I. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT CURE THEIR DEFICIENT COMPLAINT WITH AFFIDAVITS [Note: plaintiffs had recently tendered sworn statements -- i.e., affidavits, from two men who have published a lot of evidence about the fakery of 9/11, namely theologian Ray Griffin and physics professor Steven Jones.] II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO ALLEGE A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM III. PLAINTIFFS' CONSPIRACY CLAIM IS INSUFFICIENT. IV. APRIL GALLOP'S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY AND BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF INTRAMILITARY IMMUNITY V. ALL OF APRIL GALLOP'S CLAIMS ARE BARRED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL VI. PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS AND MAY BE DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON ALONE. [Note: the two plaintiffs are April Gallop and her son Elisha. He was a baby, visiting the Pentagon, on 9/11].
Now for the defendant's explanations as to why each of the above six reasons should legally hold. Judge Chin agreed with all of these. The original text is being paraphrased, except where quote marks are shown. The "Comments" are mine (MM):
I. These affidavits only contain "conclusory statements and personal opinions without evidentiary support." Comment: It is true, per common law and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that an affidavit should state facts not opinions. But both men, Griffin and Jones, reference their well-known books that contain much evidence. Expert opinion is, of course, an admissible form of evidence at trial.
II. "Plaintiffs concede that their complaint is alleged "without reference to any binding or even analogous precedent.'" Comment: How could a person get access to "precedent' of government officials blowing up their employees' work station during business hours? It just doesn't happen that often.
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs have failed to allege that defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights" in regard to the complaint that Cheney blew up that particular part of the Pentagon "in order to destroy certain financial records." Comment: While the Constitution's Article I, section 9 does mumble something about Congress's duty to publish receipts of all public expenditures, I agree that there is no express constitutional right not to have financial records bombed, vaporized, etc.
"Factual allegations contained in the complaint, must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Comment: The "relief' Gallop is looking for is medical care for injuries to her son's head. As for the "speculative level,' plaintiffs' allegations include testimony that Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta provided to the 9/11 commission. Mineta said a young man in the White House kept coming into the room to tell Cheney how close the plane was getting, and asked if orders NOT to shoot had been changed. Cheney replied in the negative. So, it's a Cabinet member's word against that of a vice president.
III. "The conspiracy claim should be dismissed ... because plaintiffs have provided no factual basis to support a meeting of the minds" -- per the rule that you need to show that the conspirators actually met and talked about the planned crime. "Furthermore, whether the claim is brought under the Federal Torts Compensation Act or Bivens , plaintiffs have provided only conjecture as to any conspiracy, admitting in their complaint that they "do not know with certainty the outlines of the plot at its initiation.'" Comment: If Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers didn't meet, but used the Defense Department's BCI (brain-computer interface) to exchange thoughts, would that meet the "meeting of the minds' test for conspirators' get-together?
IV. "Plaintiffs assert that under the doctrine of equitable tolling, the statute [of limitations] was triggered when April Gallop "was able to reasonably perceive and believe in an inside job.' According to plaintiffs, "the period never ran, or was repeatedly extended by additional acts of concealment in furtherance of the conspiracy.' Plaintiffs fail to provide any evidential support for these supposed acts of concealment, instead referring to an unspecified speech by defendant Cheney.. ..[T]he purpose of the time-bar" is to preclude the resuscitation of stale claims." Comment: The issue is hardly stale, as the terrorist event of 9/11 is called upon constantly to support new legislation and new foreign policy actions. It may even "bring on' World War III.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
