Bush Cousin Is Judge in Explosive 9/11 Case Against Bush Officials

And so, the cover-up continues unabated...

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, the lawsuit brought by a soldier injured during the attack on the Pentagon that accuses former Vice President Dick Cheney, former secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers of conspiring to facilitate the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that killed 3000 Americans and has resulted in the deaths of many more, due to the toxicity of the clean-up conditions at Ground Zero.

revolutionarypolitics.com...

Okay, so the attorney for the plaintiff should be able to get Judge Walker, George W. Bush's cousin, to recuse himself, right?

Ha! Try again:

William Veale, April Gallop’s lawyer from the Center for 9/11 Justice, learning of the assignment the usual 5 days before the argument, filed a motion to disqualify Judge Walker the day before the argument. When the case was called in the normal course, there had still been no decision made by the court. When Veale reminded the court of the pending motion, Judge Winter said it is denied. Veale requested a continuance to seek appellate review of the court’s ruling but that motion was denied as well.

Why were these motions, which seem so cut-and-dry, all denied?

Regardless of your feelings about 9/11, when it comes to legal matters this just screams "Conflict Of Interest".

Will we ever get the truth?

There is no justice in our system. If anyone can look at this and honestly tell themselves "the defense has nothing to hide" then they are incapable of thinking objectively. Why not let it be heard by a judge who is not in a direct conflict of interest.

I'm sure the defendant of a murder case would not be allowed to have the case heard by his cousin! Why is this any different?

I have a dream.
A dream where tyrants and traitors are suspended by a rope.

I have another dream
A dream where good people rule the world in truth.

I have yet another dream.
A dream where one day a mass awakening occurs.

I have yet one last dream
A dream that tells me I truly am only dreaming.

What did we expect? And WHY did our Congress- republicans and democrats, FAIL in their duty to see that it was legitimately investigated and justice served? (that's a rhetorical question)

reply to post by Hessling

Two things:
1) Bush wasn't a defendant in the suit, so it's iffy at best if the judge should have recused himself.

2) It was an appeal hearing, which is not a forum to present evidence, but to see if there were any mistakes made in how the actual trial was handled, which would warrant a retrial. There wasn't.

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Hessling

 

Two things:
1) Bush wasn't a defendant in the suit, so it's iffy at best if the judge should have recused himself.

Now I'm no lawyer, thank God, but apparently a lot of people who are lawyers think this is total B.S.

From the original article:

Confounding lawyers and legal scholars all over the world...

So there are many lawyers and legal scholars who sincerely believe this is completely inappropriate. Also, from Wikipedia pertaining to the term "Conflict of Interest":

A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

So, the fact that George W. Bush isn't literally named in the lawsuit means everything is hunky-dory? Please read the above quote from Wiki. I believe that a lawsuit involving the highest members of the Bush administration could possibly corrupt the motivation of said Judge Walker. I mean if this case were to go the plaintiffs way some major sh#t would be heading W's way. No question!

2) It was an appeal hearing, which is not a forum to present evidence, but to see if there were any mistakes made in how the actual trial was handled, which would warrant a retrial. There wasn't.

If there were no mistakes in how the actual trial was handled, why bother going to the Appeals Court? Sounds to me like the plaintiff's attorney does have an issue(s) with the initial trial court's handling.

Sorry, but I'm not buying into this line of no conflict of interest. I genuinely believe this stinks to high Heaven.

Is that even legal?

reply to post by Hessling


That wasn't a news article, it was a press release from the appellants in the case released word for word. Legal scholars were not confounded. They didn't care. This case and its appeal isn't even a blip on the legal radar.

Is this judge also related to obama and cheney ?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Hessling

 

That wasn't a news article, it was a press release from the appellants in the case released word for word. Legal scholars were not confounded. They didn't care. This case and its appeal isn't even a blip on the legal radar.

It is continually amusing how truthers attempt to elevate their importance in the real world. They obviously live in a nether world of fantasy. This thread is a prime example. As if it really matters whether Judge Walker is on the panel or not. It's as if there is a legitimate question whether Gallop's appeal is dismissed 2 to 0 versus 3 to 0. Frivolous and delusional is frivolous and delusional no matter who the judges are. It does provide a laugh tho'....

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Hessling

 

That wasn't a news article, it was a press release from the appellants in the case released word for word. Legal scholars were not confounded. They didn't care. This case and its appeal isn't even a blip on the legal radar.

It is continually amusing how truthers attempt to elevate their importance in the real world. They obviously live in a nether world of fantasy. This thread is a prime example. As if it really matters whether Judge Walker is on the panel or not. It's as if there is a legitimate question whether Gallop's appeal is dismissed 2 to 0 versus 3 to 0. Frivolous and delusional is frivolous and delusional no matter who the judges are. It does provide a laugh tho'....

I'm sorry, but with all due respect I find this matter not the least bit funny.

As stated in my OP, I don't care about how one feels about Truthers vs. Debunkers. I am talking about a miscarriage of justice. If there is no validity to the case, why NOT have somebody else on the panel? Hell, it even brings more legitimacy to the Debunkers point of view.

This to me is just another example of how we cannot seem to get to the truth of this issue. I want this to go ahead and hear the evidence. If it truly ends up being a frivolous suit then you can laugh. Hell, I'll laugh with you for that matter.

Until then I truly believe we are not getting the entire story and I'll stand by that to the end of time.

Respectfully,

Hessling

Look at it another way.
Cases come before him where one side has businesses and individuals that do business or have connections or relatives, that has or does business with all levels of government. Does that then mean he has to determine beforehand, what connection there may or may not be?

John Doe tripped on an airplane and busted his nose. Now he is suing American Airlines in front of cousin Bush. But wait, GWB signed in a bill that had a rider allowing airlines more freedom in pricing structures. We have a new conflict. What about all the district judges in NYC area. They suffered the pain and saw the destruction remains first hand. They are all tainted. Maybe they should recuse themselves from any case that has a name that sounds middle eastern.

That would pretty much mean cousin Bush has to give up his career for life. Face it Bush still has connections so his cousin would still have a conflict of interest in the truthers mind.

Where does the ignorance end?

reply to post by Hessling


Good to see people like yourself (OP) getting this information out in the public domain because the MSM sure isn't doing it. Matter of fact they are complicit in the continuing coverup of 911. Perhaps when enough people have decided they have had enough. They'll take to to the streets and put an end to this corruption once & for all. At the rate our government is going it won't be too much longer. The Judge should recuse himself or the state where this fiasco is taking place, should do it for him. This is simply absurd.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Is that even legal?

Depends on whether or not someone can catch them doing it intentionally.

reply to post by Reheat

It is continually amusing how truthers attempt to elevate their importance in the real world. They obviously live in a nether world of fantasy. This thread is a prime example. As if it really matters whether Judge Walker is on the panel or not. It's as if there is a legitimate question whether Gallop's appeal is dismissed 2 to 0 versus 3 to 0. Frivolous and delusional is frivolous and delusional no matter who the judges are. It does provide a laugh tho'....

You're correct..
It really makes no difference because ALL the judges are there at the Governments pleasure so it will ALWAYS be a conflict of interest when dealing with cases where Government or it's officials are involved..

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
What did we expect? And WHY did our Congress- republicans and democrats, FAIL in their duty to see that it was legitimately investigated and justice served? (that's a rhetorical question)

Real good question.

Yet another question: Why did many members of congress and the FBI's Inspector General say that Sibel Edmond's claims were credible and then take no action?

Sibel Edmonds was an FBI wiretap translator/whistleblower who told us about a great many crimes being committed by our government -- including, but not limited to:

1) high level involvement in the nuclear black market
2) narcotics trafficking
3) numerous foreign agents openly compromising flag-level officers and law enforcement/intelligence types
4) the #3 person at the State Department ordering 9/11 suspects released before they "spill the beans"

and many other "interesting" things?

reply to post by tyson


Right on tyson!

The Sybil Edmonds story is something that anyone passionate about 9/11 should be fully aware of.

Why the gag order, from pretty much Day #1?

We are subjected to telephone surveillance everyday. We are subjected to DHS pat-downs, even small children are treated as potential terrorists, carrying bombs to bring an airliner down...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

However, with all the hub-bub about Muslim terrorists hating our freedom, nobody ever looks into what Ms. Edmonds had to say. (WANTED to say technically.)

Thanks for the reply!

wow. nepitism in what is essentially one of the biggest murder trials in history. gotta love the good ol' u-s of a.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I have a dream.
.....

A dream that tells me I truly am only dreaming.

And your star is well deserved, Boon.
I'm also going to forward this unedited quartet to every
person on my mailing list, no matter HOW MANY
friendships are ended for our diligence. Many thanks.

Originally posted by derfreebie

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I have a dream.
.....

A dream that tells me I truly am only dreaming.

And your star is well deserved, Boon.
I'm also going to forward this unedited quartet to every
person on my mailing list, no matter HOW MANY
friendships are ended for our diligence. Many thanks.

derfreebie,

Your bravery is duly noted!

Thank you from all of us who seek truth in this matter.

Peace.