In the ultimate insult to April Gallop in her 9/11 lawsuit against the government,the establishment has made sure her lawsuit gets sabatoged from the get go.The government has insulted Gallop by denying her appeal that Bush's cousin Judge John Walker be dismissed from the panel.
The fact that Bush's cousin is the judge of this case should raise red flags to even the most die hard 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists that defend the official version of the governments here that this is a fair trial.
Matter of fact not only have they thrown out her appeal to have Judge Walker removed,the message is clear you cant even file a lawsuit against the government without being punished.as you can see from the link below,her attorney representing her has been fined $15,000 for no good reason.
Oh and Judge Walker really IS Bush's cousin for the OCTA'S that want to say he isnt.All you got to do is look at a photo of him and just like Bush jr is a spitting image of his dad,so is Judge John Walker a spitting image of Bush.
Enjoy.tons of information with very good links
Truth and Shadows » George Bush
1. governments don't deny appeals. courts do.
2. who is denying that judge walker is baby bush's cousin?
3. the case was tossed because there was no evidence substantiating the plaintiff's claims. you make allegations like that, you need some type of proof.
4. she was fined for bringing a friviolous appeal, or at least her attorney was.
5. the original decision was issue by judge denny chin, one of the best judges in the southern district of new york. his reasoning is generally impeccable.
6. in april, 2011, judge chin's decision was affirmed by the second circuit.
7. thereafter, they brought a second appeal.
you can't keep bringing appeals on the same matter.
and, in reality, this is what he got sanctioned for:
he didn't just ask that judge walker recuse. judge walker has senior status and might well have accommodated that request. but the court, in its decision stated:
these excuses do not adequately explain why a member of the Bar would demand that the members of the original panel and any other members of the bench of this Circuit who share their feelings be recused, Mot. to Disqualify (Veale Aff. ¶ 2); id. (Veale Aff. ¶ 27 (reiterating that [t]he Panel members here, and any like-minded colleagues, must recuse themselves)), a demand for which no precedent was presented, nor, as far as we know, exists, Gallop III, 660 F.3d at 585.
Docket No. 10
just because you're a troofer nutbar doesn't mean you have the right to flood the court with nonsense....
same as the birfers don't get to.