Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

Originally posted by Whyhi

"Because the U.S. governments claims are factually baseless --indeed because they are fanciful, fantastic and delusional -- they are dismissed."

Sums this up nicely.

edit on 27-3-2011 by Whyhi because: (no reason given)

Fixed.

But only in your mind.

How anyone can take this woman seriously beats me. First off she sues American Airlines on the basis that she was injured and traumatised by their plane but, having collected the money, she decides there wasn't a plane at all !

She also claims to have exited the Pentagon, with her infant child, through the entrance hole made by AA 77 i.e. here :-

911review.org...

Presumably she and her child are made of asbestos.

Originally posted by Reheat
A correction to the title and also to the articles quoted needs to be made.

April Gallop WAS NOT a Commissioned Officer or a Non-Commissioned Officer. Therefore referring to her as an Officer is incorrect.

Her rank was Specialist. She was either a Spec. 4 or perhaps a Spec 5, which are not career positions. It is merely a form of an enlisted rank with additional pay for a special skill, such as typing (for example). Persons in this category do not supervise other people and they can not progress in rank UNLESS they switch to the standard career rank progression system.


ETA: Source added: sites.google.com...

edit on 24-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

You are correct when you say they should correct the title of the article. But you should not advise them. You obviously have no clue about the rank system in the army.

1. Spec 5 is no longer a rank in the army and hasn't been for many years.
2. A spec. 4 can very well be career oriented. The spec 4 pay grade is the same as E-4, and believe it or not, people go through the paygrades 1 at a time (E-1, then E-2, etc.) So in other words any career NCO that you see in the army today was at one time a spec. 4.
3. A spec. 4 is a rank just like captain, or sergeant. Nothing special to it.
4. What in the world is the "standard career rank progression system"?

I'm sorry but you have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to the military. That's ok, but if you're trying to convince truthers about your side of the story, you might want to stick with a few facts.

Originally posted by Reheat

Her rank was Specialist. She was either a Spec. 4 or perhaps a Spec 5, which are not career positions. It is merely a form of an enlisted rank with additional pay for a special skill, such as typing (for example). Persons in this category do not supervise other people and they can not progress in rank UNLESS they switch to the standard career rank progression system.

Hi. you raise an interesting point;
What is her background-her specialty? I wonder why she didn't, if given the opportunity to switch to the standard system?

Also, she wasn't the person asking Cheney if the "stand-down order" was still in effect, was she?

This would black-list her wouldn't it?

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club

Originally posted by Reheat
A correction to the title and also to the articles quoted needs to be made.

April Gallop WAS NOT a Commissioned Officer or a Non-Commissioned Officer. Therefore referring to her as an Officer is incorrect.

Her rank was Specialist. She was either a Spec. 4 or perhaps a Spec 5, which are not career positions. It is merely a form of an enlisted rank with additional pay for a special skill, such as typing (for example). Persons in this category do not supervise other people and they can not progress in rank UNLESS they switch to the standard career rank progression system.


ETA: Source added: sites.google.com...

edit on 24-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry but you have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to the military. That's ok, but if you're trying to convince truthers about your side of the story, you might want to stick with a few facts.

Well now. I see you've nitpicked some of my additional comments, so that makes you the expert. The US Army is the ONLY branch of the US Military with the Specialists rank, so perhaps you need some remedial education yourself.

You did missed my major point that she was a low ranking enlisted person, not an Officer. You have no way of knowing whether or not she was career oriented. None whatsoever.

You did however resort to the same hyperbole accompanied by an arrogant attitude so common to those with the fantasies you promote. I'd suggest you get some clue that the US Military includes more branches of service than the US Army before you make unfounded accusations directed toward others.

April was an administrative specialist on maternity leave. She was being called back to work but did not want to return. Did not see much, was focused on her child. Was assisted and exited the building via exterior double doors that had been knocked down by the concussion. Collapsed as soon as she made it outside and has no recall of anything.

April Gallop CMH Interview

How anyone can take this woman seriously beats me.

Agreed. As someone previously mentioned, she is no doubt a "plant" by the establishment to marginalize anyone who plans on filing a 9/11 related lawsuit. Therefore, neither she, nor her case should be taken seriously.

So we have an alleged 3,000 deaths, the most litigious society on the planet and few, if any, legitimate 9/11 court cases to speak of. Not even the surviving relatives were interested in legally fighting each other for the settlement funds. Will miracles ever cease?

I just thought of something.... U.S. Justice Department - is now under new management, check this out...
UN-Justice department.... interesting huh....

NEW YORK, March 23, 2011 --

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A December 2010 poll conducted by the prestigious Emnid Institute, and reported in the German magazine "Welt der Wunder," revealed that 89.5% of German respondents do not believe the official story of 9/11.


Gallop's case relies on virtually all forms of evidence admissible in court, but significantly, on published scientific evidence that residues of these explosives were found in the rubble after the attacks. In its totality the proffered case establishes that the government hypothesis – that the buildings collapsed due to fire in combination with the airplane impacts – is scientifically untenable.

Read more: www.heraldonline.com...

Interesting because my friend emailed me this last week. It wasn't until now that Ive been back on ATS. Now, whats unusual (or usual, depending on how you look at it) is that it's suppose to be tried in CT. None of my local news has said jack about this case at all. I can't imagine that this woman would believe she'd get justice in court, considering our courts are not just- as one poster said- using the 'illuminati's own devices to destroy them?'

What I do find interesting is that the international world is being polled at all in regard to the 9/11 attacks (there is no forum dedicated solely to the madrid bombings is there?), and apparently they think there is much left wanting in the OS.

Hmmm....

Originally posted by nowayreally
Interesting because my friend emailed me this last week. It wasn't until now that Ive been back on ATS. Now, whats unusual (or usual, depending on how you look at it) is that it's suppose to be tried in CT. None of my local news has said jack about this case at all. I can't imagine that this woman would believe she'd get justice in court, considering our courts are not just- as one poster said- using the 'illuminati's own devices to destroy them?'

What I do find interesting is that the international world is being polled at all in regard to the 9/11 attacks (there is no forum dedicated solely to the madrid bombings is there?), and apparently they think there is much left wanting in the OS.

Hmmm....

Well, you can't sue American Airlines claiming damages because one of their planes hit the Pentagon and injured you and then turn around and sue someone else claiming no plane hit the Pentagon. All the evidence I have seen in the case is exactly what the judge called it ... "delusional". Not to mention the woman is a con-artist trying to fleece the system.

reply to post by 911files


Really? I saw the mention of the lawsuit against being hit by a plane on the thread but did not look into it.
I do definitely believe in the 'American Law-suit Dream' that delusionals have since I know first hand. Yet, I am a definite skeptic of the OS.
Do you think the foreign attention give to this woman in connection with the international communities disbelief in our official details of that day is simply a way to lure the foreign attention in only to discredit an obviously easy target? Therefore, putting the kabash on the negative international attention 9/11 has recieved?

The trial was supposedly yesterday... anyone have more news on how it went? Or went to the trial in person?

reply to post by Vitchilo


i found this earlier today, the only article i could find.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

NEW YORK, April 7, 2011 --

/PRNewswire/ -- Confounding lawyers and legal scholars all over the world, Judge John Walker, first cousin of former President George W. Bush, was one of three judges of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to hear argument Tuesday in Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Myers.

Attorney William Veale, acting for April Gallop, learned of the assignment the usual 5 days before the argument, and filed a motion to disqualify Judge Walker.

There was no prior decision regarding the motion, and when Veale asked about it in court the motion was denied by Judge Winter. Veale then requested a continuance to seek appellate review of the court's ruling but that was denied as well.

Argument followed but Walker, and fellow judges Cabranes and Winter diverted attention to whether Veale, former Chief Assistant Public Defender, and lecturer in Criminal Trial Practice at the University of California, Boalt Hall, was properly licensed to practice before the court.

Read more: www.heraldonline.com...

I found more from my original source- what a crock!!!

reply to post by nowayreally


Just as a clarification, PR newswire is NOT a news reporting service like AP. They are a public relations group that gets paid to "report" exactly what their clients tell them to "report". For instance, I sincerely doubt that legal scholars all over the world were confounded. I would even venture to guess that legal scholars all over the world just don't care or know.

reply to post by hooper


My apologies Hooper- I am not well versed in which news sources are and are not legit. These days I tend to feel like if I didn't see it happen then who knows whether it did or did not. It's sad, but it has gotten to this point. I do believe it was justified to post since it was similarily stated by another member without any 'news' source albeit a link to another ATS thread (whish says basically the same thing).

What does bother me though Hooper is that I live in Connecticut, and I feel as though the lack of ANY local news attention to this matter does make me wonder? I mean, if this case was as silly and preposterous as some on here claim, then why would the media not jump all over it?

reply to post by nowayreally

My apologies Hooper- I am not well versed in which news sources are and are not legit.

"PR newswire" is often cited as a news source but they are really just public relations group. Another popular misdirect is AFP. There is an legitimate AFP (Agency France-Presse) I think but there is also a neo-nazi white supremacy, antisemtic website called American Free Press and like to use the initial AFP. Stick to what you know. If its legitimate news it will be covered by a legitimate news source, something you've heard of.

These days I tend to feel like if I didn't see it happen then who knows whether it did or did not. It's sad, but it has gotten to this point.

The old "believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear"? Just be careful of the sources and note the difference between direct reporting and opinion. Also, just look for hyperbole. Like in the article, "legal scholars all over the world"?

What does bother me though Hooper is that I live in Connecticut, and I feel as though the lack of ANY local news attention to this matter does make me wonder? I mean, if this case was as silly and preposterous as some on here claim, then why would the media not jump all over it?

Because silly, nonsensical crackpot legal cases are a dime a dozen. You could fill ten newspapers with people suing the "government" over this and that and every other thing.

reply to post by hooper


I appreciate your input Hooper- and it's nice to talk to a member who can help answer my questions, and also can appreciate my viewpoint even if it differes from your own.

I still hold to the fact that the local news who has spent considerate amounts of time on some real 'crackpot' stories (you know, the ones that leave you thinking, how does that even qualify as news?) wouldn't at least touch upon the fact that a court hearing regarding the 9-11 events occurred in the state. It just doesn't sit well with me.

But I am totally with you on the news or new-stories that use absolutes like 'Leading scholars all over the world' or 'Everyone agrees'/ that never will, could or can happen.' Its like asking for trouble!

reply to post by nowayreally


I may be wrong but I don't think there's even going to be a "hearing", its just the case has made it to dcoket and its probably going to be again dismissed with prejudice, meaning, basically, don't ever bring this stuff back into a court of law.