Can we help April Gallop?
I heard April Gallop speak a few years ago and had the opportunity to talk with her, when we both participated in a conference in Irvine, California. April was in the Pentagon with her infant son on Sept. 11, 2001, when the devastation occurred. There was no warning. We know from Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony that Dick Cheney et al. were following the progress of the jet as it came in towards the Pentagon, "50 miles out", 30 miles out, etc. Yet there was no warning to April Gallop or her co-workers in the Pentagon, and the jet was not intercepted. (See articles in the Journalof911Studies.com ) Over 100 died in the Pentagon disaster. April suffered physical injury from the blast and has filed a lawsuit charging Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and others.
She deserves to be heard. But her case has been dismissed by Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York and is now in appeal status before the Circuit Court in Connecticut. Can we do SOMETHING to help April Gallop in her quest for justice and a fair hearing?
An article explaining the situation, and the reasons before the court requesting dismissal of the case without further hearing, is given here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24475 . Excerpts from this insightful article follow:
[quote] You will need to act fast, because the case has already been in the Circuit Court, in Connecticut, for three weeks today, and a ruling can come down soon. If you value your life, you will try to stop that ruling from being an affirmation of the dismissal. Once the dismissal happens, Gallop’s case, with its amazing insights into 9/11, will be legally barred from being adjudicated. It will be like Jim Garrison’s JFK case. “So near and yet so far.…”
The following is an outline of the legal basis on which the defendants (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, and ten John Doe’s) asked for a dismissal. These six ‘reasons to dismiss,’ conjured up by the US Attorneys, are the ones that the judge accepted, that is, Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York. Note: the capital letters below do not indicate shouting – cases are always written this way.
If anything, the defendants must be hoping their ‘reasons’ will stay hush-hush. Please don’t let that happen! It is truly up to you now. Why waste time marching in 9/11 protests? Better to shout, shout, and shout about this case. If you let the Constitution slip away, do you think you will ever be able to get it back? Not a snowball’s chance in hell.
Reasons for Dismissal of Gallop v Cheney: I. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT CURE THEIR DEFICIENT COMPLAINT WITH AFFIDAVITS [Note: plaintiffs had recently tendered sworn statements – i.e., affidavits, from two men who have published a lot of evidence about the fakery of 9/11, namely theologian Ray Griffin and physics professor Steven Jones.] II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO ALLEGE A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM III. PLAINTIFFS’ CONSPIRACY CLAIM IS INSUFFICIENT. IV. APRIL GALLOP’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY AND BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF INTRAMILITARY IMMUNITY V. ALL OF APRIL GALLOP’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL VI. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS AND MAY BE DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON ALONE.
[Note: the two plaintiffs are April Gallop and her son Elisha. He was a baby, visiting the Pentagon, on 9/11]. Now for the defendant’s explanations as to why each of the above six reasons should legally hold. Judge Chin agreed with all of these. The original text is being paraphrased, except where quote marks are shown. The “Comments” are mine (MM): I. These affidavits only contain “conclusory statements and personal opinions without evidentiary support.” Comment: It is true, per common law and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that an affidavit should state facts not opinions. But both men, Griffin and Jones, reference their well-known books that contain much evidence. Expert opinion is, of course, an admissible form of evidence at trial.[/quote]
To state that Professor Griffin and I offer only "conclusory statements and personal opinions without evidentiary support" is incorrect and misleading, to say the least. We provide ample evidentiary support in published papers including papers in established, peer-reviewed journals such as The Environmentalist.
After submitting the above blog, I received a relevant email from attorney William Veale. I would like to quote from it, as it provides insights and an important update:
The 2nd Circuit, including, in this instance, Bush 43’s first cousin once removed, John M. Walker, yesterday issued its ruling affirming Denny Chin’s Decision dismissing our case as implausible, frivolous, and the product of cynical delusion and fantasy. The Court’s decision, analogous to reviewing an Indictment in a liquor store hold-up without mentioning the guy walking in with a gun, refuses to acknowledge even the existence of the three defendants much less what they were doing that morning or saying about it afterwards, and on its own motion, issues an OSC for SANCTIONS in the amount of $15,000, for wasting everyone's time. Couldn't have been that much time since apparently no one read any of the documents we submitted.
And, of course, nanothermite in the rubble of Ground Zero and the precipitous evaporation of Building 7 at 5:20 that afternoon escape the Court’s attention as well."
I understand that Bill and colleagues have submitted an appeal of the fine and the decision issued by Judge Walker. I fully support this effort by Bill Veale and April Gallop.
I would urge them to adhere to those points which are fully supported by the evidence and peer-reviewed publications, including the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 and the discovery of unignited thermitic material in the WTC dust. In particular, I would urge them to avoid those areas for which hard evidence is NOT solid, such as the notion that a missile hit the Pentagon. Weak arguments can only hurt their case.