Print This Post Print This Post

Statement By April Gallop’s Attorney Bill Veale Regarding 9/11 Trial

April 11, 2011

[This is a statement issued from Bill Veale.  Bill is the attorney for April Gallop who is suing Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Meyers for war crimes in regards to 9/11.  If you are not familiar with this case, please click HERE and HERE.

The case file can be found HERE. t]


Bill Veale: Confounding lawyers and legal scholars all over the world, Judge John Walker, first cousin of former President George W. Bush, was one of three judges of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to hear argument yesterday in Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Myers, the lawsuit brought by a soldier injured during the attack on the Pentagon that accuses former Vice President Dick Cheney, former secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers of conspiring to facilitate the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that killed 3000 Americans and has resulted in the deaths of many more, due to the toxicity of the clean-up conditions at Ground Zero.

William Veale, April Gallop’s lawyer from the Center for 9/11 Justice, learning of the assignment the usual 5 days before the argument, filed a motion to disqualify Judge Walker the day before the argument.  When the case was called in the normal course, there had still been no decision made by the court.  When Veale reminded the court of the pending motion, Judge Winter said it is denied.  Veale requested a continuance to seek appellate review of the court’s ruling but that motion was denied as well.

Argument followed but Walker, and fellow judges Cabranes and Winter, seemed more interested in making sure that Veale was properly licensed to practice before the court than the stark legal issues presented by the appeal.  The appeal is from a ruling by then District Court Judge, now 2nd Circuit Court Judge, Denny Chin dismissing Ms. Gallop’s lawsuit with prejudice, writing that the allegations contained there are “implausible” and the product of “cynical delusion and fantasy.”

Gallop’s appeal brief points out that when Judge Chin summarized the factual assertions contained there, he mischaracterized important allegations, but most significantly, left out any mention of vast sections of the 25 page brief.  Giving her lawyers greatest pause was Chin’s failure to mention the words, actions, and locations of the three defendants at the time of the crime, and as Veale managed to point out during the argument despite frequent interruptions by Walker and the other judges, with regard to Cheney, his words and actions had to do with an instrumentality of the crime, the airplane that was heading for the Pentagon.  In Cheney’s case, these matters were the subject of testimony by Norman Mineta, a cabinet secretary, a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a man with an airport named after him.

Judge Winter inquired of Veale what airport that was.  It used to be called the San Jose Airport in Santa Clara County, California. 

Judge Cabranes asked Veale what had happened to the airplane, if, as the lawsuit suggests, it did not hit the Pentagon?  Veale asked in response, “How would I know?”.  The implied criticism of the irony that a lawyer who has been denied the ability to use the power of subpoena to learn the truth would be chided for not having an answer to the key to the unraveling of the entire conspiracy seemed to be lost on the judge.  And the judge gave no sign that he was familiar with the details of the allegations in the Complaint concerning conflicts between the flight path of American 77 according to the NTSB and that same flight path according to the 9/11 Commission, or the scrubbing of the radar tracks of the area at the time of the attacks, or of the counter-intuitive strategy of the suicidal hijacker who chose NOT to kill 20,000 occupants of the building AND Secretary Rumsfeld, but instead flew into a sparsely occupied and recently reinforced section of the building that resulted in 125 deaths including only one flag officer, if one is to accept the government’s version.

Veale asked what offense to justice could come from allowing the case to go forward, when the possibility of sanctions awaits purveyors of frivolous accusations.  Gallop’s lawyer’s final lament acknowledged the existence of evil in the world, its attraction to power and its disregard for citizenship, but Walker interrupted that sentence before it could be completed as well.


Did you like what you read here? If so, please be kind enough to donate to support the cause (click HERE). It takes time and money to create a website like this and I love doing it so anything would be very much appreciated. And I’ll personally email you a free thank-you gift in returnmy 214 page ebook about debt, credit, bankruptcy, investing and much more!

BBS Radio. There are no equals! Get Archive Access Now

Related Articles:

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2011

Filed Under: 9/11FeaturedHeadlinesNews Articles

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments (2)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jack says:

    Ok, so what was the ruling? Was the case denied? Is the hearing still going on? What are the repercussions of the case if it is allowed and Cheney, Rumsfeld and/or Meyers are found guilty?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin