Replies

What does this article mean?

I'm about 99.99999999999999999999999999% sure it doesn't mean what the author wants you to think it means. Needs to be read carefully and with a critical eye.

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that the "Summary Judgement Motion" not being responded to by the Government lawyer does NOT mean that the US Government accepts all the assorted foil-hat claims in it.

The author is simply listing all the claims in the motion and making it look like the Government is agreeing to all of them, and to the really-not-bright, making it look like the GOVERNMENT is saying the various things in the motion.

What it probably REALLY means; this "Summary Judgement Motion" is going to be laughed out of court by the judge in the case, and the government lawyer didn't specifically respond to the dog's breakfast of assorted accusations because he didn't need to and knows the case will be thrown out eventually.

Let me give an example of what would be similar; let's say there's a case like those kookjobs suing Bush for going to war against Iraq. A few days before the case is thrown out, the kookjobs submit a "Summary Judgement Motion" listing assorted things, including that GWB enjoys strangling kittens for fun, that Dick Cheney is a Nazi, that the government was behind 9/11, etc. When the government lawyer doesn't bother doing a point-by-point rebuttal, then the leftist kookjobs write a breathless article for whatever the Commie equivalent of World Crap Daily saying that since the government didn't respond to any of their claims specifically, they concede they're all true.

Mark my words, you're being bamboozled by WND and this author regarding the legal implications they're claiming.

I agree with your assessment. This article could be boiled down to about 2 statements of fact, the rest is "leading the witness/reader."

Mark my words, you're being bamboozled by WND and this author regarding the legal implications they're claiming.

High probability placemarker. However I grew up with kerosene heaters and relit them when they were hot, and I'm still here. I'd sure like to see a convincing demo that jet fuel can do what was claimed.

It's as you describe and more.

These Sanders folks should change their name, officially, to Scammers. The book, much of which was posted on the net, is ridiculous hyperbole. Any pilot with more than 5 hours flight time knew it was BS from chapter 3.

Not only that, even after being convicted, and convicted quickly, by a jury of their peers, they still say it's all a government plot to get them.

They are liars and thieves, but they are even worse too.

This is all nothing more than attempt by WND to sell their BS book. 200+ Americans died on that plane, but these scum Sanders types are willing to knowingly lie to the other 270,000,000 of us to try to drain some blood money from the corpses of the dead.

I have been a reporter for years and it's people like this who give our profession a bad name. #1, they put out BS for profit, #2, they claim their so-called journalistic status gives them a right to steal.

It's hard enough for young reporters to get the facts straight when they come out of J schools with liberal mush filling their brains. People like these two only make it harder.

"....including that GWB enjoys strangling kittens for fun...."

He does??????!!!! Why, that heartless bastard!!!!!!!!!!

Nice of you to both admit and display your ignorance.

That the government admits the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, albeit by default, is precisely what it means.

The report does not say that the government does not contest the motion, but rather precisely that the government does not contest the facts alleged in support of plaintiffs' summary judgment motion. Therefore, by rule, the facts alleged by plaintiffs are conceded, though, if ambiguous, they will interpreted against the moving parties, for purposes of the motion ruling only, subject to being proven at trial, should there be one.

It thus seems that you are the wearer of the tinfoil hat.

In truth the government, up until now, has never actually brought out the truth in any such high profile investigation. Would you, for example, contend that the Warren Commission got to the truth of the matter, or the Waco investigation?

There are only two reasons for the government to fail to contest the facts: either (1) someone made a decision to allow the truth out (which would be a novel concept in our government) or (2) the government wanted to cut its losses and minimize damage because the truth coming out fully at trial, after full discovery, would be even more damaging than these allegations standing uncontested.