Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Gallop's Appeal Dismissed

No particular surprise here, the appellate court found the case as nutty as the original judge:

We hold that the District Court did not err in concluding that Gallop’s claims were frivolous, and affirm the dismissal of her complaint. In addition, Gallop’s counsel are ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, 28 U.S.C. ' 1927, and the inherent power of this Court.


Better still, the court notes that the appeal itself was frivolous and threatens Gallop and her lawyers with having to pay the costs of defending against her suit:

Accordingly, Gallop and her counsel are hereby ordered to show cause in writing within thirty days from the date of entry of this order why they should not pay double costs and damages in the amount of $15,000, for which they would be jointly and severally liable, under Rule 38, 28 U.S.C. ' 1927, and the inherent power of this Court.


I like this background:
As the sentient world well recalls, on the morning of September 11, 2001, “agents of the al Qaeda terrorist organization hijacked commercial airplanes and attacked the World Trade Center in New York City and the national headquarters of the Department of Defense in Arlington, Virginia.”

As compared to the non-sentient world the Troofers inhabit.

Update: Forgot the hat tip to LashL, the JREF goddess of legal infotainment.

Labels:

47 Comments:

At 27 April, 2011 14:11, Blogger Bob said...

The release of the 'official' birth certificate is the end of the birther movement for the sane community; this will likely push truthers further underground as well.
There has been a healthy backlash lately against conspiracy theorists.

 
At 27 April, 2011 14:32, Blogger Triterope said...

I think the release of the long form birth certificate is an appeasement of conspiracy theorists, not a backlash against them.

Still, it's kinda fitting that the Birthers get a victory on the very same day the Truthers laughed out of court as "frivolous" for the umpteenth time.

 
At 27 April, 2011 14:33, Blogger Triterope said...

I dropped a word there between "Truthers" and "laughed." Are laughed out of court, get laughed out of court, take your pick.

 
At 27 April, 2011 16:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Responsible truthers take a dim view of these legal actions because in the past the suits filed, such as the Stanley Hilton suit and the Phil Berg suit (Berg later filed a birther suit) were so bad you had to wonder if it was their purpose to embarrass the truth movement.

I don't know what Bill Veale's intention was, but I had to expect that anything that had nutjobs like John Lear and Rob Balsamo involved was poorly thought out.

 
At 27 April, 2011 16:38, Blogger James B. said...

Responsible truthers? There you go with your oxymorons again.

 
At 28 April, 2011 12:22, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I think the release of the long form birth certificate is an appeasement of conspiracy theorists, not a backlash against them."

Agreed.

It needs to be pointed out that the Birfers are already moving the goal-posts as they now are questioning Obama's college transcripts. Plus they are splintering into subgroups that still refuse to believe that this long form is the real deal.

Delusional minds are not healthy minds.

 
At 28 April, 2011 12:41, Blogger Triterope said...

the Birfers are already moving the goal-posts as they now are questioning Obama's college transcripts.

And Social Security Number.

And Michelle Obama's SSN.

It never ends.

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, don't forget to ask LashL about Willie Rodriguez's charming campaign of intimidation against her, threatening to reveal the identity of her employer.

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What a laugh.

The homosexual psychopath who sexually harassed both Willie the Rod and Carol Brouillet is now engaged in slandering a victim of his own sexual harassment without providing a scintilla of evidence to support his twisted, lying assertions.

You are the most disgusting, sick, twisted, homosexual psychopath I've ever encountered.

What next, goat fucker, will you murder your mother and stand before the judge and beg for leniency because you're an orphan?

You turn my stomach.

 
At 28 April, 2011 14:26, Blogger Triterope said...

Don't forget to ask LashL about Willie Rodriguez's charming campaign of intimidation against her, threatening to reveal the identity of her employer.

Why don't you ask her yourself, you lazy turd?

Christ, why do so many Twooftards order us to do their research for them?

 
At 28 April, 2011 16:42, Blogger Ian said...

Responsible truthers take a dim view of these legal actions because in the past the suits filed, such as the Stanley Hilton suit and the Phil Berg suit (Berg later filed a birther suit) were so bad you had to wonder if it was their purpose to embarrass the truth movement.

There are no responsible truthers, Brian. There are frauds like Richard Gage, anti-semitic loons like Kevin Barrett, and unemployed sex stalkers like you.

 
At 28 April, 2011 16:44, Blogger Ian said...

"I think the release of the long form birth certificate is an appeasement of conspiracy theorists, not a backlash against them."

Yup. It was stupid to even dignify the birfers by addressing it, unless Obama thinks by doing so, he's more likely to face Donald Trump in the 2012 election.

Everyone knows conspiracy beliefs are non-falsifiable. Just look at all the dumbspam Brian has been posting here for over 2 years....

 
At 28 April, 2011 18:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, ask LashL about Willie's attempt to intimidate her by threatening to reveal the identity of her employer.

TR, I don't need to ask, I already know about it.

 
At 28 April, 2011 18:46, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 April, 2011 19:00, Blogger Triterope said...

Then why can't you just relate the story? What's the bloody point of badgering us to do it?

 
At 28 April, 2011 21:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm still waiting for someone to point out why UtterFail's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was destroyed is absurd.

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Changing the subject now, goat fucker?

I've already proven why you're lying about the 424,000 tons of WTC concrete and the NRDC Report. The NRDC's Report was also cited by The RJ Lee Report and was used as evidence in a federal trial.

FAIL

That you continue to tell the same lies over-and-over-and-over again doesn't lend the force of credibility to your fallacious argument, and it never will. All you've managed to prove is that you're a typical troofer neo-Nazi who practices Hitler's Big LIE, or lie by repetition.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGoo, the fact that you haven't a clue as to why the claim is absurd that 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd shows that you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

And neither does anyone else in this forum. Except me.

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, that you lie while asking me to prove a negative is another example of the intellectual dishonesty that informs every post you make to this forum.

You're an idiot, liar, sex predator, and a logic cesspool.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm pointing out that you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

 
At 29 April, 2011 01:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, I guess that explains why it's so easy to prove that you're wrong.

And yes, you are asking me to prove a negative. But then again, you can't pass a formal examination in elementary logic, which explains why your specious arguments are laughable to say nothing of the ease with which your arguments are discredited.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 08:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

How is asking a simply yes-or-no question asking you to prove a negative? It's a simple question and you're afraid to answer: Do you know why the claim that all 424,00 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd?

You're afraid to answer because it shows that neither you nor anyone else here knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

 
At 29 April, 2011 12:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

How many times did I catch you lying yesterday, Pinocchio?

A dozen?

You lie first, last and always.

If you're not outright lying, you misrepresent scientific data, misrepresent your opponenets argument, or resort to logical fallacies. And when caught red handed lying like a rug, you change the subject and lie again.

You are a psychopath. Seek psychiatric intervention--you creep.

NOW GET OUT OF HERE AND DON'T YOU DARE DARKEN THIS WEBSITE WITH YOUR PUTRID, LYING PRESENCE AGAIN--YOU PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 12:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I did not lie yesterday or at any time.

Even if I believed that lying in the service of a cause was justified (and I don't) I would eschew lying because it's not effective in the long run since it destroys credibility and only convinces the lazy and the stupid.

Do you or do you not know why the claim that all 424,00 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd?

 
At 29 April, 2011 12:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What was that, Pinocchio?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So goat fucker, tell us, what does it feel like to know that your alleged "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NOW GET OUT OF HERE AND DON'T YOU DARE DARKEN THIS WEBSITE WITH YOUR PUTRID, LYING PRESENCE AGAIN--YOU PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!

FAIL


Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 13:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

HysterIananity isn't doing your credibility any good, ButtGoo.

Why won't you answer? Can you or can you not explain why the claim that all 424,00 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd?

 
At 29 April, 2011 13:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're beneath contempt, Pinocchio.

Anyone who reads the threads below "Gallop's Appeal Dismissed" can find my repeated exposure of the never ending stream of lies that emanates from your keyboard.

You're truly pathetic. Seek psychiatric intervention, Pinocchio.

 
At 29 April, 2011 14:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

You are cynically disrupting the forum to try to cover over the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and you employ dishonest tactics.

Can you or can you not explain why the claim that all 424,00 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd? What frightens you so about that question?

 
At 29 April, 2011 14:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squealing like a homo in heat won't help, gay boi.

So tell us, Pinocchio, how does it feel to know that your alleged "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units?

Fruit.

 
At 29 April, 2011 15:02, Blogger Triterope said...

I would eschew lying because it's not effective in the long run since it destroys credibility and only convinces the lazy and the stupid.

Again, do we even need to mock this guy anymore?

 
At 29 April, 2011 17:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, you definitely need to mock me because clearly you are all extremely ignorant about 9/11, you have no interest in learning about it, all you want to do is point and giggle at people who are trying to learn about it, and you can't refute me.

 
At 29 April, 2011 18:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still squealing like a homo in heat, gay boi.

The only thing you can teach others about 9/11 (or any other subject for the matter) is how to lie, distort, obfuscate and hijack threads.

 
At 29 April, 2011 18:40, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, you definitely need

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 29 April, 2011 20:05, Blogger Ian said...

TR, you definitely need to mock me because clearly you are all extremely ignorant about 9/11, you have no interest in learning about it, all you want to do is point and giggle at people who are trying to learn about it, and you can't refute me.

False. We all understand what happened on 9/11. We mock you because you're a failed janitor who was thrown out of the truth movement and posts endless dumbspam here because this blog is the last chance you have to be taken seriously by anyone.

Of course, all we do is laugh at you here.

 
At 29 April, 2011 20:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized"

What are you even talking about?

Wait, are you visually impaired, Brian? Is that why none of the evidence makes sense to you? You're blind, that has to be it.

424,000 tons of WTC was not pulverized. A simple review of the Google image page shows chunks of concrete of various sizes. A simple review also doesn't show any symetry that you like to assume. Some of the concrete was pulverized, and there is no mystery as to why that happened.

 
At 30 April, 2011 09:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I know 424,000 tons of concrete was not pulverized. I have made a dozen posts in this forum pointing out that the very notion is ludicrous for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

GuitarBill has been offering the NRDC's (which he seemed to think was an "official" agency) claim of 424,000 tons as if it were authoritative. I have challenged him many times, asking if he knows why the claim is ridiculous. He's afraid to answer yes or no.

 
At 30 April, 2011 10:54, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"you had to wonder if it was their purpose to embarrass the truth movement."

It ain't done on purpose.

 
At 30 April, 2011 11:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 April, 2011 11:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

And you know this how? If you studied the writings and legal briefs of Phil Berg and Stanley Hilton before they filed their 9/11 lawsuits and showed that they have always been incompetent, irrational, and illiterate you might have a case.

 
At 30 April, 2011 12:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio lies, "...GuitarBill has been offering the NRDC's (which he seemed to think was an "official" agency) claim of 424,000 tons as if it were authoritative. I have challenged him many times, asking if he knows why the claim is ridiculous. He's afraid to answer yes or no."

Logical fallacy: Prove a negative.

And telling half-truths, too, cretin?

I'm not afraid to answer any question. As always, you're a shameless liar. I answered your question, you ignored the answer and continued your never ending lie fest.

The 424,000 ton figure is derived from the destruction of ALL THE BUILDINGS THAT SUFFERED DAMAGE ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001, not just WTC 1, 2 and 7. You pretend that no damage occurred to the remainder of the World Trade Center, which is a bald-faced lie.

Furthermore, the NRDC's figures were cited by the RJ Lee Report and were used in a federal trial as evidence. You have never proven the figures are in error.

Thus, once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

NOW GET OUT OF HERE AND DON'T YOU DARE DARKEN THIS WEBSITE WITH YOUR PUTRID, LYING PRESENCE AGAIN--YOU PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!

 
At 30 April, 2011 14:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking you a simple yes/no question. Do you or do you not know why the NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized is absurd?
Clearly you do not know, so why don't you just admit the obvious?

You could argue that the question assumes facts not in evidence, but then you'd have to show that the claim is not absurd--and you'll be refuted if you try.

I haven't pretended anything. I am far more conversant on the specifics of the damage to buildings 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 than you are.

I haven't proven that the NRDC's 424,000 ton pulverization figure is in error because it suits me better to point out that nobody at this forum (except me) knows enough about the WTC to know why it's in error. And apparently none of you nimrods are curious enough to find out.

 
At 30 April, 2011 19:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free non-response, gay boi?

Basically, your reply, besides being a pack of lies, boils down to "I don't agree, and I'm always right; thus, no facts are necessary."

Well that line of bogus argumentation may sound good to you, goat fucker, but the rest of us see it for what it is: Bullshit.

Once again, you FAIL

Grade: F-

NOW GET OUT OF HERE AND DON'T YOU DARE DARKEN THIS WEBSITE WITH YOUR PUTRID, LYING PRESENCE AGAIN--YOU PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!

 
At 01 May, 2011 14:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, my "fact free" post contains several unrefuted facts:

1. I'm not asking you to prove anything.

2. I'm asking you a simple yes/no question.

3. Clearly you do not know the answer to my question.

4. I haven't pretended anything.

5. I am far more conversant on the specifics of the damage to buildings 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 than you are.

6. None of you nimrods are curious enough to find out why the NRDC's 424,000 ton pulverization figure is in error.

 
At 01 May, 2011 15:56, Blogger Triterope said...

7. Nobody gives a fuck.

 
At 01 May, 2011 16:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, nobody gives a fuck that UtterFail's posts are counterfactual.
My point exactly.

And Dave Kyte didn't have the guts to show up at Gage's Detroit program, though he had ample notice to bring one of the million-something engineers who allegedly support the NIST report.

 
At 01 May, 2011 18:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio lies, "...6. None of you nimrods are curious enough to find out why the NRDC's 424,000 ton pulverization figure is in error."

No one will believe you for the simple reason that you're a proven psychopath and compulsive liar who can't be trusted.

Now make yourself useful, gay boi, and go play in the freeway.

And, by the way, fruit. How does it feel to know that your alleged "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units?

 
At 01 May, 2011 19:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

63's the clueless sort who repeats a joke four times when it doesn't get a laugh the first time.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home