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

reply to post by Hessling


When will all of you learn. The only option is violent revolution. Once you realize this, it will be too late.

Originally posted by TheEndisNigh
reply to post by Hessling

 

When will all of you learn. The only option is violent revolution. Once you realize this, it will be too late.

God I hope you are wrong!

However, I cannot state that with 100% accuracy.

Still, I hope you are wrong. I sincerely hope it would never come to that.

Personally all I'm looking for is truth. I know we won't get it, but one can still hope and be optimistic, right?

Right?

*SIGH*

reply to post by Hessling


they were denied because why are they going to punish their buddies.... you cannot win this arguement in a court.. you win it else where.. it is not my place to give you any more information.

O say heads or tails on this one.
Heads-Fact- Bush and Cheney are not friends. Bush's cousin is gonna make sure Cheney & Rummy are gonna get paybacks from the Bushes.

Tails-Either Walker gets them off the hook or Bush gets to go hunting in Wyoming with Cheney.

reply to post by Hessling


Sorry for being so clueless, let me get this straight:

#Bush's cousin is one of the judges.
#The lawyer asks for his removal.
#It was rejected.

Am I reading the story correctly?

I never believe in a proper justice system in US, unless certain conditions are met. If those conditions are met, no matter how much you plead for justice, you voice won't be heard, and you will be silenced.

He was one of three judges to hear this appeal. Lets say he wouldn't approve the appeal there would be two others who could vote in the "soldiers" favor. Like Meatloaf says in that song "two out of three ain't bad".

Even if he was recused from the case and it got rejected you guys would just say that he probably influenced the remaining judges. In most of your eyes there is no truth exept the one you believe and if it goes against that then its a huge conspiracy.

There isn't even any evidence that he knows the people being accused. I don't know any of my first cousins friends. How many of you can say you do?

Bet its a lot.

reply to post by Becoming


1/3 is not good enough. You don't allow any relative or friend, or even someone who you know to be a Jury for you, why would you allow a freaken judge who knows you, whose cousin is your friend, very good one at that, and the judge's cousin is complicit with the crimes.

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


This guy has been a judge forever. He is probably friends with people who are friends of people who are friends of people.

You are just letting the name Bush get your panties in a wad.

Originally posted by P3ACE0WAR
reply to post by Hessling

 

Sorry for being so clueless, let me get this straight:

#Bush's cousin is one of the judges.
#The lawyer asks for his removal.
#It was rejected.

Am I reading the story correctly?

I never believe in a proper justice system in US, unless certain conditions are met. If those conditions are met, no matter how much you plead for justice, you voice won't be heard, and you will be silenced.

You read it correctly!

Like I said before...C'mon folks! This doesn't strike someone as wrong?

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by P3ACE0WAR

 

This guy has been a judge forever. He is probably friends with people who are friends of people who are friends of people.

You are just letting the name Bush get your panties in a wad.

I wish they make this trial live, I would love to see it.

How many relatives of the accused have you seen sit in a Jury box? In fact they won't even allow people who you only know very little.

Allowing a judge which is relative one of the accused, and friend with the rest is a joke, they are making a mockery of the justice system. It doesn't matter how long this man has been a judge, he will destroy the credibility of the verdict, any rational person would tell you that.

reply to post by P3ACE0WAR


He isn't related to anyone named in the lawsuit.

Show that he is friends with anyone named in the lawsuit. Dont say that his cousin is their friend so that means he must also be their friend.

Besides its an appeals case that was thrown out of case with prejudice. The chances to have the appeal be successful was almost zero anyways, no matter who is on the panel.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
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.

We can't have a world where the good rule. We must always fight just to have what we have. Peace is only relative peace. The left side and right side must fight eachother for unity.

x = left
x = middle
x = right
x = good
x = evil
x = white
x = gray
x = black
x = hot
x = luke warm
x = cold
x = (insert a spectrum or range of conditions)

The mistake is in thinking that (x) is best. We're all flawed. Peacefulness depends on us all fighting to find a balance. Even those in the middle must fight. Everything must fight.

This wolrd is hard to understand at first, but if you can wrap your mind around it....

Originally posted by P3ACE0WAR
reply to post by Hessling

 

Sorry for being so clueless, let me get this straight:

#Bush's cousin is one of the judges.
#The lawyer asks for his removal.
#It was rejected.

Am I reading the story correctly?

I never believe in a proper justice system in US, unless certain conditions are met. If those conditions are met, no matter how much you plead for justice, you voice won't be heard, and you will be silenced.

1-Yes, Bush is a cousin to one of the judges.
2-Bush is not named in the lawsuit.
3-The shotty attorney asked him to recuse himself, and was denied.
Here is why.

A- Bush is not a defendant in the lawsuit.
B- According to US law, it is not a conflict of interest.

Here's why there is no COI.

codes.lp.findlaw.com...

28 USC, section 455
It states in Paragraph 5 that

He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them

Third degree is a first cousin. Now, it says "within" which means a second degree or better.

See here.

www.pacode.com...

According to the civil law system, the third degree of relationship test would, for example, disqualify judges if their or their spouse’s parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles, siblings, nieces or nephews or their spouses were a party or lawyer in the proceeding, but would not disqualify them if a cousin were a party or lawyer in the proceeding.

So, he does not have a COI accounding to US law.

Now, go try to find another reason to complain about April Gallop's lawsuit being thrown out.

Here is another interesting factoid that NOBODY here has addressed, either ITT, or any of the others where I have brought it up.

In 2003, April Gallop SUCCESSFULLY sued AMERICAN AIRLINES for her injuries and trauma suffered on September 11th, 2001.

Now she is claiming it WASN'T an airline, but a BOMB.

Is she going to give the money back to American Airlines for her mistake?

Is she going to go to the courts, and have them reverse the judgement of American Airlines?

To date, NEITHER has happened.


Maybe THAT'S why she is getting NOWHERE in her current lawsuit.....?????

An Inside Judge for an Inside Job.

So, he does not have a COI accounding to US law.

Now, go try to find another reason to complain about April Gallop's lawsuit being thrown out.

Never let the truth get in the way of a conspiracy angle.

Originally posted by A por uvas
Is this judge also related to obama and cheney ?

Lol Yes. But that is only because Obama and Bush are cousins themselves. Albeit 10th cousins.

Second line in a shameless fashion.

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by Hessling
Could they be anymore in your face and giving all of us the middle finger?If this doesn't wake up the people I really don't know what will............

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.

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.

edit on 11-4-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)

You're missing the point on what this poster has said.

An appeal hearing isn't used to bring evidence or restate a case. Appeals are hearings to make sure the law was not broken, on behalf of the crown or the defendant. It has nothing to do with if these people actually did break the law by facilitating the terrorist attacks.

When a defendant is brought to trial, his lawyer is there to defend the law that protects him, not the defendant himself. Appeals are used to make sure the laws have been followed.

I'm not saying I support this decision by any means, but, I'm just getting the information out there since you're apparently confused.

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.

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.

edit on 11-4-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)

You're missing the point on what this poster has said.

An appeal hearing isn't used to bring evidence or restate a case. Appeals are hearings to make sure the law was not broken, on behalf of the crown or the defendant. It has nothing to do with if these people actually did break the law by facilitating the terrorist attacks.

When a defendant is brought to trial, his lawyer is there to defend the law that protects him, not the defendant himself. Appeals are used to make sure the laws have been followed.

I'm not saying I support this decision by any means, but, I'm just getting the information out there since you're apparently confused.