You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
April Gallop Sues For Personal Injuries And Civil Rights Violations In New York Federal Court
Here is April Gallop's testimony in her own words.
Quote:
Guns and Butter broadcast with Dave von Kleist interviewing April Gallop. There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the hole onto the Pentagon lawn. She saw no jet fuel and nobody burned with jet fuel. She and her baby boy were about 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole and no jet fuel was splashed on them. What happened to the huge infernos and fuel-air explosions inside which allegedly incinerated all the aircraft parts and engines and wheel hubs and baggage and seats?
Perhaps she will get somewhere with the right attorney. California attorney William Veale is her attorney and a member of Lawyers For 9-11 Truth. April Gallop and son were sitting in her office only 40 feet from the place of impact. Yet they both survived without burns. April was ordered to lie by the Defense Dept and April refused. April stated that she saw NO JET FUEL anywhere in her E-Ring area of the Pentagon.
Quote:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___
APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor, No. _____________
Plaintiff, Jury Trial Demanded
vs.
DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the U.S.A., DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1– X, all in their individual capacities, Defendants.
Quote:
Career Army officer sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11
Stephen C. Webster Published: Wednesday December 17, 2008 A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.
April and little Elisha were located inside that circle on the diagram below only 35-45 feet from the alleged place of impact or the location of the initial explosion. This was an official distance from place of impact according to the Pentagon Renovation Team.
Quote:
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY, AND OTHER WRONGS
III. The Attack on the Pentagon.
33. At the Pentagon, the plaintiff was at her desk, with her baby, in her office on the first floor, when large explosions occurred, walls crumbled and the ceiling fell in. Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that an airliner crashed through. If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building, to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else. At the building, inside or outside of the wall the plane supposedly hit, there was no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially, no blazing quantities of burning jet fuel. The interior walls and ceilings and contents in that area were destroyed, but there was no sign of a crashed airplane. A number of those present inside the building and out have attested to this fact in published reports.
34. Instead, just when plaintiff turned on her computer — for an urgent document-clearing job she was directed by her supervisor to rush and begin, as soon as she arrived at work, without dropping her baby off at child care until she was finished — a huge explosion occurred, and at least one more that she heard and felt, and flames shot out of the computer. Walls crumbled, the ceiling fell in, and she was knocked unconscious. When she came to, terrified and in pain, she found the baby close by, picked him up, and, with other survivors caught in the area, made her way through rubble, smoke and dust towards daylight, which was showing through an open space that now gaped in the outside wall. When she reached the outside she collapsed on the grass; only to wake up in a hospital some time later.
35. Plaintiff’s injuries could have been avoided, had an alarm been sounded. However, despite the undoubted knowledge of the defendant commanders and operators in the system that an unknown aircraft was headed towards Washington, possibly as part of the apparent terrorist suicide attack begun earlier in New York — and in spite of well-established Pentagon emergency evacuation procedures and training — there was no alarm. On the contrary, plaintiff was directed to go straight to her desk when she arrived at work, and when she got there, and turned her computer on, the place blew up. If an unauthorized non-military plane was headed towards the building, on a day when two apparently hijacked planes had hit the Twin Towers, why wasn’t she evacuated, with her baby, instead of hurried inside? Why weren’t alarms going off, and all the people in the building rushing to safety? Due to the conspiracy, and defendants’ actions and flagrant failures to act, in furtherance of it, one hundred and twenty-five people, members of the Military and civilian employees, died in the bombing; and many more including plaintiff and her child were seriously hurt.
A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.
According to a timeline of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.
Quote:
Webmaster's Commentary: If this suit does go to trial, the Pentagon will try to move heaven and earth for an out of court settlement on this.
There is still a great deal this government doesn't want the public to know about why an evacuation order was not given.
Can anyone imagine April and little Elisha surving this maelstrom of alleged explosive destruction and burning jet fuel?
Quote:
JURISDICTION & VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction of this case, as follows:
a. Under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to federal officials under the rule of Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and 28 USC 1331;
b. Under the federal Common Law — given that the most direct occurrences and mechanisms of plaintiffs’ injuries, no doubt including crucial agreements and other communications among various defendants, took place in the Pentagon, a federal enclave — giving plaintiff a right of action in this Court for conspiracy to commit and facilitate actions likely to cause wrongful death, great bodily injury, terror and other loss to plaintiff and others to whom defendants owed a special duty of care; where, instead, defendants acted with reckless and callous disregard for and deliberate indifference to the likelihood of great harm to plaintiff and others, and deprivation of their rights;
April Gallop will likely win the lawsuit; but it will most likely be settled out of court for 'NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS'. They will want to keep the publicity to a minimum and simply throwing the lawsuit out of court will likely increase publicity. Knocking off April and little Elisha to shut them up would also increase publicity; so they are likely safe from harm. But this is a good thing even if April wins out of court. Elisha needs some very expensive care for a while, and we will make sure her win receives maximum publicity.
This is really a great thing and may open the door to many more 9-11 lawsuits. Thank you April Gallop. You are a great American and a very brave woman.
Quote:
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff APRIL GALLOP is an American citizen, resident of the State of Virginia, a member until this year of the U.S. Army, stationed at the Pentagon on 9/11, claiming for herself and for her minor child, ELISHA GALLOP, who was just two months old on 9/11/01, and was with her when the building was hit. Plaintiff respectfully petitions the Court to appoint her as guardian ad litem for the purposes of this action and related matters.
11. Defendants are DICK CHENEY, the Vice President of the United States; DONALD RUMSFELD, formerly and at relevant times Secretary of Defense of the U.S.; Gen. RICHARD MYERS, then acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; all sued in their individual capacities. Additional named, unknown defendants are other persons who were and are co-actors and co-conspirators in sundry phases of the (terrorist) undertaking complained of herein, whose identities, and some of whose precise places or functions in the plot(s) alleged herein are not yet known or fully known, but who certainly include high-ranking members of the Defense Department, the Military, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies. Such persons are named and alleged as co-defendants, designated as John Does Nos.1-X and hereby notified of this action, pro tanto, to be identified for the record and impleaded by plaintiffs as the particulars of both culpable and innocent acts and omissions by everyone involved in these events become known.
12. Existence of a Class. Plaintiff notes that a number of other persons suffered injury and loss in the Pentagon on September 11 as she did, and are similarly situated to her, plainly within the provisions of Rule 23, F.R.Civ P., so that she represents a Class, the members of which evidently are also entitled to recover judgment as sought herein. She does not now assert the Class interest; but, where it appears there could be action by the Court affecting this question, and a class could emerge, she wishes to and does hereby reserve the right, subject to the Court’s approval, to act as lead plaintiff.
13. Limitations. There is no time bar to the claims in this action. The Statute does not run against plaintiff’s child, as a minor, under Virginia law (Va. Code Ann., §8.01-229). As to the plaintiff herself, defendants and their cohorts and agents, by means of elaborate planned and other ad hoc cover stories, public lying, alteration of records, misappropriation of official authority and other nefarious activities, have concealed and continue to conceal, fraudulently, the truth about the attacks and the way they occurred — and their own participation and complicity in the range of acts and omissions needed, in furtherance of conspiracy, to bring them about. Likewise, the original conspiracy to act secretly in furtherance of terrorism, and lie and dissemble afterwards, in order to foment war and vengeance against the supposed perpetrators, has stayed alive and continued to harm the plaintiff, as she will show.
Whether or not she wins; this is great publicity. This is potentially a difficult lawsuit to dismiss, because it is filed in a liberal state with a strong history of prosecution of civil rights violation statutes. The state of New York and especially the city of New York has the largest percentage of citizens demanding a real investigation into 9-11 of any state in the union. That will be difficult for a judge to go against, especially with the PRIMARY SUSPECTS out of office and supposedly unable to intervene and punish the judge for going against their demands. It would be politically expedient for Obama to not intervene and order his DOJ to allow the chips to fall where they may. It will be interesting; and regardless the results, this will not be the last 9-11 lawsuit by a long shot.
Yes I know the pResident and Vice pResident are immune from prosecution. But it is the publicity which they will need to immediately silence.
The fanatical defenders of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY fantasy tale have a nightmare of unending collapse of the official script to apologize for ahead of them. I certainly hope their pay scale is rewarding enough. :lol:
California attorney William Veale is a member of Lawyers For 9-11 Truth. Bill Veale is a former instructor of Criminal Trial Practice at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, with an 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career.
Attorney William Veale took part in this video and can be seen at 99:30
Quote:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___
APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor, No. _____________
Plaintiff, Jury Trial Demanded
vs.
DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the U.S.A., DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1– X, all in their individual capacities, Defendants.
__________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY, AND OTHER WRONGS
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands Trial By Jury, and Judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such amounts as the Jury may see fit to award; treble damages under 18 U.S.C. 2333(a), and costs of suit, expenses and attorneys fees...
It will be interesting, to say the least. The basis for April's case is criminal negligence by military and civilian authorities who "knew or should have known" about the incoming plane and ordered an evacuation.
April's case implies that the damage she received came, however, due to possibly preplanted explosives, or something else other than AA77 striking the facade. it leaves the issue open enough.
On behalf of Spc. April Gallop, who served in the Network Infrastructure Services Agency as an administrative specialist, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.
"The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised 'painful questions' about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent" said Veale in a media advisory.
Spc. Gallop also says she heard two loud explosions, and does not believe that a Boeing 757 hit the building. Her son sustained a serious brain injury, and Gallop herself was knocked unconscious after the roof collapsed onto her office.
is it possible she is just a lieing liberal bush hater?
when i saw this thread up earlier today, i predicted that some anonymous first-poster would join and have something irrelevant and negative to say. ...guess I was right.
is it possible she is just a lieing liberal bush hater?
when i saw this thread up earlier today, i predicted that some anonymous first-poster would join and have something irrelevant and negative to say. ...guess I was right.
He claims he is just 10 years old. How relevant can a 4th grader be?
is it possible she is just a lieing liberal bush hater?
when i saw this thread up earlier today, i predicted that some anonymous first-poster would join and have something irrelevant and negative to say. ...guess I was right.
He claims he is just 10 years old. How relevant can a 4th grader be?
i spelled lier with an e.....
clearly i must be 10.... are you debunking jim78's assesment?
is it possible she is just a lieing liberal bush hater?
when i saw this thread up earlier today, i predicted that some anonymous first-poster would join and have something irrelevant and negative to say. ...guess I was right.
He claims he is just 10 years old. How relevant can a 4th grader be?
i spelled lier with an e.....
clearly i must be 10.... are you debunking jim78's assesment?
12-18-2008 The case was filed by April Gallop on December 15, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The case is entitled April Gallop, for Herself and as Mother and Next of Friend of Elisha Gallop, a Minor v. Dick Cheney, Vice President of the U.S.A., Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General Richard Meyers, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does I-X, all in their individual capacities, Case No. 08-CV-10881-DC.
Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman has been assigned to the case.
United States District Court Judge Denny Chin has been assigned to the case.
The complaint was entered on the Court's docket today. The complaint is not available in electronic form on the Court's website (PACER), probably because it was filed in paper form.
The clerk of the Court has issued a summons for the defendants.
April Gallop is shown as representing herself, PRO SE, in the case.
Quote:
I don't think a Lawyer from California can pratice law in New York unless he/she is a member of the NY Bar.
This is not true. Attorneys can practice in federal courts by being admitted, pro hac vice, in a particular case.
Pro hac vice means, for this turn, for this one particular occasion. (See Black's Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979).)
It is evident that April Gallop did not prepare the complaint herself. It is unclear to me why Mr. Veale is not listed as counsel of record. Perhaps he has been told that he needs to submit an application to appear in the case, pro hac vice.
Sterns' prediction of failure is tempered by attorney Phillip L. Marcus out of Colombia, Maryland, who specializes in intellectual property and copyright law. Marcus professed to RAW STORY an expertise in Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, a case in which the Supreme Court determined that the government could be sued for the violation of a Constitutional right, even if no federal statute exists to support such action.
"Jurisdiction is the big hurdle for the plaintiff, but there are two routes over the hurdle, the Bivens Doctrine (that where the facts support serious rights violations by federal agents there is a kind of federal common law jurisdiction, else violations of the Bill of Rights could not be remedied), and 28 USC sec. 1331, which is the Tort Claims Act," said Marcus.
"Mr. Veale has made extraordinary allegations. Normally if you simply allege enough facts for jurisdiction the court goes past that defense.
"But with such bizarre facts the judge is going to want to see a little bit of evidence to believe it has Bivens jurisdiction or FTCA jurisdiction, before letting Veale go ahead with what will be massive discovery -- tons of documents, and depositions under oath of Cheney, Rummy and many others, defendants and plain witnesses."
He concludes: "I'd bet [this story] lives at least four or five years, lots of news stories."
is it possible she is just a lieing liberal bush hater?
when i saw this thread up earlier today, i predicted that some anonymous first-poster would join and have something irrelevant and negative to say. ...guess I was right.
He claims he is just 10 years old. How relevant can a 4th grader be?
i spelled lier with an e.....
clearly i must be 10.... are you debunking jim78's assesment?
Argueing with Jim is like wrestling with a pig in the mud... After a while you realize that the pig actually enjoys it.
We keep him around because on rare occasions he does bring some ( read as few ) valid points to the table.
No, decider911 stated he was 10, which I figured was the youngest person on the forum. Sorry if I misunderstood. I tend not to bother reading one liner posts by noobies.
is it possible she is just a lieing liberal bush hater?
when i saw this thread up earlier today, i predicted that some anonymous first-poster would join and have something irrelevant and negative to say. ...guess I was right.
He claims he is just 10 years old. How relevant can a 4th grader be?
i spelled lier with an e.....
clearly i must be 10.... are you debunking jim78's assesment?
Argueing with Jim is like wrestling with a pig in the mud... After a while you realize that the pig actually enjoys it.
We keep him around because on rare occasions he does bring some ( read as few ) valid points to the table.
No, decider911 stated he was 10, which I figured was the youngest person on the forum. Sorry if I misunderstood. I tend not to bother reading one liner posts by noobies.
SPreston, What I meant was I am sure that you have engaged Jim76 at least once since this board became operational in January and my response was to this line of decider911's post :
1. I think she will need an assistance of professionals and people having detailed knowledge of what happened at The Pentagon (i.e. Pilots for 911 truth, CIT ...)
2. Another Deep Throat could be very useful ... I think there are few people on the market that could be named if approached in adequate way ...
3. What we do not need and must not do is the whistleblowing as we want to be seen calm and prepared for every argument ...
it will do no good, she can go to court, make all kinds of claims, but the end result will be the same...
1) debunkers will go all over the web saying she has no case and discredit her 2) it will not even make it to court 3) debunkers will say "there, i told you she had no case" 4) it will be forgoten in a month from now... in the past 7 years...."smoking guns" come out monthly...and get omitted, discredited, rejected, denied, muddied, clouded, manipulated, then forgotten. 5) the system will not arrest itself. the people have released power of this country 100 years ago....the illusion of "government" is not going to arrest itself and return the power back to the ignorant masses getting fat off jelly dohnuts. 6) i wish to our fake god that it does make it to tral, she wins, bush/cheney are implicated and hang for treason.. but we ALL kno it will NEVER happen.
Every time CIT or others discovers a "smoking gun" that info is released way too soon, IMO. < shrugs >
Way too soon?? For what evidence?
How long should we wait? Exactly which piece of information should we have waited longer to release, how much longer should we have waited, and how would that have helped?
Certainly strategy is important and if you have a specific vision for how CIT should have disseminated information that you think would have been more effective I'd like to hear it so we can learn.
Every time CIT or others discovers a "smoking gun" that info is released way too soon, IMO. < shrugs >
Way too soon?? For what evidence?
How long should we wait? Exactly which piece of information should we have waited longer to release, how much longer should we have waited, and how would that have helped?
Certainly strategy is important and if you have a specific vision for how CIT should have disseminated information that you think would have been more effective I'd like to hear it so we can learn.
I had no specific event in mind and was generalizing, but I suggest you speak in private with Dominick and see how far he has progressed regarding his last PM to me.
How long *should* you wait ? My answer is untill there is no possibility of keeping it a secret any more.
The why is simple, the skeptics will do everything within their power to undermine your case no matter how "watertight" it may be.
Every situation is different depending on the evidence in question and the circumstances.
Whatever Dom is doing now with what he has uncovered has no bearing on what we supposedly should or shouldn't have done in the past.
The fact is there are many dynamics involved with each piece of info, the current situation with whatever the movement, the infiltrators, or the government, may be doing at the time etc. and obviously we never know what we will end up uncovering in the future.
There is a lot of careful consideration that goes into when and how we release everything.
It's not done recklessly.
We risk our lives to do this and we strongly believe that being vocal and open is what helps protect us.
This has been an educational process as well and certainly we are learning as we go and as we uncover new info.
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
9:10 PM Dec 4
