Frivolous: April Gallop Lawyers to Pay Fines and Adhere to “Sanctions”

Back in April of 2011, April Gallop’s court case against Dick Cheney and others, for playing parts to a conspiracy on 9/11, was determined to be frivilous. 

However, it was long before then that people within our own movement knew this court case was doomed. Why? Read here and scroll down.

*A blogger named “Vullich” said this quite clearly in May, 2011:

Indeed, the kitchen sink approach seems “set-up to fail“.  It lumps together the strongest evidence with the baseless nonsense as though it is all the same.  And as we all know, if someone had a large lawsuit about a complex topic, and inserted within it were the equivalent of (to most Americans) “and aliens landed in the middle of the event and then flew away and no one noticed,” any judge would go out of his way to dump it just to keep from discrediting himself with ever even considering it.

Pentagon flyovers, plane swapping, etc are on the level of nutso for most Americans, and when even the movement itself rejects those claims, a judge would look like a total idiot to buy into them.

Set-up to fail.

This has nothing to do with heroic acts, wishes or intentions.

One of many important statements made by “jimd3100” on the same thread was this, “Gallop offers not a single fact to corroborate her allegation of a ‘meeting of the minds’ among the conspirators.

Brian @ Nor Cal Truth    *late edit

source: Reuters      Feb 3, 2012

A federal appeals court on Thursday sanctioned lawyers behind a lawsuit accusing former officials in the Bush administration of orchestrating theSept. 11 attacks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered two California lawyers to pay $15,000 in addition to double what the government spent defending the case. For the next year, the lead lawyer behind the litigation must inform other federal courts in the circuit of the sanctions against him.

Three attorneys — Dennis Cunningham, William Veale and Mustapha Ndanusa — filed the lawsuit in 2008 on behalf of April Gallop, a member of the U.S. Army injured in the Pentagon attack on Sept. 11, 2001. The lawyers accused then-Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld of causing the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to create a political atmosphere that would allow the U.S. government to pursue domestic and international policy objectives. The suit alleged conspiracy to cause death and bodily harm and a violation of the Antiterrorism Act.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin dismissed the case in 2010, ruling that the complaint was frivolous and a product of “cynical delusion and fantasy.” A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision, imposing $15,000 in sanctions on the three lawyers for filing the suit.

In requesting a rehearing before the full 2nd Circuit panel, the lawyers asked the court to disqualify the panel “and any like-minded colleagues” from participating in the decision to grant en banc review. Their motion accused the panel of exhibiting “severe bias, based in active personal emotions arising from the 9/11 attack.”

But the 2nd Circuit took exception to the disqualification request, concluding that no attorney would make such a demand in good faith.

The court imposed an additional punishment on Cunningham, who described himself as “the decider” in developing the case and writing the court filings. For the next year, Cunningham must inform other federal courts in circuit of the sanctions order.

“We are not delusional by any means. We have the facts, and they cannot be explained,” said Veale, a former chief assistant public defender for Contra Costa County, California.

Cunningham did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The 2nd Circuit reversed the sanctions against Ndanusa, who only served a minor role as local counsel. Ndanusa said all of the lawyers acted in good faith in bringing the lawsuit.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment on the litigation.

The case is Gallop v. Cheney et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, No. 10-1241.

For Gallop: William Cunningham, Mustapha Ndanusa and William Veale.

For Cheney et al: Assistant U.S. Attorney Alicia Simmons.

(Reporting By Terry Baynes)

11 Responses to Frivolous: April Gallop Lawyers to Pay Fines and Adhere to “Sanctions”

  1. Adam Syed says:

    Nor Cal Truth,

    I’m sorry, but it appears you’ve been duped by the likes of Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, etc. The no-plane-crash-at-pentagon and specifically the work of CIT and the north of citgo flight path has NOT been debunked AT ALL.

    The ground level and aerial photographs taken within moments of the explosion show nothing resembling an airliner crashing into the Pentagon. All other information trying to prove otherwise is tinkling cymbals at best, as Barrie Z put it.

    • Brian says:


      Dupped? I have looked thoroughly at the evidence. I notice most people who believe that no plane hit the Pentagon are incredibly uniformed. Not to say that you fit in that category.

      Most no planers believe there were 3 – 6 walls broken through by the plane, namely the “ring” sections at the Pentagon.

      It is not to hard to figure that one out, and it goes on from there.

      I don’t think you have anything to stand on here.

  2. Adam Syed says:

    Oh and by the way, Nor Cal Truth, “the movement” does NOT reject the no plane crash at the Pentagon. It is only in your comfy little cocoon at 911blogger, where they systematically purged anyone who disagrees with their narrow window of thought.

    From the Creek article critical of 911blogger:

    “The exact moment that Adam Syed, Adam Ruff and I were banned, we were in mid-debate with Erik Larson. Nothing remotely offensive or rule breaking was being said by any one of us, let alone all three of us at the exact same time.

    “What was happening was that Larson had been backed into a corner over a blog entry of his, which was a listing of what he claimed were witnesses to the plane flying south of the Citgo station prior to it striking the Pentagon.

    “Not a single one of those witnesses even mentioned Citgo, it was just a collection of laughably tenuous arguments for why ambiguous witness statements must be supportive of the official story. The list was submitted to an intensive analysis and it was shown conclusively that none of the witnesses supported the official flight path, that the list included several witnesses who stated that the plane flew to the north of Citgo, and most strikingly, several who explicitly stated that they were not even in the vicinity at the time of the attack.

    “The discussion was drifting into increasingly embarrassing territory for Larson when — presto — all three of us were banned and Larson, in a completely childish fashion, proceeded to have the “last word” in full knowledge that he had just stopped the people he was addressing from being able to respond.

    “Larson’s articles are disinformation; the information he puts out there is deliberately false with a motive to undermine genuine research. 911blogger is no longer a 9/11 truth site, that much is clear.”

    • Brian says:

      I do, and so do most others who have looked into it quite thoroughly.

      Again, most no planers are surface level researchers at best, and misinforming others at worst.

      • Adam Syed says:

        Would you care to rebut the quote from the Creek Article Brian? I notice that the anti-CITers never address the actual issues.

        Were all those witnesses who watched the plane fly North of Citgo all lying, or coincidentally mistaken in the same way?

        • Brian says:


          You know that the statements have been addressed over and over at Blogger and elsewhere.

          “The statements have been taken out of context, changed, and built upon in a way that is dishonest by CIT.

          Do I need to bring that information here for you?

          • Adam Syed says:

            No, I do not know any such thing. Give me an example, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, of a statement that was “taken out of context, changed, or/and built upon in a way that is dishonest by CIT.”

            You can’t.

            All you can do is slap down a link to a disinfo blog by Sarns or Larson, like I see you do at blogger all the time, and tell someone, “this is already been debunked.”

            In fact I’d bet every bottom dollar in my bank account that you haven’t actually watched “National Security Alert” from beginning to end, heck I doubt you’ve watched even 15 minutes of it.

            Instead, you, being the busy AE911Truth and general activist that you are, probably allowed yourself to be convinced that the film had already been debunked by minds greater than yours, hence no need for you to watch it.

            When Richard Gage issued his “complete withdrawal of support for CIT,” he made the incredible (in the literal sense of ‘unbelievable’) statement that although he was initially impressed with the film, he later was “surprised” to learn that the witnesses who contradicted the official flight path also said that they DID see the plane hit the building, and accused CIT of cherrypicking only a portion of the witness statements. This was a very bizarre thing to say, given that the witnesses (and CIT) make this clear in the film.

            Sorry to let my chutzpah get the better of me here, but I am FAR more knowledgeable on this subject than you.

            Although I think my chutzpah is nowhere near the level of the chutzpah of those on the opposite side of the country, and indeed the planet (Legge), who think their knowledge on the subject is superior to those who were actually inside the damage zone at the Pentagon!!!

            Have a nice day over in your comfy cocoon at blogger where all of the opposition was purged. Anyway, blogger is a ghost town anymore and Sunstein’s agents have taken over the asylum.

            • Brian says:


              I have retired from ae, just so you know 😉

              I did watch NSA completely when it was released. At the time I did not see the evidence of a large airliner at the Pentagon. I believe I may have even posted the NSA movie here on this site, though I regret that now.

              I might get into this with you, but I am busy as you noted, and I don’t believe that “you aren’t aware” of what I mentioned, only disagree with it.

              This is not my priority. The evidence is available. Start with Jim Hoffman, oh, but you think he is an agent or something huh?

  3. It looks very niceHe covered himself with a quilt.You are just in time.The doctor began to operate on the boy.Being a mother is not easy.Would you like to leave a message? Would you like to leave a message? Are you sure? Draw your chair up to the table.It seems to me that be would like to go back home

  4. Yarely says:

    presentations but would attempt to bring with me the many skcpeits and misinformed whom I know personally. [snip]So, I’d appreciate any information you (or anyone reading this post) can supply. If there are any forthcoming events please direct me to the organisers. I am in total agreement with your most recent paper. I can see very clearly that the controversy and conflict within the 9/11 Truth movement over what did or didn’t hit The Pentagon may at some stage be used to negate the truth about the destruction of WTC Buildings 1,2 and 7.

  5. Wow, wonderful weblog structure! How lengthy have you been blogging for?
    you made blogging glance easy. The overall look of your web site is wonderful,
    as smartly as the content material!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: