One Last Holdout on a 9/11 Trial
Bravo, to these people:
In the nine years since Sept. 11, 2001, the legal claims for people who were injured or killed in the attacks have almost entirely been resolved. Thousands of victims and families entered a special compensation fund created by Congress and were paid more than $7 billion; a much smaller group chose to file lawsuits, which have been settled over time for about $500 million.Certainly, if I had a loved one on that bizarre ghost flight, I would want to know what the hell really happened to them. The article doesn't even touch upon conspiracies in the slightest way, but still, you gotta wonder what that family really thinks.
The name Mark Lawrence Bavis appears on the Sept. 11 memorial in the Boston Public Garden. He was 31 when he died.
All, that is, but one.
The holdout is the family of Mark Bavis, a passenger on United Airlines Flight 175, the second plane to strike the World Trade Center. Ever since the family filed suit in 2002, it has spurned efforts to negotiate, despite settlement attempts and a court mediation session.
posted by spooked at 9:09 AM
5 Comments:
But that is all smoke and mirrors, as his family is merely going after the airlines and apparently supports the official bullshit!
So nothing of value for true truthers.
I suppose. There is always hope though, that a trial will reveal some real dirt or perfidy, even as a side issue. There's got to be a reason the PTB are trying so hard to settle out of court.
Well that's true.
But after politicians and "journalists," judges and lawyers are right up there in frequency of being intel or secret society members, or controlled by the same.
So the truth is not likely to come out from any trial. And they have many ways to do that. Read Rodney Stich's books, and his many court attempts. Until they unconstitutionally banned him from bringing any more suits.
The above suit I indicated appears to be a phony show matter, and will likely get dropped, as "airlines can't be responsible for what foreign terrorists do" or some such thing.
But the suit supports the regime's BS.
Probably ultimately lawsuits, like elections, are geared to keep the people from doing what would really effect change, and keeps them in a state of denial about all this.
A.P.
well, that's true as well, and I know the chances of any "ultimate truths" coming out of a 9/11 trial are essentially nil.
Nonetheless, I always wonder what the families REALLY think, the real families anyway, and of course the vast majority have been paid off and can't speak out on 9/11. These people may well be keeping their feelings in line with the OCT just for keeping the chances open for a trial.
Still, there is some chance something interesting would come out of a trial-- it's not an entirely predictable affair.
Actually you are right.
And my own works have pointed out some of what came out of various trials. "JFK/Garrison" v. Clay Shaw, EH Hunt Civil Appeals v. Spotlight, Charles Crenshaw M.D. v JAMA, James Earl Ray/Martin Luther King Civil trial I have cited. And some interesting things did result including the jury or judge citing US Regime involvement.
Here however, anything I might be interested in--nuking, CSA, even NPT won't be brought up or allowed, by all accounts, it seems. But like you imply, such things are not totally predictable. Coverage is another matter. Things are even more tightly controlled than 40 years ago.
A.P.
Post a Comment
<< Home