Are They Trying to Lose This Case?
When we last covered the issue of April Gallop's lawsuit against Cheney et al, SPC Gallop was getting her case thrown out of the appeals court, along with a request to explain why she should not have to pay $15,000 for a frivolous lawsuit. Now it appears though, rather than doing so, she is doubling down by demanding that the court hear the appeal to her appeal.
Now I, of course, am not one to believe in conspiracy theories, but having read this latest filing, provided here courtesy of LashL, the Goddess of Legaltainment (TM), I find myself asking, "Are they trying to lose this case?" The filing is bad. Idiotically bad. Mind-numbingly bad. I am not a truther, but even I could put together a better legal argument against Dick Cheney than this. I would be willing to bet that any half competent code monkey could write a PERL script to jumble together random sentences from Truther websites that would make more sense than this awful dreck.
For example, this one sentence.
The Panel also ignored the complex web of concrete information in the Complaint relating to the alleged route of the plane, including the wholly improbable 8000-foot spiral dive it took, bypassing the major targets presented by the top of the building, and the West face where Rumsfeld &Co. had their offices, to come at the obscure back of the building (where the financial records were kept) (Complaint, ¶ 38); the “black box” and other flight path anomalies, and the conflict with the Commission‟s computer simulation (Complaint, ¶2); the contradictory statements by Rumsfeld about the damage, and about his whereabouts and movements that morning (Id, ¶¶ 45); and myriad other details casting doubt on the official account.
This is just one sentence, albeit a rather long and rambling one punctuated with the overuse of semicolons, but I count at least 5 logical and factual errors in that sentence alone. Maybe I am missing some. I did read it rather quickly. Anyone want to check my work?
And even I, jaded as I have become after years of this, was shocked to see this claim:
Examples include evidence, including video evidence, of secondary explosions at the Pentagon; evidence showing that radar records of the Pentagon plane were tampered with; evidence showing a pattern of destruction and damage in the area of plaintiff‟s Pentagon office impossible to reconcile with a plane crash, and showing that parts from a small military plane, an “A-3 Skywarrior” were found in the Pentagon ruins.
An A-3 Skywarrior? Really? Even the Loose Change guys gave that up, like, 4 versions ago. Is International Man of Mystery Karl Schwarz going to be called back from running his nanotech company in Vienna to act as an expert witness?
Labels: April Gallop