( This article was translated for Megachip )
of Stephen C. Webster - from www.rawstory.com
When he received a medal for injuries sustained during the attack on the Pentagon of September 2001, April Gallop was defined as a "heroine" of the news agency ' army USA. But it is unlikely that the press the government to earmark such an enthusiasm for the second time.
On Monday (December 15, 2008, ndt), April Gallop, who served in the military NISA (Network Infrastructure Services Agency) as an administrative specialist, and his attorney William Veale filed a civil suit against ex-minister Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former U.S. Air Force General Richard Myers, head of the Joint Chiefs during the attacks of 9 / 11. The Gallop
the three defendants accused of participating in a criminal association with the aim of facilitating the attacks and of having concealed the danger the staff of the Pentagon, actively contributing to the injuries that she and her son two months reported during the attack. In the text of the case citing other anonymous who were aware of the attacks.
This story was revealed exclusively by RAW STORY. The full text of statements can be found at this link .
"Everything happened very quickly. I thought there were bombing, "said the Gallop in a report published in October 2001.
After rescue a colleague, she began to sift through the smoking rubble of his office in search of her daughter, Elisha. After removal of debris, passed through the hallways filled with smoke until it reaches the lawn outside, where it collapsed.
Despite the joy that she survived, the Gallop is "still angry with the enemy: I will pay." Many years have passed and now expects this payment comes through a civil suit.
"I was very annoyed by the frequency of fire drills and simulated evacuations," he declared at the Gallop Blog George Washington in a 2006 interview. "It happened when I was always more to do. Despite the Sept. 11, the day on which all our lives were in danger, not a single alarm is sounded. "
April was a slight lesione cerebrale, ma ancora lotta con la sindrome post-traumatica e la perdita di udito. Anche sua figlia ha subito una lieve lesione cerebrale che è degenerata in un deficit dell’apprendimento.
Per ciò che riguarda la ricostruzione dell’attentato, i ricordi della Gallop si discostano dalla versione ufficiale. «Le mie dichiarazioni sono state travisate in molte occasioni. Questo accade quando si hanno secondi fini. Per la cronaca, ecco la mia versione dei fatti: mi trovavo nell’anello E. Dall’interno dell’edificio, e senza alcun indizio su cosa fosse successo all’esterno, mi parve che fosse stata detonata una bomba. Siamo stati costretti a fuggire dalla struttura prima che ci cascasse addosso. E non ricordo seeing any plane wreckage. Obviously I have no idea what he looks like an airplane after impact with a building. But I think I noticed at least a few fragments of unusual, at least something that resembled a piece of plane. "
"I do not want to start a survey," the lawyer said Veale. "If we manage to overcome their initial motion, aimed at carving out my client's statements, we will obtain an indictment. In this case, we would have a good chance of getting to the bottom of this matter. The law is on our side. "
The case has any chance?
RAW STORY has asked its opinion to attorneys in civil cases against the federal government. "The fifteen pages of the complaint seem the product of a thorough investigation, which shows in detail the existence of a criminal organization involving the defendants. This association was intended to cause or allow the attacks to take place and hit us while we were totally unprepared, "said Gerald A. Sterns, Sterns & Walker law firm in San Francisco. "We have already carried out trials for criminal association and remains a background of doubt about what happened that day, and especially why. It was a positive turning point for President Bush, who until then had proved anything but remarkable, especially because of his controversial ascent to the office a few months before. "
According to what the site says Sterns & Walker, the study represents the survivors of plane crashes or other disasters of a certain size. The study "has been involved in almost all major causes of air accidents, and hundreds of other civil proceedings to defendants with outstanding charges," including the United States of America.
"The reason why Gallop has a precedent like that. Unfortunately for the victim, may be a clue to his fate. This is the case of Valerie Plame, a former CIA agent whose cover was deliberately blown up by Dick Cheney, and probably other White House officials. The revelation was a reprisal for some unkind statements made by Plame's husband, who was investigating the allegations made by Bush regarding the hypothetical purchase by Saddam Hussein, of raw materials for weapons of mass destruction by an African state "says Sterns. "The Plame has filed a lawsuit against Cheney and others for having destroyed his career."
He adds: "Regardless of our attitude toward these individuals and their impact on the United States, we fear that Ms. Gallop will be very disappointed in this his attempt to get answers through the courts. "
Prophecy pessimistic Sterns was played down by Phillip L. Marcus, un avvocato del Maryland, specializzato in proprietà intellettuale e leggi sul copyright. Marcus ha discusso con RAW STORY del caso Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, un processo in cui la Corte Suprema ha decretato che il governo può essere oggetto di cause civili se si prefigura la violazione di un diritto costituzionale, anche se non esiste alcuno statuto federale a supporto di un’azione legale di questo tipo.
«La giurisdizione è un grosso ostacolo alla parte lesa, ma ci sono due strade per aggirarla» ha affermato Marcus, «la prima è la Dottrina Bivens (per cui, se i fatti dimostrano una grave trasgressione da parte di agenti federali, esiste una sorta di giurisdizione del diritto federale; senza di essa, le violazioni del Bill of Rights non potrebbero oggetto di causa civile) e la seconda è la 28 USC sec. 1331, ovvero il Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Veale ha lanciato accuse straordinarie. Normalmente, se ci si limita a segnalare un quantitativo sufficiente di fatti significativi, la corte non accetta una linea difensiva basata sulla giurisdizione. Ma con accadimenti così singolari, il giudice vorrà stabilire se esistono le prove necessarie per applicare la giurisdizione Bivens o il FTCA, prima di lasciare che Veale proceda con quella che sarà un’indagine conoscitiva colossale – tonnellate di documenti, deposizioni sotto giuramento di Cheney, Rummy e molti altri, sia imputati che semplici testimoni. Scommetto che questa affair will continue for another four or five years. There will be material for many other items. "
Following is the full text of the opinions of both lawyers on the case of April Gallop.
# # # #
Under what circumstances the United States or any of its officers, agents or employees may be held civilly liable in court? Can the judiciary reward damages in a civil trial that seeks to demonstrate not so much the wrong behavior, but the criminal activity of members of the government?
The answers to these questions can be complex, but it is clear that the cause of Gallop has little chance of success.
This process, which will take place in the Eastern District of New York, reflects the frustrations of many Americans. The woman, in fact, claims the damage to Vice President Dick Cheney in office, the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others, in connection with the events of September 2001.
The fifteen pages of the complaint appear to be the product of a thorough investigation, which shows in detail the existence of a criminal organization involving the defendants. This association was intended to cause or allow the attacks to take place and hit us while we were totally unprepared. We have already carried out trials for criminal association and remains a background of doubt about what happened that day, and especially why. It was a positive turning point for President Bush, who until then had proved anything but great, especially because of his controversial ascent to the office a few months earlier.
However, even if you subscribe to some of the criticisms and accusations leveled against Cheney, Rumsfeld and others (curiously, not mentioned in Bush's case) for their activities over the past eight years, and regardless of our disposition toward these individuals and their impact on the United States, we fear that Ms. Gallop will be very disappointed by his attempt to get answers through the courts. The cause of the Gallop has a precedent similar. Unfortunately for the victim, may be a clue to his fate. This is the case of Valerie Plame, a former CIA agent whose cover was deliberately blown up by Dick Cheney and, possibly, other White House officials. The revelation was a reprisal for some unkind statements made by Plame's husband, who was investigating the allegations made by Bush regarding the hypothetical purchase by Saddam Hussein, of raw materials for weapons of mass destruction by an African state . The Plame has filed a lawsuit against Cheney and others for having destroyed his career.
The court summarily ruled that the case had no basis: the issues such policies are not part of routine case. The court also ruled that the vice president is immune at all levels for the activities it has conducted or has failed to perform in carrying out its public functions. Much the same applies, of course, for Bush both during and after his tenure.
seems clear to me that in the case of the same considerations apply Gallop and you will get the same results. The court, following the motion of the defendants, stralcerà the case with the same arguments. Regardless of opinion that each of us can have Dick Cheney - which some refer to by the nickname of "Prince of Darkness" or worse - Its shares in its capacity as vice president of the United States are protected by scrutiny of the judiciary. The only measure to punish the unworthy officials that the Constitution offers us is impeachment.
But this does not mean that the case can not be brought against the government. It can be done and is done every day for a large series. Our law firm has successfully conducted many. The courts have ruled that the United States enjoy general immunity, but the judges can not take this into account and allow the cases, in accordance with the decisions of Congress.
A classic example is the Federal Tort Claims Act 1946, which authorizes civil suits against the United States for damage caused by acts or omissions by the government, through its agents or its agencies, if such conduct is not permitted by the state in which the act or omission took place.
There are some exceptions and some special defenses available to the government, primarily the line of defense based on the Discretionary Function, which protects government employees, including president. It can be applied when the exercise of discretion had repercussions that later proved negative. For example, this line of defense has protected the United States from any responsibility for attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. But the struggle continues.
Gerald A. Sterns, Esq
Sterns & Walker
www.Trial-Law.com
**
This is not a simple accusation of negligence.
Veale shreds the argument in paragraph 8 of legal claim. You should read something on the Bivens case. Jurisdiction is a major obstacle to the injured party, but there are two ways to circumvent it: the first is the Bivens doctrine (which, if the facts show a serious violation by federal agents, there is a sort of jurisdiction of the federal law; without it, violations of the Bill of Rights would not be subject to civil suit) and the second is 28 USC sec. 1331, or the Federal Tort Claims Act Veale launched extraordinary accusations. Usually, if we merely point out that enough of the significant facts, the court does not accept a line of defense based on jurisdiction. But with so singular events, the judge will determine whether there is evidence the court needed to apply the FTCA or Bivens, before letting Veale proceed with an investigation into what will be huge - tons of documents, depositions under oath that Cheney, Rummy and many others, witnesses and defendants that simple.
This process reminds me of the Hatfill case, the guy who was "of interest" in the matter of the anthrax envelopes and then he was no longer. But we are talking about another district. Veale carries out its cause in the Southern District of New York, but Hatfill was elsewhere. I bet this case will continue for another four or five years. There will be material for many other items.
- Philip L. Marcus, Esq
Business & Intellectual Property Agreements & Negotiations
www.negotiationpro.com
On Monday (December 15, 2008, ndt), April Gallop, who served in the military NISA (Network Infrastructure Services Agency) as an administrative specialist, and his attorney William Veale filed a civil suit against ex-minister Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former U.S. Air Force General Richard Myers, head of the Joint Chiefs during the attacks of 9 / 11. The Gallop
the three defendants accused of participating in a criminal association with the aim of facilitating the attacks and of having concealed the danger the staff of the Pentagon, actively contributing to the injuries that she and her son two months reported during the attack. In the text of the case citing other anonymous who were aware of the attacks.
This story was revealed exclusively by RAW STORY. The full text of statements can be found at this link .
"Everything happened very quickly. I thought there were bombing, "said the Gallop in a report published in October 2001.
After rescue a colleague, she began to sift through the smoking rubble of his office in search of her daughter, Elisha. After removal of debris, passed through the hallways filled with smoke until it reaches the lawn outside, where it collapsed.
Despite the joy that she survived, the Gallop is "still angry with the enemy: I will pay." Many years have passed and now expects this payment comes through a civil suit.
"I was very annoyed by the frequency of fire drills and simulated evacuations," he declared at the Gallop Blog George Washington in a 2006 interview. "It happened when I was always more to do. Despite the Sept. 11, the day on which all our lives were in danger, not a single alarm is sounded. "
April was a slight lesione cerebrale, ma ancora lotta con la sindrome post-traumatica e la perdita di udito. Anche sua figlia ha subito una lieve lesione cerebrale che è degenerata in un deficit dell’apprendimento.
Per ciò che riguarda la ricostruzione dell’attentato, i ricordi della Gallop si discostano dalla versione ufficiale. «Le mie dichiarazioni sono state travisate in molte occasioni. Questo accade quando si hanno secondi fini. Per la cronaca, ecco la mia versione dei fatti: mi trovavo nell’anello E. Dall’interno dell’edificio, e senza alcun indizio su cosa fosse successo all’esterno, mi parve che fosse stata detonata una bomba. Siamo stati costretti a fuggire dalla struttura prima che ci cascasse addosso. E non ricordo seeing any plane wreckage. Obviously I have no idea what he looks like an airplane after impact with a building. But I think I noticed at least a few fragments of unusual, at least something that resembled a piece of plane. "
"I do not want to start a survey," the lawyer said Veale. "If we manage to overcome their initial motion, aimed at carving out my client's statements, we will obtain an indictment. In this case, we would have a good chance of getting to the bottom of this matter. The law is on our side. "
The case has any chance?
RAW STORY has asked its opinion to attorneys in civil cases against the federal government. "The fifteen pages of the complaint seem the product of a thorough investigation, which shows in detail the existence of a criminal organization involving the defendants. This association was intended to cause or allow the attacks to take place and hit us while we were totally unprepared, "said Gerald A. Sterns, Sterns & Walker law firm in San Francisco. "We have already carried out trials for criminal association and remains a background of doubt about what happened that day, and especially why. It was a positive turning point for President Bush, who until then had proved anything but remarkable, especially because of his controversial ascent to the office a few months before. "
According to what the site says Sterns & Walker, the study represents the survivors of plane crashes or other disasters of a certain size. The study "has been involved in almost all major causes of air accidents, and hundreds of other civil proceedings to defendants with outstanding charges," including the United States of America.
"The reason why Gallop has a precedent like that. Unfortunately for the victim, may be a clue to his fate. This is the case of Valerie Plame, a former CIA agent whose cover was deliberately blown up by Dick Cheney, and probably other White House officials. The revelation was a reprisal for some unkind statements made by Plame's husband, who was investigating the allegations made by Bush regarding the hypothetical purchase by Saddam Hussein, of raw materials for weapons of mass destruction by an African state "says Sterns. "The Plame has filed a lawsuit against Cheney and others for having destroyed his career."
He adds: "Regardless of our attitude toward these individuals and their impact on the United States, we fear that Ms. Gallop will be very disappointed in this his attempt to get answers through the courts. "
Prophecy pessimistic Sterns was played down by Phillip L. Marcus, un avvocato del Maryland, specializzato in proprietà intellettuale e leggi sul copyright. Marcus ha discusso con RAW STORY del caso Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, un processo in cui la Corte Suprema ha decretato che il governo può essere oggetto di cause civili se si prefigura la violazione di un diritto costituzionale, anche se non esiste alcuno statuto federale a supporto di un’azione legale di questo tipo.
«La giurisdizione è un grosso ostacolo alla parte lesa, ma ci sono due strade per aggirarla» ha affermato Marcus, «la prima è la Dottrina Bivens (per cui, se i fatti dimostrano una grave trasgressione da parte di agenti federali, esiste una sorta di giurisdizione del diritto federale; senza di essa, le violazioni del Bill of Rights non potrebbero oggetto di causa civile) e la seconda è la 28 USC sec. 1331, ovvero il Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Veale ha lanciato accuse straordinarie. Normalmente, se ci si limita a segnalare un quantitativo sufficiente di fatti significativi, la corte non accetta una linea difensiva basata sulla giurisdizione. Ma con accadimenti così singolari, il giudice vorrà stabilire se esistono le prove necessarie per applicare la giurisdizione Bivens o il FTCA, prima di lasciare che Veale proceda con quella che sarà un’indagine conoscitiva colossale – tonnellate di documenti, deposizioni sotto giuramento di Cheney, Rummy e molti altri, sia imputati che semplici testimoni. Scommetto che questa affair will continue for another four or five years. There will be material for many other items. "
Following is the full text of the opinions of both lawyers on the case of April Gallop.
# # # #
Under what circumstances the United States or any of its officers, agents or employees may be held civilly liable in court? Can the judiciary reward damages in a civil trial that seeks to demonstrate not so much the wrong behavior, but the criminal activity of members of the government?
The answers to these questions can be complex, but it is clear that the cause of Gallop has little chance of success.
This process, which will take place in the Eastern District of New York, reflects the frustrations of many Americans. The woman, in fact, claims the damage to Vice President Dick Cheney in office, the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others, in connection with the events of September 2001.
The fifteen pages of the complaint appear to be the product of a thorough investigation, which shows in detail the existence of a criminal organization involving the defendants. This association was intended to cause or allow the attacks to take place and hit us while we were totally unprepared. We have already carried out trials for criminal association and remains a background of doubt about what happened that day, and especially why. It was a positive turning point for President Bush, who until then had proved anything but great, especially because of his controversial ascent to the office a few months earlier.
However, even if you subscribe to some of the criticisms and accusations leveled against Cheney, Rumsfeld and others (curiously, not mentioned in Bush's case) for their activities over the past eight years, and regardless of our disposition toward these individuals and their impact on the United States, we fear that Ms. Gallop will be very disappointed by his attempt to get answers through the courts. The cause of the Gallop has a precedent similar. Unfortunately for the victim, may be a clue to his fate. This is the case of Valerie Plame, a former CIA agent whose cover was deliberately blown up by Dick Cheney and, possibly, other White House officials. The revelation was a reprisal for some unkind statements made by Plame's husband, who was investigating the allegations made by Bush regarding the hypothetical purchase by Saddam Hussein, of raw materials for weapons of mass destruction by an African state . The Plame has filed a lawsuit against Cheney and others for having destroyed his career.
The court summarily ruled that the case had no basis: the issues such policies are not part of routine case. The court also ruled that the vice president is immune at all levels for the activities it has conducted or has failed to perform in carrying out its public functions. Much the same applies, of course, for Bush both during and after his tenure.
seems clear to me that in the case of the same considerations apply Gallop and you will get the same results. The court, following the motion of the defendants, stralcerà the case with the same arguments. Regardless of opinion that each of us can have Dick Cheney - which some refer to by the nickname of "Prince of Darkness" or worse - Its shares in its capacity as vice president of the United States are protected by scrutiny of the judiciary. The only measure to punish the unworthy officials that the Constitution offers us is impeachment.
But this does not mean that the case can not be brought against the government. It can be done and is done every day for a large series. Our law firm has successfully conducted many. The courts have ruled that the United States enjoy general immunity, but the judges can not take this into account and allow the cases, in accordance with the decisions of Congress.
A classic example is the Federal Tort Claims Act 1946, which authorizes civil suits against the United States for damage caused by acts or omissions by the government, through its agents or its agencies, if such conduct is not permitted by the state in which the act or omission took place.
There are some exceptions and some special defenses available to the government, primarily the line of defense based on the Discretionary Function, which protects government employees, including president. It can be applied when the exercise of discretion had repercussions that later proved negative. For example, this line of defense has protected the United States from any responsibility for attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. But the struggle continues.
Gerald A. Sterns, Esq
Sterns & Walker
www.Trial-Law.com
**
This is not a simple accusation of negligence.
Veale shreds the argument in paragraph 8 of legal claim. You should read something on the Bivens case. Jurisdiction is a major obstacle to the injured party, but there are two ways to circumvent it: the first is the Bivens doctrine (which, if the facts show a serious violation by federal agents, there is a sort of jurisdiction of the federal law; without it, violations of the Bill of Rights would not be subject to civil suit) and the second is 28 USC sec. 1331, or the Federal Tort Claims Act Veale launched extraordinary accusations. Usually, if we merely point out that enough of the significant facts, the court does not accept a line of defense based on jurisdiction. But with so singular events, the judge will determine whether there is evidence the court needed to apply the FTCA or Bivens, before letting Veale proceed with an investigation into what will be huge - tons of documents, depositions under oath that Cheney, Rummy and many others, witnesses and defendants that simple.
This process reminds me of the Hatfill case, the guy who was "of interest" in the matter of the anthrax envelopes and then he was no longer. But we are talking about another district. Veale carries out its cause in the Southern District of New York, but Hatfill was elsewhere. I bet this case will continue for another four or five years. There will be material for many other items.
- Philip L. Marcus, Esq
Business & Intellectual Property Agreements & Negotiations
www.negotiationpro.com
Source: Stephen C. Webster
December 18, 2008 Link: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Legal_minds_respond_to_landmark_911_1218.html
Titolo nell’originale: “Legal minds respond to landmark 9/11 civil suit against Rumsfeld, Cheney”.
December 18, 2008 Link: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Legal_minds_respond_to_landmark_911_1218.html
Titolo nell’originale: “Legal minds respond to landmark 9/11 civil suit against Rumsfeld, Cheney”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment