I have written here before that the legal ethics breach of filing a frivolous lawsuit (prohibited by Rule 3.1 in most state Rules of Professional Conduct) is almost impossible to accomplish, because it requires a lawyer to lack a good faith belief that the suit can prevail. Since bizarre and attenuated theories sometime do prevail, a law suit really has show no merit at all to prompt sanctions. Like this one, for instance. I quote from the Illinois Institute of Continuing Education’s summary:
“The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, acting sua sponte, found that the appeal filed by three attorneys in Gallop v. Cheney…, claiming that White House and military officials conspired to cover up government involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks was frivolous in that it was “brought without the slightest chance of success>’…The court found that the appeal contained a “comprehensive compilation of every rumor, report, statement, and anecdote that may reveal an inconsistency or omission” in official reports….The court stated that the misconduct was compounded by the filing of a motion to recuse the entire panel that was “peppered with disdainful and unsubstantiated conclusions about the panel members’ emotional stability and competence to serve objectively.” The motion accused the judges of having “severe bias, based in active personal emotions arising from the 9/11 attack . . . leading to a categorical prejudgment totally rejecting [Gallop’s] Complaint, out of hand and with palpable animus.”
“The court found the three attorneys jointly and severally liable for $15,000 in fines and ordered them to pay double the government’s costs for both the frivolous appeal and the recusal motion. The court also ruled that whenever one of the attorneys appears before any tribunal in the Second Circuit within the next year, he must alert the court to the sanctions.
“The court declined to sanction the appellant herself because she relied heavily on her lawyers and did not labor under the same legal and ethical obligations to the court as her attorneys.”
Yup!!!!
The case is Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364, 370 (2d Cir. 2011)
Ethics Alarms 
Of course, this just means that the court is in on it… just like with flouridation.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
Not the whole government, though. A local government is willing to stand up against the damn Socialists: http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/pinellas-county-commission-votes-to-stop-putting-fluoride-in-water-supply/1195147
When you’re quotes could have been said by Jack D. Ripper, you’re either insane or awesome.
LOL The damn Socialist’s government recommendations and EPA study, too.
A private sector company did the study finding that too much fluoride is a bad thing?
What are fluoride’s benefits? It never stopped dental cavities in anyone I know. I think it’s a mind control substance designed to make us docile in the face of a totalitarian government. Apparently the OWS crowd was bypassed. 🙂
Fluoride does reduce tooth decay. It is naturally found in drinking water and our bodies. I take it, you don’t use fluoride toothpaste and you go to a dentist that doesn’t use fluoride. It sounds like another conspiracy theory. Kind of like the one Michelle Bachmann started by telling the public she met a woman whose child became retarded from innoculations.
Next thing will be iodized salt!
OMG! Iodization! I never thought of that!
Actually,we did have fluoride. Maybe if we hadn’t we’d be wearing dentures instead of fillings. Oh and don’t get me started on fillings…..!!
How did we get onto flouride????
It’s tgt’s fault. 😛
The lawyers who filed the suit may end up being targeted by Al Qaeda. When Iran’s president claimed there was a U.S. conspiracy on 9-11 Al Qaeda became enraged because they were insulted. They did it and they DEMAND all of the credit.