ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 litigation , april gallop , frivolous lawsuits , lawsuits

Reply
Old 20th October 2011, 08:10 PM   #841
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,454
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
I'm not sure, although I recall that all three of them had their names on the pleadings going back to when the matter was in the lower court (at least as far back as when they were responding to the defendants' motion to dismiss in the summer of 2009), and I recall mentioning that when the e-mail address that your lawyer puts on a court filing ends with "@gmail.com", you should be worried, and when you have three lawyers listed on your court filings and all three of them list e-mail addresses that end with "@gmail.com", you should be very, very worried. ...
I was not tracking the issue at that stage - my primary interest in 9/11 being engineering of WTC collapses. My legal interest has usually been triggered by discussions on another forum and the Gay Marriage issues - principly CA initiatives set against the US scene in general and comparisons to UK. I am slowly learning something of US constitutional law and the Fed v State interactions. Back on this topic the "*@gmail.com" times three something I did not know but it should be a loud alarm bell.
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
...Nonetheless, it really does appear that Veale was the 'leader' of the bunch until the proverbial feces collided with the proverbial oscillating device, at which time Cunningham stepped up to try to deflect some of the inevitable mess from spattering on Veale.
That is my reading too. A bit of altruistic "sets share the agro" which the judges would see right through but no need for them to comment or act.

So they gave him, Cunningham, standing to appear so they could slap him down.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2011, 10:05 PM   #842
TSR
Illuminator
 
TSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,783
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Even worse, she's one of those sneaky Canadian Bush Lawyers!
.
The problem is, she looks like Kinnie Starr which distracts the defendants because they're thinking about what kind of briefs she's using that day.

The joke's on them -- she's not wea...




Ummm. I'll be in my trailer...
.
TSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2011, 05:41 PM   #843
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,552
I've been pretty busy lately and haven't had time to check on the ongoing saga of Gallop's frivolous lawsuits recently, but then thought to do so tonight and found that Dennis Cunningham filed his "mea culpa, sorta kinda, but it's still a huge freaking government conspiracy and why on earth can't you see that?" sort of response to the Appeal Court's Order to Show Cause. Back on October 14, the court gave Cunningham 30 days to file his response to the order and his "mea culpa sorta kinda" was filed on November 14. No other documents have been filed since, and I'm going on vacation later this week, so I'll take a peek back after Christmas to see what the court decides on the Cunningham show cause matter.

But whining to the court that they got it all wrong and trying to regurgitate the same crap that got you sanctioned in the first place is unlikely to win the hearts and minds of the court.

As an aside, the time for Gallop to appeal the dismissal of her frivolous lawsuit by the Appeal Court is running out; two more days, I believe. Tick tock, tick tock.

Lastly, I'm having some weird computer issues that prevent me from uploading the document to my Legaltainment™ site (and that prevent me from uploading images and such to here, even) so I've uploaded this document to scribd.com for now instead, so that at least it can be retrieved and read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75405134/162-Resp-to-SC-3

Enjoy.

Last edited by LashL; 11th December 2011 at 05:46 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2011, 07:13 PM   #844
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,582
Thanks, LashL.

So Dennis Cunningham is basically saying, "sorry, but nuh-uh. You think those are frivolous claims? You ain't seen nothing yet":

He claims there were warnings of hijackers, so he's LIHOP.
Then he claims controlled demolition and changes to MIHOP.
He claims a stand-down in which they were told not to shoot a plane, but then claims there was no plane at the Pentagon.

Totally, barking mad and throwing crap at all the asylum walls.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.

Last edited by Orphia Nay; 11th December 2011 at 08:10 PM. Reason: "at"
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2011, 07:28 PM   #845
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
They don't know what they believe, they just know they believe.
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2011, 07:42 PM   #846
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,582
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
They don't know what they believe, they just know they believe.
Well said!
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2011, 07:44 PM   #847
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,522
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Thanks, LashL.

So Dennis Cunningham is basically saying, "sorry, but nuh-uh. You think those are frivolous claims? You ain't seen nothing yet":

He claims there were warnings of hijackers, so he's LIHOP.
Then he claims controlled demolition and changes to MIHOP.
He claims a stand-down in which they were told not to shoot a plane, but then claims there was no plane at the Pentagon.

Totally, barking mad and throwing crap all the asylum walls.
Amazing.
Originally Posted by Cunningham
FAA flight controllers in Boston and elsewhere gave timely notice to military authorities that the four airliners were out of contact and possibly hijacked. According to normal protocol and practice USAF-NORAD jets would have been readily able to intercept all four planes, but launchings were inexplicably delayed and misdirected, and three of the planes got through to their targets.
Yet
Originally Posted by Cunningham
The evidence of one's own eyes also proves that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon, as claimed by authorities (and conspirators) in the aftermath of the bombing in which the plaintiff and her childwere injured. In view of the plain evidence, photographic and physical, and the telling, wholly implausible lack of such evidence supporting the official version,the withholding of 85 Pentagon surveillance videotapes, and the first-handtestimony of the plaintiff and numerous others, the claim that no airliner hit is certainly far from conclusory. It is entitled to be taken as true.
Amazing!


Is this normal practice in legal defence to try to introduce claims for A AND NOT A at the the same time? Hoping that something will stick?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 03:37 PM   #848
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by LashL View Post


Unlike you, I'm actually a real, live, practicing trial lawyer/civil litigator in the real world. As such, I know a thing or two about the law and how courts work, and I am pretty darned good at analyzing and assessing a case's strengths and weaknesses. Ms. Gallop's case was destined to fail from the start because it was egregiously badly drafted, egregiously badly presented, did not understand or appreciate the applicable law, did not conform to the rules of pleadings, etc., from the outset. As it continued, it only got worse, with Ms. Gallop and her lawyers and a few other truthers adding to the mess that it was already was, and making it even worse for themselves from a legal perspective.

Just like Kevin Ryan's lawsuit; just like Willie Rodriguez's lawsuit; just like Judy Wood's lawsuits; just like Morgan Reynolds' lawsuit; just like NYCCAN's ballot initiative. I called them all, and I was right every time. So, yeah, I think I know a thing or two. (You can find threads here about those other cases as well, if you're so inclined.)
Like I said, if you weren't at New Haven, you don't know squat.

And what was that Shakespeare quote?
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 03:40 PM   #849
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,698
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
And what was that Shakespeare quote?
Your cause hasith no chance?
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 12th December 2011 at 03:57 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 03:49 PM   #850
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Thanks, LashL.

So Dennis Cunningham is basically saying, "sorry, but nuh-uh. You think those are frivolous claims? You ain't seen nothing yet":

He claims there were warnings of hijackers, so he's LIHOP.
Then he claims controlled demolition and changes to MIHOP.
The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 03:51 PM   #851
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
You cannot "let" something happen that you "made" happen.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 03:52 PM   #852
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.
I'd love to see that explained.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 04:11 PM   #853
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Like I said, if you weren't at New Haven, you don't know squat.

And what was that Shakespeare quote?
Thou Doth protest too much? Yes, your bunch of Truther friends certainly do.

And you also realize that everything that happened, we've been able to view the filings on? You also realize that this is PUBLIC information?

Yeah, better to quit while you're ahead.....Oh, wait, nevermind.......
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 04:20 PM   #854
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Thou Doth protest too much? Yes, your bunch of Truther friends certainly do.

And you also realize that everything that happened, we've been able to view the filings on? You also realize that this is PUBLIC information?

Yeah, better to quit while you're ahead.....Oh, wait, nevermind.......
You don't understand, tri, you had to be there to see the look of abject failure on the Truthers faces.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 04:24 PM   #855
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
I would have LOVED to be there. I think I would have needed to excuse myself from the courtroom so as to not interrupt with my laughter!!
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 04:24 PM   #856
djlunacee
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Do you think before you write? At all?
djlunacee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 04:25 PM   #857
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,698
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
You don't understand, tri, you had to be there to see the look of abject failure on the Truthers faces.
Would that be the look when they realized the judge wasn't going to look at the 27 8x10 color glossies with the circles and the squares and the arrows.................?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 06:10 PM   #858
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,552
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Like I said, if you weren't at New Haven, you don't know squat.

You can have it that way if you like, but since I know more than you do, that would put you in rather a poor position.


Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
And what was that Shakespeare quote?

This one springs to mind:

"Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
Where most it promises; and oft it hits
Where hope is coldest, and despair most fits."

Is that the one you were thinking of?

Or perhaps it was this one:

"What's here? the portrait of a blinking idiot,
Presenting me a schedule! I will read it.
How much unlike art thou to Portia!
How much unlike my hopes and my deservings!
'Who chooseth me shall have as much as he deserves'
Did I deserve no more than a fool's head?
Is that my prize? Are my deserts no better?"

Is that the one you were thinking of?

Last edited by LashL; 12th December 2011 at 06:37 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 06:18 PM   #859
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Is that the one you were thinking of?


Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 06:27 PM   #860
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,647
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
You can have it that way if you like, but since I know more than you do, that would put you in rather a poor position.





This one springs to mind:

"Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
Where most it promises; and oft it hits
Where hope is coldest, and despair most fits."

Is that the one you were thinking of?

Or perhaps it was this one:

"What's here? the portrait of a blinking idiot,
Presenting me a schedule! I will read it.
How much unlike art thou to Portia!
How much unlike my hopes and my deservings!
"Who chooseth me shall have as much as he deserves"!
Did I deserve no more than a fool's head?
Is that my prize? Are my deserts no better?"

Is that the one you were thinking of?

__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 06:49 PM   #861
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Would that be the look when they realized the judge wasn't going to look at the 27 8x10 color glossies with the circles and the squares and the arrows.................?


And a paragraph on the back explaining each one?

Just remember: you can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 12:01 AM   #862
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,582
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Yes, if you're cognitively dissonant.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 12:33 PM   #863
beijingyank
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 25
Monkey Trial With a Kangaroo Judge

Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
beijingyank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 01:39 PM   #864
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,582
Originally Posted by beijingyank View Post
Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
The case was dismissed by a different judge. The judge you're thinking of (not GWB's cousin) was one of three judges who dismissed the appeal. Try checking your facts before accusing people of infanticide.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.

Last edited by Orphia Nay; 13th December 2011 at 01:51 PM.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 01:53 PM   #865
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Would that be the look when they realized the judge wasn't going to look at the 27 8x10 color glossies with the circles and the squares and the arrows.................?
The judge was barred from viewing any photographs, as they can't be used in a court of law. He or she would have had to be there in person to "investigate" it because photos are poor representatives of what they contain.

NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 06:12 PM   #866
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by beijingyank View Post
Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
Yeah, the cousin of George Bush (the father) and none of that matters for two reasons.

1-George Bush (the son) was not named in the lawsuit
2-It was not required by law.

Cheers!
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 07:06 PM   #867
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by beijingyank View Post
Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
No, he was a cousin of George H.W. Bush, and as er court rule was too far removed from George W. to recuse himself.....besides the fact that GEorge W was not a name individual in the lawsuit.

Once again. troofers fail to get the the simplest of the facts correct.
Troofers fail again....<YAWN>
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 08:17 AM   #868
HannibalGroup
Thinker
 
HannibalGroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by beijingyank View Post
The baby killers are still on a roll.
That's why there's butter on their pants.
HannibalGroup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 08:33 AM   #869
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
*Snort* As if a cousin of the Bushes was the reason the lawsuit was illogically written to begin with, and the reason the appeals have been nothing more than attempts to re-argue self contradicting 9/11 conspiracy talking points rather than deal with the fact the lawyers are getting dinged for procedural problems as well as substantive ones.

And as if that judge was the reason took money for the jet hitting the Pentagon, then tried to sue saying the jet never hit the Pentagon. Remember, folks: That's what the whole case ends up summing up to.

In short, the judge wasn't the reason the lawyers are committing malpractice to the point of being fined and possibly censured, nor was he the reason that their client actually is contradicting herself. Those failures are on the part of the lawyers, and exist independent of whatever judge is on the case.
__________________
"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."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 10:23 AM   #870
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,647
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
I've been pretty busy lately and haven't had time to check on the ongoing saga of Gallop's frivolous lawsuits recently, but then thought to do so tonight and found that Dennis Cunningham filed his "mea culpa, sorta kinda, but it's still a huge freaking government conspiracy and why on earth can't you see that?" sort of response to the Appeal Court's Order to Show Cause. Back on October 14, the court gave Cunningham 30 days to file his response to the order and his "mea culpa sorta kinda" was filed on November 14. No other documents have been filed since, and I'm going on vacation later this week, so I'll take a peek back after Christmas to see what the court decides on the Cunningham show cause matter.

But whining to the court that they got it all wrong and trying to regurgitate the same crap that got you sanctioned in the first place is unlikely to win the hearts and minds of the court.

As an aside, the time for Gallop to appeal the dismissal of her frivolous lawsuit by the Appeal Court is running out; two more days, I believe. Tick tock, tick tock.

Lastly, I'm having some weird computer issues that prevent me from uploading the document to my Legaltainment™ site (and that prevent me from uploading images and such to here, even) so I've uploaded this document to scribd.com for now instead, so that at least it can be retrieved and read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75405134/162-Resp-to-SC-3

Enjoy.

Just got around to reading this. Note 1, p.4:

Quote:
However, a respected 1999 book by a World War II veteran, Robert Stinnett, provided abundant well-documented detail showing that President Roosevelt put in place an eight point plan to provoke the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, and to leave Pearl Harbor undefended, and that the purpose was to provide the motivation for the U.S. to declare war on Japan, and because of Japan’s mutual defense pact with Germany, to justify our getting into the war in Europe to stop Hitler, which otherwise the American people would not support. For many years, almost any American would have considered someone accusing Roosevelt of that betrayal a loony conspiracy theorist. [bolding mine]

I suspect that as a matter of law this is all irrelevant anyway, but of course it's factually completely wrong. Here is everything anyone who's not a rabid conspiracist needs to know about Stinnett and his book.

As Gawdzilla summed up in his Amazon.com review several years ago:

Quote:
Throughout Mr. Stinnett's book he gives examples of "proof" of the conspiracy, and in every case when the reader traces the material back to the source they find that he has misconstrued, misinterpreted or just plain lied about the material. If you bought this book, demand a refund. If you got it as a gift, demand an apology.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 06:21 PM   #871
Triterope
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 916
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Once again. troofers fail to get the the simplest of the facts correct.
...even when said facts are revealed and discussed in this very thread, (starting on page 9). How lazy can they be?
Triterope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2011, 04:57 PM   #872
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,384
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
As an aside, the time for Gallop to appeal the dismissal of her frivolous lawsuit by the Appeal Court is running out; two more days, I believe. Tick tock, tick tock.
Any update on this?
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2011, 06:03 PM   #873
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by beijingyank View Post
Didn't the cousin of George Bush, the judge, (hic) fail to recuse himself from this case?

Oh, my...

Sad day for America. Crying for the Constitution. Psychopaths in control. The baby killers are still on a roll.
Fail!
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2011, 04:59 AM   #874
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore
Quote:
The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
You cannot "let" something happen that you "made" happen.





Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
I'd love to see that explained.
Duh.

Letting it happen is certainly a subset of making it happen.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2011, 05:14 AM   #875
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Duh.

Letting it happen is certainly a subset of making it happen.
Stundie!
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2011, 04:24 PM   #876
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
9/11 was prepared for, set into motion, and allowed to happen by non responsive, in place, safeguards.

MIHOP annnnnd LIHOP.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2011, 04:34 PM   #877
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2011, 05:11 PM   #878
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,454
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Provided they are used to refer to different aspects of 9/11.
...the ongoing problem of the undefined "it" beloved of truthers....

....and often missed by debunkers
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2011, 06:30 PM   #879
Triterope
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 916
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
MIHOP annnnnd LIHOP.
So now you expect us to believe there were two 9/11 conspiracies? You have completely failed to prove there was one.

Last edited by Triterope; 19th December 2011 at 06:35 PM. Reason: joke punch-up
Triterope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2011, 10:03 PM   #880
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,552
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Any update on this?

I just checked PACER and no appeal has been filed. If I'm not mistaken, Gallop had 60 days to do so, and that time has now expired, and there is nothing on PACER indicating that she has filed any request for an extension of the time for appealing.

On December 15, though, this letter was filed by counsel for the defendants advising the court that the $15k in sanctions had not been paid by Veale and friends by December 13 as required by the court but that Veale had told counsel for the defendants that he'd mailed a cheque on Sunday, December 11. Then, on December 16, this letter and this declaration were filed by counsel for the defendants, advising the court that a $15k cheque from Veale was received on December 16.

So, it appears at this point that no appeal will be forthcoming. If that's the case, it's now basically just a matter of seeing what the court decides about the stupid responses to the orders to show cause that were filed by Gallop's lawyers, and that should be Legaltaining™ as well. I think there is also the matter of the defendants' lawyers filing a bill of costs, as the court ordered sanctions against Gallop's lawyers of $15k in addition to double costs, if memory serves correctly. I suppose if the defendants' lawyers don't file a bill of costs, that part of it might be moot, and I can see why they might just forego it as they are probably sick and tired of dealing with these idiots, but if I was them, I would pursue it. That said, I live in a "loser pays" jurisdiction where the general rule is "costs follow the event" so costs submissions and bills of costs are just a matter of course here. That's not the case in NY - although it should be, if you ask me. It's one of the best tools available to discourage frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.

Last edited by LashL; 23rd December 2011 at 10:05 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.