June 2011, 01:48 PM	#601
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 4,627	Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert On top of the 15K, can they get hit with more court imposed fines? If so, can you speculate on what those fines could be? I'm not a lawyer or even close to it but I'm guessing that contempt charges could be involved. That can be fines (I'm pretty sure that there's an upper limit per charge but there's plenty of separate charges in there if they want to go that route) and I know that I've heard of people being locked up for contempt (or at least until they cough up the fines) so there's that too. There's plenty of opportunities for even more legaltainment in this document.
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 4,627	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

18th June 2011, 03:51 PM	#602
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Originally Posted by ozeco41 Those claims/statements put to the court which go to matters of fact about 9/11 as distinct from the matters of law involved in the first instance hearing and subsequent appeal processes. I was not implying that they are true facts. Well, if a truther could ever make it past the pleadings stage, then they would move on to discoveries (depositions) and I imagine that the defendants would then bring a successful motion for summary judgment and the action would be dismissed at that stage. However, if a truther ever did make it past pleadings and discoveries and on to a pretrial and trial, then the trial would be conducted just like any other trial. The plaintiff would call his/her witnesses, who would be cross-examined by the defendants' lawyers, and then at the close of the plaintiff's case, I imagine that the defence would bring a successful motion for non-suit/directed verdict. I really can't see any way that a truther's allegations of a vast conspiracy by government officials would ever make it to consideration by a judge/jury. Going back to this action, it must be recalled that Gallop alleged in her complaint very little in the way of properly pleaded "facts": what she experienced first hand she didn't personally see a plane or wreckage some gov't officials ignored warnings fighter jets had time to intercept but failed to do so She did try to get a whole lot of crap introduced by way of affidavits in response to the motion to dismiss, but it must be recalled that affidavits submitted on a motion to dismiss do not correct a deficient pleading. This is according to a long line of well established law, so the affidavit material could not and was correctly not considered. Further, her claims were for a violation of her constitutional rights; conspiracy to cause death and great bodily harm; and a claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act for treble damages and lawyer's fees for being a U.S. national injured by an act of "international terrorism" (while failing to note that government officials are specifically exempt from having such claims brought against them pursuant to the provisions of that very Act). None of the "facts" she pleaded came even remotely close to being able to entitle her to the relief sought. Originally Posted by triforcharity Could the judge punish him for his conduct? I mean, above and beyond sanctions? I mean, if I walked into a court and told the judge that, it would most likely be thrown in jail. What can be done to this jackass lawyer? I don't think the court will do anything beyond imposing further sanctions. That said, I am genuinely amazed that these guys have the audacity to have written that petition for rehearing as they have. They are not only being blatantly insulting to the judicial panel and over the top with their rhetoric, but they're still trying to introduce inadmissible evidence after they've been told in no uncertain terms that it won't be considered, in accordance with the law. Further, it's silly to keep claiming that the District Court erred in not permitting Gallop to amend her complaint when they didn't even ask on her behalf to be permitted to do so. There's a long line of cases that says quite clearly that - to paraphrase - a court cannot be criticized as being in error for failing to grant a request that was never made. ETA: I'm just reading through the petition for rehearing again, and I'm starting to think that it might, indeed, rise to the level of being contemptuous.
	Last edited by LashL; 19th June 2011 at 05:12 PM.

18th June 2011, 04:45 PM	#604
Triterope Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 916	Originally Posted by LashL and a claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act for treble damages and lawyer's fees for being a U.S. national injured by an act of "international terrorism" (while failing to note that government officials are specifically exempt from having such claims brought against them pursuant to the provisions of that very Act). And also failing to note that a terrorist attack by the U.S. government on U.S. citizens would no longer be "international."
Triterope Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 916

18th June 2011, 10:21 PM	#605
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Is being clincly insane grounds for disbarment? It looks to me as though some parties to this case may have long since crossed that line and burned the bridges and cratered the road back.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

18th June 2011, 10:44 PM	#606
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Photo Contest Winner Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 40,326	Is there are chance she'll be declared a Vexatious Litigant?
	__________________ "We stigmatize and send to the margins people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid" - Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".

18th June 2011, 03:59 PM	#603
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert On top of the 15K, can they get hit with more court imposed fines? If so, can you speculate on what those fines could be? I think that they can (and will) be ordered to pay further sanctions, and I think that the amount will depend upon how much of the court's and the defendants' time they waste.

19th June 2011, 12:51 AM	#607
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Is there are chance she'll be declared a Vexatious Litigant? She has an out on the grounds of mental disability. Her arttorneys are quite another matter. They do not so clearly suffer from PTSD. Gallop should be medically retired with 100% disability and a Purple Heart. She was among the first military casualties of the 9/11 attacks. Her attorneys should be disbarred for exploiting a disabled person for thier personal gain (if they cannot be disbarred just for being blithering idiots.)
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

19th June 2011, 04:39 AM	#608
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	Originally Posted by LashL I think that they can (and will) be ordered to pay further sanctions, and I think that the amount will depend upon how much of the court's and the defendants' time they waste. Awesome. Could the State Bar also bring sanctions or punishment?
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

19th June 2011, 04:41 AM	#609
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Is there are chance she'll be declared a Vexatious Litigant? That sounded kinky untill I googled it.....
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

19th June 2011, 07:25 AM	#610
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,715	Originally Posted by triforcharity That sounded kinky untill I googled it..... It still sounds kinky AFTER I googled it.
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

19th June 2011, 10:45 AM	#611
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,279	Originally Posted by TruthersLie It still sounds kinky AFTER I googled it. That's because your mind's in the gutter. Welcome to the club!
	__________________ "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."

19th June 2011, 11:46 AM	#612
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,715	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus That's because your mind's in the gutter. Welcome to the club! Get your mind out of the gutter. It's blocking my way.
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

19th June 2011, 05:11 PM	#613
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	Why are you two playing in my head?
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

19th June 2011, 05:20 PM	#614
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Is there are chance she'll be declared a Vexatious Litigant? She should be. If her multiple lawsuits had been brought where I live, she'd have had costs awards made against her in each and every one in which she failed as "costs follow the event" in the civil system here, and she would also certainly be a prime candidate for being declared a vexatious litigant. The U.S., for reason unknown to me, seems to be much more lenient in both regards. Originally Posted by leftysergeant She has an out on the grounds of mental disability. She's not mentally disabled. She's spent the past close to ten years looking for monetary payouts from anyone and everyone from whom she thinks she might collect.
	Last edited by LashL; 19th June 2011 at 05:21 PM.

19th June 2011, 07:03 PM	#616
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by LashL She's not mentally disabled. She's spent the past close to ten years looking for monetary payouts from anyone and everyone from whom she thinks she might collect. She has been delusional since the attack.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

19th June 2011, 07:26 PM	#617
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,458	Originally Posted by leftysergeant She has an out on the grounds of mental disability. Her arttorneys are quite another matter. They do not so clearly suffer from PTSD. Insanity is generally not a defense in a civil matter. I believe these sanctions qualify. Insanity would also be no defense in the event she were sued for abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

19th June 2011, 07:29 PM	#618
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Insanity would also be no defense in the event she were sued for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. I would still hold her less culpable than the attorneys exploiting her.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

19th June 2011, 07:32 PM	#619
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,458	Originally Posted by leftysergeant I would still hold her less culpable than the attorneys exploiting her. In theory that's possible but do we have any reason to believe she was exploited? If she was paying on a contingency basis, the lawyers may have not made a dime.

20th June 2011, 07:23 PM	#620
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	Oh, my. I just popped in at PACER and found that now, Veale et al have filed another motion that, in my view, appears well beyond the limits of appropriate behaviour, that will try even the most patient of judicial patience, and that goes easily into the realms of contempt in the face of the court. (There's a distinction here above the 49th parallel between contempt of court and contempt in the face of the court; the latter is worse and is treated as criminal contempt rather than civil contempt.) I'm starting to think that these guys (Veale, Ndanusa, and Cunningham) might actually end up in jail before this is all over, I'm starting to think that that might actually be their goal (i.e., maybe they'll finally get some media attention if they go to jail over their ridiculous antics). I'll post the documents as soon as I've finished reading them and get them uploaded to my Legaltainment™ site. ETA: Only Veale put his name on this latest piece of utter nonsense so maybe he's the only one who wants to go to jail
	Last edited by LashL; 20th June 2011 at 07:34 PM.

20th June 2011, 07:32 PM	#621
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	Oh, please post those tonight! PLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEEEEE................. ........Bows in the direction of Toronto chanting "We're not worthy" over and over......
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

20th June 2011, 07:41 PM	#622
TjW Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 11,097	Assuming there is some additional sanction, I wonder if anyone could encourage him to mount a "sovereign citizen" defense?

20th June 2011, 07:56 PM	#623
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,959	The stupid continues to burn. Here you go: Enjoy.

20th June 2011, 08:00 PM	#624
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,458	Originally Posted by TjW Assuming there is some additional sanction, I wonder if anyone could encourage him to mount a "sovereign citizen" defense? That would be functionally indistinguishable from wearing garlic to court and reciting the judge's name backwards three times.

20th June 2011, 08:09 PM	#625
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	This part is absolutely disrespectful. Quote: Without question, abhorrent ideas often display the power to immobilize or incapacitate normal intellectual functions, even of extraordinarily gifted and experienced people. There is another, less wholesome explanation for the court‘s treatment of the facts and law in this case, however: that it is simply a rank, dishonest wielding of ordained power to silence criticism. We still feel it unnecessary to adopt this view; but if it were true, it would also require the action this motion seeks, of course. Wow. I'd be SHOCKED if they don't receive LARGE sanctions, and as LashL pointed out, possible jail time for criminal contempt. Amazing.
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

20th June 2011, 08:21 PM	#626
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,458	Read it. Some tips for these guys: 1) Do not spend 15 pages telling the judges they are hysterical lunatics. 2) Do not argue the facts of the case when you have been specifically told not to. 3) Do not threaten judges with Congressional investigations. 4) Do not bitch about that one time the judge interrupted you. 4a) Do not write a 175 word footnote to do so. 5) Do not ever take part in litigation again...ever.
	Last edited by KingMerv00; 20th June 2011 at 08:25 PM.

20th June 2011, 08:25 PM	#627
NoZed Avenger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,286	Originally Posted by LashL The stupid continues to burn. Here you go: Enjoy. Suicide by Judge.

20th June 2011, 08:30 PM	#628
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by LashL The stupid continues to burn. Here you go: Enjoy. Oh my!
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

20th June 2011, 08:30 PM	#629
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	Wow. Just wow. Quote: But the Panel has shown they will not be impartial, and perhaps cannot be; and this may well be substantially a psychoemotional matter, beyond their control, so to speak, grown from the great stress and trauma of the 9/11 events on people here in New York, as noted; and that is a reason why other judges may also be blocked from impartiality. This would be more than plausible. So, all judges who had ANY connection to 9/11 ( which means a person who was breathing) should be recused? Why didn't they just go to the UN? ******* morons. All of them.
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

20th June 2011, 08:38 PM	#630
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Lots of places Posts: 9,237	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Read it. Some tips for these guys: 1) Do not spend 15 pages telling the judges they are hysterical lunatics. 2) Do not argue the facts of the case when you have been specifically told not to. 3) Do not threaten judges with Congressional investigations. 4) Do not bitch about that one time the judge interrupted you. 4a) Do not write a 175 word footnote to do so. 5) Do not ever take part in litigation again...ever. I don't think number 5 will be a problem for much longer.
	__________________ 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

20th June 2011, 08:51 PM	#631
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	Quote: As a threshold matter, however, because of an evidently unrestrained prejudice against plaintiffs and counsel shown in the written decision, and the nostre sponte sanctions order, we must demand and do hereby move that the three panel members—and any other members of the bench of this Circuit who share their feelings—be recused from further participation in the Court's consideration of the case itself, and the order to show cause. So let me get this straight? They want any judge who agrees that they are nutjobs recused from the case? Which leaves who exactly?
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

20th June 2011, 08:56 PM	#632
ProBonoShill Master Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 2,323	I can't wait to hear the courts reaction, these guys are playing with fire.

20th June 2011, 09:00 PM	#633
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,279	Originally Posted by triforcharity Why are you two playing in my head? Because I love playing in wide, empty spaces. ... Wait. What?
	__________________ "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."

20th June 2011, 09:02 PM	#634
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,458	Originally Posted by JamesB So let me get this straight? They want any judge who agrees that they are nutjobs recused from the case? Which leaves who exactly? Andrew Napolitano OK, technically he is an EX-judge from STATE court but I don't think Gallop's lawyers would know the difference.
	Last edited by KingMerv00; 20th June 2011 at 09:06 PM.

20th June 2011, 09:08 PM	#635
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,279	Anyway, Lash: What are the chances Veale's going to get his butt disbarred for this? It seems to me - an admitted layman - that he's making ridiculously manifest his intentional disregard for proper conduct. Yes, it's a single case, but going out of your way to commit malpractice is a pretty good indicator that a guy's lost all professional perspective. As a comparison, I can easily see a state board stripping a medical doctor of their license if they clearly show a deliberate willingness to act contrary to the established standard of care, to professional standards outside of patient care, etc. But, this is still a unique case. You see that possibly happening?
	__________________ "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."

20th June 2011, 09:40 PM	#636
akama1 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 285	Quote: 4. In addition, we are well aware of the normal rule that a judge can‘t be disqualified from a case for an action or ruling in that very case, but we feel the exception lies here, because the sanction, and the ruling that the complaint and appeal are frivolous, are so unjust, unfounded, and contrary to law. Is going to burn him hard, Admitting he knows the rules, and then breaking them anyway. wow, Just wow. LashL thanks for digging the dirt where others fear to tread.
akama1 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 285