Kevin Ryan's lawsuit - Update and Court documents here

[LashL]

As has been mentioned in other threads, I have collected
the documents filed in court in the litigation between Kevin
Ryan and Underwriters Laboratories. There was an earlier
thread on this, at which time only Ryan's Complaint and UL's
Motion to Dismiss were posted since, at that time, Ryan had
not yet responded to UL's Motion to Dismiss.

Ryan has since filed a response to UL's motion, and UL has
filed its Reply to Ryan's Response, so this new thread is to
consolidate the documents and discussion in one place.
Many thanks to ~enigma~ for hosting the pdf documents
for your reading pleasure.

Enjoy :)

Ryan's initial complaint, which can be found here (http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/complaint.pdf) is not well
drafted and does not state very clearly the basis for the claims
it makes, but essentially it says that:

- in 2003, Ryan told people at UL about the usual tinhat conspiracy
theories;

- UL did not act upon his woo in the manner that Ryan wanted them to;

- so Ryan wrote to NIST to repeat the tinhat conspiracy theories,
and to accuse NIST of doing a crappy job in its investigation and
report, to accuse NIST of failing to "identify the truth about what
really happened", and suggesting that "criminal elements within the
U.S. government" may have planted explosives in the buildings, etc.;

- Ryan admits that he sent the letter from UL, using UL email address,
using his UL title, but says that he was stating his own opinion,
not UL's, and says that UL allowed him to use UL email for personal
email, and that the email program "automatically added the UL title
of Mr. Ryan to his email";

- Ryan also wrote to some tinhat troofer organization and they posted
his letter on the internet;

- UL fired Ryan as a result, saying that it was because he misrepresented
UL by writing as though it was UL's opinion and not his personal opinion;

- UL used this as a pretext to fire him "in retaliation for Mr. Ryan
exercising his rights and acting to fulfill his duties under the U.S.
constitution, the constitution of Indiana, and under federal and
state laws";

- UL wrongly terminated his employment because (by writing to NIST),
he exercised his right under the U.S constitution and the state
constitution to "petition his government for redress of grievances
and to reform his government", and because he was exercising his
first amendment rights in his letter to NIST and in his communications
with tinhat groups, etal.;

- UL wrongly terminated his employment because (by writing to NIST,
etc.), he was exercising his right to "report safety hazards and to
disclose material facts in a government investigatino of a (sic)
occupational and public safety related incident";

- UL wrongly terminated his employment because he was exercising
his right under federal, Indiana and NY laws, "to report potential
felonies and terrorist activity";

- UL wrongly terminated his employment because he was defending
the constitution and seeking to petition his government for redress
of grievances and seeking to "reform" the government "in the face
of actions by persons seeking to subvert" the gov't and alter the
democratic nature of our society;

Therefore, he seeks:

- back pay from November 2004
- $200,000 in front pay or, alternatively, reinstatement to his job;
- $unquantified for cost of relocation and job search;
- $unquantified lost value of medical insurance, retirement plan, benefits;
- $unquantified damages for emotional distress and damage to his reputation;
- $unquantified punitive damages.


UL brought a Motion to Dismiss the complaint, which can be found here (http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/ulbriefonmotiontodismiss.pdf).

UL's brief is self-explanatory and nicely set out, and essentially says that Ryan's
complaint discloses no viable claim and should, therefore, be dismissed.

In a nutshell, it says:

- that Ryan's complaint discloses no statutory basis for any of the
claims made by Ryan;

- that UL is not a government entity, (thus the first amendment and
related claims are not sustainable);

- that Ryan has not pleaded the requisite elements to make out any
of his claims;

- that UL was entitled to fire him for his sending the letter to NIST
containing many false or unsubstantiated assertions" and "baseless
assertions" and "incredible and unsupported claims" because he
misrepresented his opinions as that of the company;

- that Ryan was an "at will" employee; and

- that Ryan cannot, in the circumstances, bring his dismissal within
the narrow exception to "at will" termination, namely "public policy
exception."


As LossLeader noted in the original thread:
The most important bit, from a Tr00ther/Skeptic perspective,
is that UL's motion to dismiss says not one word about any of Ryan's
claims. They do not deny them or comment on what UL did or did not
do. If the case is dismissed at this level (and it should be) the
record will be of no help to the tinhats. That is not to say that they
won't spin stories of government intrigue and judges being coerced
and whatever, but the record won't support them one bit.


As noted above, Ryan has since filed a Response to UL's Motion to Dismiss,
which can be found here (http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/Ryannewresponse.pdf).

In a nutshell, it cuts and pastes liberally from Ryan’s initial Complaint,
does little to fix up the problems with the initial Complaint (despite the
UL motion materials being, virtually, a “how-to” manual for Ryan) and
goes on to claim:

- that UL's Motion to Dismiss wrongly asserts things that Ryan did not
assert in his pleading, and that, therefore, UL's motion materials go
beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss;

- that Ryan's claims regarding First Amendment rights have yet to
accrue, so Ryan should be entitled to assert an unfounded cause
of action on this front;

- that Ryan's Complaint adequately asserts a claim to an exception
to the employment-at-will law of Indiana on the basis of public policy
exception;

- that Ryan's Complaint properly asserts a cause of action pursuant
to the private employees' whistleblower legislation; and

- alternatively, that if Ryan has not properly asserted any cause
of action, as alleged by UL, he should be granted leave to amend his
complaint to plead it properly.

Interestingly, Ryan virtually admits that he is on a fishing expedition,
and concedes that he has no facts to support his allegation that the
government acted to cause his discharge or that UL acted under colour
of law in discharging him.


“...Plaintiff Ryan concedes that he has no facts that the government acted
to cause his discharge or that UL acted under color or [sic] law in discharging him...”

[bolding mine]

UL has filed a Reply to Ryan's Response,
which can be found here (http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/ULsnewreply.pdf).


UL’s Reply is, again, fairly self-explanatory and well pleaded. It says,
essentially, that Ryan's pleadings are still crap and that they still do
not make out any legally comprehensible or viable claims.

It starts thus:


After filing an incredibly vague complaint and forcing UL to spend
significant time guessing at what causes of action are alleged, Plaintiff
fails to clarify his complaint (“Complaint”) in his response to UL’s motion
to dismiss (“Response” or “Pl. Resp.”). Worse yet, Plaintiff, represented
by three different law firms, argues that he is not required in his Complaint
to identify a legal theory and, in fact, implies that he may be claiming a
theory of which he himself is not yet aware. The crux of his argument
is that this Court should indulge his nearly impossible-to-decipher Complaint
because it might, at some point in the unforeseeable future, give rise
to a still unidentified claim.



While it may be true that federal courts are particularly liberal in their
review of pro se complaints, [citation removed], Plaintiff here is not
a pro se litigant. In fact, he is represented by no less than three
well respected attorneys from three different Indianapolis law firms.
Despite his high level of legal representation, however, Plaintiff’s Response
to UL’s motion to dismiss is replete with factual inconsistencies, see, e.g.,
Pl. Resp. at 4 (decrying UL’s use of the term “conspiracy theories” but
stating that “of course the fact that there was a ‘conspiracy’ of some
kind . . . has been accepted by all”), and legal inaccuracies. See, e.g.,
Parts I, III, VII below.


The bottom line, however, is that even with Plaintiff’s “additional detail,”
Pl. Resp. at 20, the claims Plaintiff is attempting to assert fail as a matter
of law. Notwithstanding his extensive quotation of various provisions of
federal and state constitutions and laws, block quotation and string citation
of legal precedent, and repetition of large portions of the Complaint,
Plaintiff has done nothing to make his claims any clearer or more legally
cognizable. Accordingly, and for the many reasons discussed below, all
of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice.

I will keep watching PACER for additional filings. So far, I see nothing to
indicate when the Motion to Dismiss will be argued in court, but I will keep
my eyes open for that.


For ease of reference, the original 'wrongful termination' thread is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72610).

[Gravy]

Thanks, LashL!

Worse yet, Plaintiff, represented by three different law firms, argues that he is not required in his Complaint to identify a legal theory and, in fact, implies that he may be claiming a theory of which he himself is not yet aware.He's in the wrong camp. That's the Fetzer argument!

[LashL]

P.S. The parties had their first pre-trial conference on May 3, 2007, at which they established a Case Management Schedule setting out a timeline for further steps in the action.

The Motion to Dismiss is still pending, with no specific date for argument set yet.

UL intends to bring a Motion for Summary Judgment (if the complaint is not dismissed when the Motion to Dismiss is heard).

Here are some highlights from the CM schedule:

1) The parties are both to serve their initial disclosures by May 14/07;
2) Ryan is to file his preliminary witness and exhibit lists by May 14/07;
3) UL is to file its preliminary witness and exhibit lists by June 14/07;
4) Ryan is to serve UL a statement of special damages, if any, and make a settlement demand, by May 14, 2007;
5) UL is to respond to Ryan's settlement demand (in #4 above) within 30 days of receipt of same;

[AZCat]

Thanks for providing this, LashL & ~enigma~. Just more evidence of the hysterical blindness of the truthers.

[gumboot]

Thanks Lash, this legal stuff is better than Boston Legal...

And the half-time entertainment isn't bad either!

-Gumboot

[Alt+F4]

Well I have a question about (egad) the original post.

LashL, do you think this mess is ever going to make it to a jury trial?

[LashL]

Well I have a question about (egad) the original post.

LashL, do you think this mess is ever going to make it to a jury trial?

It's hard to say at this stage, Alt+F4. Given the sorry state of Ryan's pleadings to date, it is doubtful that it will survive a motion for summary judgment.

It may survive the pending Motion to Dismiss - because courts do not relish knocking plaintiffs' claims out of contention at so early a stage in the litigation if there is any way at all to salvage them - even though Ryan's pleadings to date are pretty poor. At worst, I think that if the court grants the Motion to Dismiss, they will do so with leave to Ryan to amend in order to plead his claims properly. Then, if he amends his pleading appropriately, the matter would continue, at least to the point where UL brings a motion for summary judgment (which they have indicated they anticipate if the matter survives the motion to dismiss).

At a motion for summary judgment, though, the plaintiff has to provide enough evidence to show that there is some reasonable possibility of success. And that, of course, will depend upon whether or not Ryan has any compelling evidence in support of his numerous allegations. The schedule that the parties have agreed to indicates that we will soon have at least a glimpse at what evidence Ryan may hope to lead - so a better assessment can be made at that time.

As of this very moment, though, and based solely upon the evidence to date, I do not expect to see the matter make it to trial. That could change, of course, depending upon what comes out of the Ryan camp in the near future.

[ConspiRaider]

Thanks, LashL, for the info and the translations of the legalese for us barrister-challenged types. I'm gonna hafta break some serious laws just so I can get this legal jargon down cold. I hate the not knowing.

I remember nominating your original postings on this deal and that is saying a lot. I have a personal policy of nominating one JREF post every 3rd total solar eclipse (as viewed in the Northern Hemisphere), so it must have been an awesomish post back then. This one is terrific too (is there a full moon?).

[The Doc]

Wow! Nice post Lash :)

I've got some reading to do.

[LashL]

Thank you (in order of posts), Gravy, ~enigma~, beachnut, kookbreaker, Totovader, Arus808, Cl1mh4224rd, AZCat, gumboot, jhunter, slingblade, Alt+F4, boloboffin, ConspiRaider, and The Doc.

Perhaps now that MM has done his best (as poor as it was) at attempting to hijack the thread in order to circumvent discussion of the subject matter at issue, the thread can carry on as intended. That is, to discuss the Ryan lawsuit against UL rather than some random troofer's misguided, lame, unfounded, and wholly ridiculous and baseless assertions (which the random troofer doesn't even believe himself).

Given the timelines established for further steps in the litigation at the pre-trial conference of May 3/07, there should be further developments of interest very soon.

In the meantime, I would hope that skeptics here will not allow nonsensical posts - such as those posted by MM in this thread - to derail the thread entirely. It is perfectly well and good and appropriate to call BS on his BS, of course - and I appreciate that so many did - but let's not lose sight of the big picture, and let's not allow the random troofer's BS to cloud our judgment so much that said random troofer succeeds in his quest to prevent legitimate discussion of a relevant topic.





And with that, I'm off to bed as I have to work in the morning. Good night.

[chillzero]

This thread has been pruned, and the pruned posts moved to AAH.

[LashL]

Well, it's neat and tidy in here now, chillzero. Are you a hobby gardener or arborist in real life? ;)

[capracus]

I wonder how much money the Water Tester legal defense fund has amassed? It would be interesting to see a list of the donors.

[bje]

There's a more important lawsuit (http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-york-port-authority-accused-of.html) in the works.

[mortimer]

There's a more important lawsuit (http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-york-port-authority-accused-of.html) in the works.

Roffle!

[capracus]

There's a more important lawsuit in the works.PANYNJ attorney: Metallurgical engineer Spanky, what happens to structural steel when it's heated to 600 C?

Metallurgical engineer Spanky: It gets twice as strong.

[LashL]

I wonder how much money the Water Tester legal defense fund has amassed? It would be interesting to see a list of the donors.

Something tells me - call it a hunch - that that information will not be forthcoming from Ryan. It would be too embarrassing.

[LashL]

There's a more important lawsuit (http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-york-port-authority-accused-of.html) in the works.

Gotta love that 911 Booger site. Very funny stuff :)

PANYNJ attorney: Metallurgical engineer Spanky, what happens to structural steel when it's heated to 600 C?

Metallurgical engineer Spanky: It gets twice as strong.

(insert ROTFLMAO smilie here) :D

[pvt1863]

There's a more important lawsuit (http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-york-port-authority-accused-of.html) in the works.

That's hilarious. I actually believed at first that this could be a real truther lawsuit, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Their real "work" is so bad, it is practically a parody of itself.

[LashL]

That's hilarious. I actually believed at first that this could be a real truther lawsuit, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Their real "work" is so bad, it is practically a parody of itself.

There's no shame in that whatsoever, pvt, for precisely the reason you set out above.

The lawsuits that Kevin Ryan and William Rodriguez filed in real life are so badly drafted and/or so tinhat-crazy-unsubstantiated nonsensical conspiracy theories-over-the-top-crazy-and-utterly-ridiculous that the spoof lawsuit at 9/11 Booger cannot help but look "real" in comparison. Self-parodying are the troofers, indeed. ;)

[capracus]

That's hilarious. I actually believed at first that this could be a real truther lawsuit, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Their real "work" is so bad, it is practically a parody of itself.It got me too. I had no Idea it was a parody site. Like the quote from B.J. Edwards says: 9/11 Truth is Stranger than Fiction.

[Dog Town]

It got me too. I had no Idea it was a parody site. Like the quote from B.J. Edwards says: 9/11 Truth is Stranger than Fiction.

Bought it briefly! Laughed hard, at the symmetry of da twoofers, in it!

With da twoofers, "fact" is fiction, and vice-a-versa! 1111))0ooo111eleven!100000000!!!!!!!!!!

[Architect]

It really is comedy gold.

But before we laugh too much, consider just how much of UL's time and money Ryan is wasting on this fishing expedition. Not so funny if you're over there.

Likewise let's ask ourselves why the three Indianapolis solicitors are wasting their time on such a frivilous claim. With due respect to Lash, lawyers don't tend to work for nowt. So do they work on a "no win, no fee" basis expecting a settlement (heaven forbid) or is some daft eejit paying them?

[sigh]

[nicepants]

That's hilarious. I actually believed at first that this could be a real truther lawsuit, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Their real "work" is so bad, it is practically a parody of itself.


I thought it was real at first too. But then I realized, if they want to actually win a lawsuit, they'd have to prove what they say. And no twoofer is going to put himself/herself in a situation where they'd have to actually PROVE something.

[LashL]

It really is comedy gold.

But before we laugh too much, consider just how much of UL's time and money Ryan is wasting on this fishing expedition. Not so funny if you're over there.

Likewise let's ask ourselves why the three Indianapolis solicitors are wasting their time on such a frivilous claim. With due respect to Lash, lawyers don't tend to work for nowt. So do they work on a "no win, no fee" basis expecting a settlement (heaven forbid) or is some daft eejit paying them?

[sigh]

Oh, I hear you on the waste of time, money and resources that it is costing UL to defend against Ryan's claim. It is not funny at all.

Unfortunately, people bring frivolous lawsuits against defendants with "deep pockets" every day, in hopes that the deep pocketed defendant will toss them some money as a "nuisance" settlement - i.e., it is more economical to toss them a small amount of money to go away than it is to spend a much greater amount of money defending the claim, as frivolous as it may be - especially when the plaintiff is essentially "judgment proof" in the sense that he has not sufficient assets to satisfy an eventual judgment for costs, etc.

As far as these particular lawyers are concerned in this particular case, I have no idea whether they are acting on a contingency fee basis or not, but it is pretty common in the U.S. to do so. (It is not nearly so common in Canada, and until a few years ago, it was not even legal in Canada for lawyers to do so.)

The contingency fee arrangment is the "no win, no fee" scenario that you mentioned. I.e., if the plaintiff obtains a settlement or a judgment in his favour, the lawyers get a specified percentage of same - plus their disbursements and such - before the plaintiff sees a dime of any settlement or judgment).

That said, Kevin Ryan has been panhandling for donations since he launched his lawsuit (which seeks only monetary damages for himself personally, don't forget, and which seeks no declaratory relief of any kind whatsoever relating to the events of 9/11), ostensibly to help with his legal fees, (he calls it a "defence fund" even though he's the plaintiff). This would lead donors to believe that he is required to pay his lawyers, and would suggest that they are not acting on a contingency fee basis. However, the "defence fund" site that I read back when he started his panhandling did not set out any details whatsoever about the arrangements he had with his lawyers, did not say that he had any specific financial commitment to meet, did not have any oversight whatsoever, did not even link to his complaint, did not have any mechanism for accounting for donations, did not have any mechanism for ensuring that donations received would go to the purpose alleged, did not have any checks and balances in place, did not have anything at all in place to assure donors that money donated to Kevin Ryan would go to funding his lawsuit any more than it would go to funding his grocery bill, his hydro bill, or his bar tab at his local pub.

More re: the lawyers. jaydeehess posted something to the effect that these particular lawyers were all extremely liberal politically and into what he described as "Big Brother" cases in which they acted against corporations or government agencies, on behalf of "the little guy" and he posted some links in support of his assessement in the other thread. I have not done any research whatsoever into the proclivities of these particular lawyers because my interest is in the lawsuit rather than the laywers, but since you raised the point about why lawyers might do this without being paid, I thought I should mention this. The previous thread is here for anyone who wants to check out the links that jaydeehess provided (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72610&page=2) and research them further.

[jaydeehess]

There's a more important lawsuit (http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-york-port-authority-accused-of.html) in the works.

I bought it too. I had no problem believeing that this was a real suit.

Other than its ridiculous nature, what gives it away as a spoof? I mean, really, given what the twoofers do in fact believe, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[LashL]

I bought it too. I had no problem believeing that this was a real suit.

Other than its ridiculous nature, what gives it away as a spoof? I mean, really, given what the twoofers do in fact believe, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Other than its ridiculous nature, not a thing.

The spoof lawsuit looks downright sensible on its face compared to those filed by William Rodriguez and Kevin Ryan. And given that the lawsuits filed by Rodriguez and Ryan are entirely ludicrous, yet are blindly accepted without question by the "truth" movement, that speaks volumes about the gullibility, naivete, and stupidity of members of the "truth" movement.

[jaydeehess]

NIST doesnt lie there... it simply fails to mention some obscure phenomenon nobody knows about known as thermal conductivity.


racerX on LC

That is why insulation is unneccessary on structural steel. Heat is conducted away from hot zones too fast to allow it to heat up to the point of losing significant strength.

[Minadin]

racerX on LC

That is why insulation is unneccessary on structural steel. Heat is conducted away from hot zones too fast to allow it to heat up to the point of losing significant strength.

All of our clients ever are going to be furious when they find out.

We're going to have to start a brand new world wide conspiracy in the building professions to keep anyone from changing the codes.

[LashL]

It's interesting that not a single troofer has anything substantive to say at all about this ridiculous lawsuit of Ryan's. I don't blame them - I'd be embarrassed, too, if I was in their shoes.

[Minadin]

SwingDangler over at SLC tried to talk about the Kevin Ryan lawsuit in the comments about a month ago:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user= screwloosechange &comment=3805768357465979302

[LashL]

Some additional documents have been filed with the court today (May 11) and Wednesday (May 9) - I will send the docs to ~enigma~ and ask him to host them on the site he graciously created for that purpose so that they are available for everyone to read.

It appears that at the pretrial on May 3, 2007, the judge invited the parties to provide supplemental briefs in light of a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision on the issue of public policy exceptions to the common law at-will employment doctine, which had been decided subsequent to the filing of the initial briefs on UL's Motion to Dismiss.

UL has, as a result, submitted a supplementary brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss, in which it says that the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in the other matter (Meyer) supports their contention that Ryan cannot succeed in trying to expand the public policy exception in the manner in which he is attempting to do so via his Complaint.

No supplementary brief has been filed on Ryan's behalf yet in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, but I'll keep watching :)

[~enigma~]

Courtesy of our favorite lawyer here are the newest waterboy documents...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/ulsupplemental.pdf

[LashL]

Thanks, ~enigma~ much appreciated. :)

As an aside, there is another crazy lawsuit that I would like to post. This one is by Field McConnell, making all manner of allegations spanning 1970-2001 against a vast array of defendants including:

several former U.S. presidents;
several former Canadian prime ministers;
a bevy of politicians including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry, to name only a few; and
other notables, including Jane Garvey, Rudy Guiliani, Teresa Heinz, David Rockefeller, George Tenet.

The list is quite staggering. The above-mentioned are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Also, there is a long list of alleged co-conspirators not named as defendants, which includes, as a mere sampling:

Kofi Annan, Conrad Black, Hans Blix, Noam Chomsky, Vince Foster, Jimmy Hoffa Jr., Saddam Hussein, Ted Kaczynski, Pierre Trudeau, Joseph Massino, and Vito Rizzutto.

I don't want to start a new thread for this one because I am pretty sure that it will go absolutely nowhere, but I thought it might be worth posting a copy of the complaint, as another insight into the mind of truthers and the ridiculous lawsuits they launch.

So, I will email it to you if you don't mind hosting it.

[~enigma~]

Legal comedy courtesy of our resident lovely lawyer...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/McConnell.pdf

[gumboot]

Sweet Holy Mother of Mercy!

How did that person manage to get to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel?

-Gumboot

[LashL]

Sweet Holy Mother of Mercy!

How did that person manage to get to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel?

-Gumboot

Pretty unbelievable, isn't it?

He has also launched another lawsuit against Boeing and A.L.P.A. I'll pass that one along to ~enigma~ as well, if he doesn't mind hosting it. It is short and self-explanatory. Boeing and ALPA told him that he is "crazy". I think they are correct in that assessment.

[~enigma~]

As soon as the hourly data transfer limit resets itself...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/McBoeing.pdf

And this one is gold :)

[gumboot]

Wow.

-Gumboot

[qarnos]

As soon as the hourly data transfer limit resets itself...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/McBoeing.pdf

And this one is gold :)

!!!!!!!

That's nuts.

[Arus808]

omg.. that's like something written by an 8 year old.

i didn't read it throiugh, but did he even state what he thought was unsafe about the 747s?

[Dog Town]

David St.Hubbins/ You can't print that! Where'd they print that? /St.
Apparently nowhere on that page.

Can't even spell airline?

How much proof, of who you are, do you need to file a suit? Could this be hogwash?

[tsig]

David St.Hubbins/ You can't print that! Where'd they print that? /St.
Apparently nowhere on that page.

Can't even spell airline?

How much proof, of who you are, do you need to file a suit? Could this be hogwash?

Pdoh?

[gumboot]

omg.. that's like something written by an 8 year old.

i didn't read it throiugh, but did he even state what he thought was unsafe about the 747s?


It seems to be centred around Boeing's use of the QRS-11 GyroChip.

It's a tiny chip that helps the aircraft determine it's relative orientation in the air. Boeing has run into trouble with the US government as it is also used for the same purpose in missiles (I guess because of its small size). As such it falls under dual use, thus Boeing cannot export it without permission from the USG.

PrisonPlanet have turned "gyro-stabilising" into "controls" and imply it is used for remote control.

This guy makes reference to Adam Air Flight 574. This was a 737-400 that disappeared in Indonesia, and it isn't know what happened to it. He seems to be suggesting that the QRS-11 chip resulted in it "vapourising".

-Gumboot

[LashL]

David St.Hubbins/ You can't print that! Where'd they print that? /St.
Apparently nowhere on that page.

Can't even spell airline?

How much proof, of who you are, do you need to file a suit? Could this be hogwash?

While the lawsuit is, no doubt, complete and utter hogwash, it appears that McConnell is real, that it is his lawsuit, and that he is a full-blown nutcase troofer. Not surprisingly, he has a DVD to sell, too. It is called "Captain Sherlock Solves 9/11". I'm not kidding.

http://www.hawkscafe.com/105.html
http://www.hawkscafe.com/order.html
http://www.captainsherlock.com/

Could the whole thing be a hoax? Sure, it could. But if it is, it's a pretty elaborate one. The documents that I sent to enigma for hosting above come from PACER, so the lawsuits have definitely been filed. So far, no responding documents from the defendants have been filed. I would think it would be easy enough for those with access to various databases to confirm his identity, etc. His claims - as crazy as they are - are in keeping with the claims brought by other "truthers". You know, outrageous, ridiculous, ludicrous, completely lacking facts or evidence, with a healthy portion of batcrap lunacy tossed in to the mix.

Anyway, it's late and I have to get some sleep, but I'll post more links tomorrow.

[LashL]

Ryan update.

It looks like Ryan's lawyers have finally realized how badly drafted their original complaint was.

They have now filed a motion to amend/correct their initial pleading, along with a proposed amended complaint, in recognition of the poor drafting of the original complaint and in recognition of the fact that they had not properly asserted their claims in the first instance.

I'll send the pdf docs to ~enigma~ and ask him to host them at the site he created for same, and ask him to post a link, for your reading pleasure :)

[apathoid]

Ryan update.

It looks like Ryan's lawyers have finally realized how badly drafted their original complaint was.

They have now filed a motion to amend/correct their initial pleading, along with a proposed amended complaint, in recognition of the poor drafting of the original complaint and in recognition of the fact that they had not properly asserted their claims in the first instance.

I'll send the pdf docs to ~enigma~ and ask him to host them at the site he created for same, and ask him to post a link, for your reading pleasure :)



Thanks for doing all of this LashL. A couple of questions tho'. Why do you suppose they did such a poor job of drafting the initial complaint? Do you think Ryans lawyers know they have no case here and kinda did a rush job on it, spending more time on their more legit cases - or - perhaps it's the fact that Ryan can't afford a competent lawyer?? In any case, this latest development has got to be pretty embaressing for Ryan.

The other question is - in response to this latest motion, can the judge simply say "Uhhh, no. You've already wasted enough of my time - Case dismissed(gavel)" or does he more or less have to oblige? To be honest, I find it a little surprising that it hasn't been dismissed yet, but I understand the wheels of justice turn slowly but surly....
:)

[~enigma~]

New in the waterboy saga courtesy of LashL...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/RyanAmend.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/RyanAmendedt.pdf

[MIKILLINI]

Perhaps Ryans group believes this will come across a "truther" judges' docket.
They always leave out hope for many things. :rolleyes: I was at that point once.
Gotta love that name..."Spanky" Sparkette.

[LashL]

Thanks for doing all of this LashL. A couple of questions tho'. Why do you suppose they did such a poor job of drafting the initial complaint? Do you think Ryans lawyers know they have no case here and kinda did a rush job on it, spending more time on their more legit cases - or - perhaps it's the fact that Ryan can't afford a competent lawyer?? In any case, this latest development has got to be pretty embaressing for Ryan.

The other question is - in response to this latest motion, can the judge simply say "Uhhh, no. You've already wasted enough of my time - Case dismissed(gavel)" or does he more or less have to oblige? To be honest, I find it a little surprising that it hasn't been dismissed yet, but I understand the wheels of justice turn slowly but surly....
:)

I really don't know why they did such a poor job in drafting the initial complaint, apathoid. The lawyers appear to be competent, based on information in the other thread, so I can only surmise that it may have been a matter of "throwing everything at the wall in hopes that something sticks" because they recognized that their claims were tenuous, or because they gave the task to a student who didn't know any better. In either case, though, it is certain that they did not put much, if any, effort into making it legally coherent or concise. It could have something to do with how much (read: how little) they are being paid, but that is pure conjecture on my part.

As for Ryan's motion to amend, it appears to be an effort to salvage what he can prior to UL's motion to dismiss being heard.

At the hearing of UL's motion, two of the options open to the judge are
(a) to dismiss the claim with leave to amend; and
(b) to dismiss the claim without leave to amend.

If the judge were to exercise option (b), that would render Ryan's motion moot.

However, as mentioned earlier, courts tend to favour granting leave to amend unless they think that the complaint is utterly hopeless and beyond salvage. By filing his motion now, Ryan may be hoping to have both motions heard together, and therefore have the opportunity to put before the court the proposed amended complaint in an effort to shore up his arguments against outright dismissal of his claims.

I would be interested in hearing LossLeader's take on this, if he can drag himself away from his tagging duties for a few minutes ;)

[LashL]

Oh, and another thing I meant to mention...

In the initial complaint, as set out in the first post on this thread, Ryan was seeking:

- back pay from November 2004
- $200,000 in front pay or, alternatively, reinstatement to his job;
- $unquantified for cost of relocation and job search;
- $unquantified for lost value of medical insurance, retirement plan, benefits;
- $unquantified damages for emotional distress and damage to his reputation;
- $unquantified punitive damages.

In his amended complaint, he is seeking:

- back pay from November 2004
- $200,000 in front pay or, alternatively, reinstatement to his job;
- $unquantified for cost of relocation and job search;
- $unquantified for lost value of medical insurance, retirement plan, benefits;
- $100,000 for emotional distress and damage to his reputation; and
- $1,000,000 in punitive damages.

[Architect]

I can't remember if we discussed this before, but presumably he needs the money on the grounds that he's never going to get a real job in his specialist field ever again.

[LashL]

I can't remember if we discussed this before, but presumably he needs the money on the grounds that he's never going to get a real job in his specialist field ever again.

If he cannot get a real job in his field again, that is hardly UL's fault.
He certainly won't get a good reference from his previous employer, but if he stopped wandering all over the internet - and now into court - making a spectacle of himself, he could probably go back to water testing in a lab somewhere where nobody knows of his "Truther" antics.

He is making a tinhat spectacle of himself of his own volition. UL is not going to be held liable for that if it impacts on his ability to get a real job again.

[Architect]

I fear you misinterpreted my posting as justification or sympathy, rather than motive for the stupid little man trying to wring money out of his former employers.

[LashL]

I fear you misinterpreted my posting as justification or sympathy, rather than motive for the stupid little man trying to wring money out of his former employers.

Oh, no, I did not misinterpret your post as justification or sympathy for Ryan; I know you better than that. ;)

I was just taking the opportunity to point out the counter-argument, just for fun.

ETA: Now, though, you've made me wonder. Does anybody know if he has a job these days, besides spreading the "Truth"? Or if he has even tried to get a job? If his case ever makes it to trial, he is going to have to show that he at least tried to find another job, and I don't think the court will consider hanging around the internet posting on conspiracy sites as a very good method of job searching.

[qarnos]

New in the waterboy saga courtesy of LashL...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/RyanAmend.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/RyanAmendedt.pdf

Don't lawyers use spell checkers? "Plaiintiff"?

Sure, it's an innocent mistake, but after the mess they made of the first one...

[stilicho]

Legal comedy courtesy of our resident lovely lawyer...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/McConnell.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/McConnell.pdf)


That's too funny. He calls Alfonso Gagliano "La Cosa Nostra" as though this is a title or something. The only reason Gagliano (admittedly involved in the sponsorship scandal) is "linked" to the Mafia is because he was born in Sicily and the informant who named him was obviously doing so to save his own skin--along with implicating everyone he could.

In his suit, McConnell also should probably call former Canadian Prime Ministers "The Right Honourable" rather than merely by their given and surnames. That would make him at least seemingly acquainted with the folks he's suing.

Looks sloppy.

[CptColumbo]

In his suit, McConnell also should probably call former Canadian Prime Ministers "The Right Honourable" rather than merely by their given and surnames. That would make him at least seemingly acquainted with the folks he's suing.

Looks sloppy.
It has always bugged me when a news organization refers to a former President of the US, or other past head of state as Mr./Ms./Mrs. I'm not saying they should be refered to as "his/her excellency" everytime you refer to them, but keep some sense of protocol.

[stilicho]

It has always bugged me when a news organization refers to a former President of the US, or other past head of state as Mr./Ms./Mrs. I'm not saying they should be refered to as "his/her excellency" everytime you refer to them, but keep some sense of protocol.
I'm unfamiliar with American protocol but a Canadian Prime Minister is always "The Right Honourable" into perpetuity. Certainly in a legal action you'd have to use it or risk dismissal due to frivolity.

[gumboot]

I just found a YouTube video by Field McConnell - the guy with the lawsuit against boeing regarding their unsafe 747s.

It's a real work of art... his summary of 9/11 is just something to behold. Especially the bit with the people walking around with model airliners...

No really...

VwRcYPByaVo

-Gumboot

[LashL]

I just found a YouTube video by Field McConnell - the guy with the lawsuit against boeing regarding their unsafe 747s.

It's a real work of art... his summary of 9/11 is just something to behold. Especially the bit with the people walking around with model airliners...

No really...

VwRcYPByaVo

-Gumboot

You know, I try not to resort to vulgarities, even by way of acronyms and such, but I just have to say OMFGWTF in response to that video. I mean, it is a given that most troofers are unintelligent, misguided, and ignorant, and it is a given that a few troofers are technically intelligent but misguided and ignorant, but McConnell is completely batcrap crazy.

[capracus]

You know, I try not to resort to vulgarities, even by way of acronyms and such, but I just have to say OMFGWTF in response to that video. I mean, it is a given that most troofers are unintelligent, misguided, and ignorant, and it is a given that a few troofers are technically intelligent but misguided and ignorant, but McConnell is completely batcrap crazy.He's made a similar impression in other circles.
The lawsuit, filed last week, claims Boeing Co. and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) can't assure him that B747-400 planes are safe. McConnell, who is the process of seeking an early retirement from Northwest, claims the planes are rigged by Boeing and can be remotely detonated.
“We do not believe in any way, shape or form that that is true,” said Pete Janhunen, a spokesman for ALPA, the world's largest pilot's union.
“Our senior lawyer and senior engineer both said that on its face, it's an insane complaint. … It sounds like he's a troubled guy.”
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/northwest_pilot_from_glyndon_alleges_911_coverup.h tm (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/northwest_pilot_from_glyndon_alleges_911_coverup.h tm)

[Alt+F4]

You know, I try not to resort to vulgarities, even by way of acronyms and such, but I just have to say OMFGWTF in response to that video. I mean, it is a given that most troofers are unintelligent, misguided, and ignorant, and it is a given that a few troofers are technically intelligent but misguided and ignorant, but McConnell is completely batcrap crazy.

I totally agree! That was the weirdest 9/11 [rule 8] I've ever seen. He thinks the CANADIANS were behind 9/11 and what's with those strange people walking around slowly with model airplanes?.

[gumboot]

I totally agree! That was the weirdest 9/11 [rule 8] I've ever seen. He thinks the CANADIANS were behind 9/11 and what's with those strange people walking around slowly with model airplanes?.


One of the girls looked kinda cute though...

-Gumboot

[Civilized Worm]

I wonder how much he paid them.

[Apollo20]

LashL:

"...a few troofers are technically intelligent but misguided and ignorant"

Is it possible to be intelligent and ignorant at the same time?

Isn't this an oxymoron?

[gumboot]

LashL:

"...a few troofers are technically intelligent but misguided and ignorant"

Is it possible to be intelligent and ignorant at the same time?

Isn't this an oxymoron?



I wouldn't think so. Intelligence is more a measure of your ability to learn. Ignorance is a measure of what you actually know.

For example, I am fairly confident, based on my previous history of schooling etc, IQ tests, military officer intelligence testing, etc that I am very intelligent.

However there are legions of subjects upon which I am grossly ignorant.

-Gumboot

[Pookster]

LashL:

"...a few troofers are technically intelligent but misguided and ignorant"

Is it possible to be intelligent and ignorant at the same time?

Isn't this an oxymoron?

Intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. Ignorance is the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Your intelligence leads me to believe you have the capacity to learn the definitions of those words. Your reply shows your ignorance of them though.

[boloboffin]

LashL:

"...a few troofers are technically intelligent but misguided and ignorant"

Is it possible to be intelligent and ignorant at the same time?

Isn't this an oxymoron?

Dr. Greening, your writings show you to be intelligent. Please provide all knowledge you possess on the history and current state of the political parties of the Ukraine.

[Apollo20]

NO!

Check the definition: Intelligence means to have understanding. It's not an ability, it's a state of knowledge- the opposite of ignorance, which means to "not-know"

Probably derived from the Greek "gnosis" meaning knowledge.

But more specifically: DIRECT KNOWLEDGE..... i.e. not based on googling!

[rwguinn]

NO!

Check the definition: Intelligence means to have understanding. It's not an ability, it's a state of knowledge- the opposite of ignorance, which means to "not-know"

Probably derived from the Greek "gnosis" meaning knowledge.

But more specifically: DIRECT KNOWLEDGE..... i.e. not based on googling!
Ignorance is curable. All you need is the intellIgence to sift the wheat from the chaff.
Stupid is an incurable condition. It is "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" **deleted***
And knowledge comes where you find it. See intelligence, above.

[gumboot]

n·tel·li·gence /ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒəns/
–noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
6. Government.
a. information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
b. the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
c. an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
8. Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
9. (often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < L intelligentia. See intelligent, -ence]

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=intelligence)

intelligence
1390, "faculty of understanding," from O.Fr. intelligence (12c.), from L. intelligentia "understanding," from intelligentem (nom. intelligens) "discerning," prp. of intelligere "to understand, comprehend," from inter- "between" + legere "choose, pick out, read" (see lecture). Meaning superior understanding, sagacity" is from c.1430. Sense of "information, news" first recorded c.1450, especially "secret information from spies" (1587). Intelligent is a 1509 back-formation; Intelligentsia "the intellectual class collectively" is 1907, from Rus. intelligyentsia, from Latin. Intelligence quotient first recorded 1922 (see I.Q.).

The Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intelligence)

It appears you may be wrong in this instance. Intelligence is not about how much knowledge one has, but one's capacity for processing said knowledge.

As I previously said, an intelligent person can be ignorant of a particular subject matter. This does not in any way reduce their intelligence.

-Gumboot

[Apollo20]

RWGUINN:

Stupid?

Now that's a word I dont like and try not to use.

Who feels comfortable calling anyone stupid?

[rwguinn]

Stupid?

Now that's a word I dont like and try not to use.

Who feels comfortable calling anyone stupid?

Nice cherry pick, Doc. Take things out of context.
It is a perfectly good word. It applies to many ideas, but I try to use "Willfully Ignorant" when talking about people ( I have failed in my attempts on occasion, I admit)--although as Scott Adams points out in "The Dilbert Principle", we are all stupid at times and in some ways.

[gumboot]

RWGUINN:

Stupid?

Now that's a word I dont like and try not to use.

Who feels comfortable calling anyone stupid?



I do.

-Gumboot

[Alareth]

I wouldn't think so. Intelligence is more a measure of your ability to learn. Ignorance is a measure of what you actually know.

For example, I am fairly confident, based on my previous history of schooling etc, IQ tests, military officer intelligence testing, etc that I am very intelligent.

However there are legions of subjects upon which I am grossly ignorant.

-Gumboot

Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity is forever.

[Slayhamlet]

NO!

Check the definition: Intelligence means to have understanding. It's not an ability, it's a state of knowledge- the opposite of ignorance, which means to "not-know"

Probably derived from the Greek "gnosis" meaning knowledge.

But more specifically: DIRECT KNOWLEDGE..... i.e. not based on googling!

Actually it's from the Latin "ignorare" which means "to not know, be ignorant of". Same Indo-European root as "gnosis", though.

[LashL]

LashL:

"...a few troofers are technically intelligent but misguided and ignorant"

Is it possible to be intelligent and ignorant at the same time?

Yes, it is.

Isn't this an oxymoron?

No, it is not.

I see that others have already covered this quite nicely while I was out.

Now, do you have anything at all to say about the subject matter of this thread or were you simply trying (and failing) to score points because you erroneously thought that you had identified a semantic error on my part?

[Miss Anthrope]

Well LashL, I see it as a semantic slip on your part, but that's ok, it is very revealing anyway. However, I was wondereing about all the time you are spending "investigating" Kevin Ryan... when you have a "real job"... And I was wondering about Chris Bollyn's case. Why not get into that one too? I know you have problems with all those little guys taking legal action against the big guys...., you know, the ones with DEEP POCKETS! So go get 'em and Lash 'em LashL. You are doing a GREAT JOB FOR JUSTICE!

:deconfus:

[Hokulele]

Well LashL, I see it as a semantic slip on your part, but that's ok, it is very revealing anyway. However, I was wondereing about all the time you are spending "investigating" Kevin Ryan... when you have a "real job"... And I was wondering about Chris Bollyn's case. Why not get into that one too? I know you have problems with all those little guys taking legal action against the big guys...., you know, the ones with DEEP POCKETS! So go get 'em and Lash 'em LashL. You are doing a GREAT JOB FOR JUSTICE!


Umm, what?

[LashL]

Umm, what?

Huh? Where did that come from? When I click on the link to the post by Apollo, his post doesn't show up. Rather, it goes to the top of the current page.

[LashL]

:deconfus:

Me, too. I can't even see the post in question, except via your quoting it and Hokulele quoting it. Strange, indeed.

ETA: To address the content of the post that I cannot locate, though...

No, Apollo, it was not a semantic slip on my part; it was a lack of comprehension on your part.

As for the time I spend checking for and providing updates on Ryan's case, it's pretty short work for someone who knows what they're doing and with access to the documents. It is kind of you, I'm sure, to worry about how I spend my free time, though, even if somewhat creepy.

What is it that you are wondering about Chris Bollyn? As I understand it, you can read all of his anti-Semitic crap at his site, which I tend to avoid like the plague. However, if you care to provide some info on whatever federal lawsuits he has pending at present that are relevant to the subject matter, I will take a look at PACER for them.

The rest of your post is a (not so) thinly veiled personal attack, which is wholly undeserved. Really, Frank, you should rise above such pettiness, stick to the subject at hand, and attempt to address matters in an adult manner.

Now, do you have anything meaningful to contribute to the thread or are you just playing silly buggers?

[KoihimeNakamura]

The post was most likely deleted after it was quoted.

Anyway, I am glad that LashL spends some of her time (probably the amount it takes to find the motion and read the high points) and shares it with us. This is a very interesting chain of events to learn about..

Keep up the good work!

[LashL]

The post was most likely deleted after it was quoted.

Ahh, of course. I hadn't thought of that (I'm on the injured list with a torn ligament sustained on Saturday so I blame the painkillers instead of blaming Lisa). I probably shouldn't have replied to it if it was deleted but, oh well.

Anyway, I am glad that LashL spends some of her time (probably the amount it takes to find the motion and read the high points) and shares it with us. This is a very interesting chain of events to learn about..

Keep up the good work!

Thanks, Tokorona. Your comments are very much appreciated :)

[LashL]

There were additional documents filed in the Ryan litigation today (June 1, 2007).

UL has filed a motion to dismiss Ryan's Amended Complaint and a Brief in support of that motion. Not surprisingly, there is some necessary overlap/repetition in the new brief (as compared to the initial brief in respect of the initial motion to dismiss the initial complaint) but there are also some excellent additions and unique updates that make this latest brief very interesting reading, indeed.

I will send the docs to ~enigma~ and ask for his assistance again in posting the documents for your reading pleasure :)

[~enigma~]

The latest installments in the waterboy saga can be found at...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/14ULBriefreMotiontoDismissAmendedComplaint.pdf

and

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/13ULMotiontoDismissAmendedComplaint.pdf

[slyjoe]

Remind me (it's been a while since I've had a law class). To dismiss "with prejudice" means he can't file again?
Thx.

[Civilized Worm]

All the law stuff I lknow is from TV, but it still seems very obvious to me that waterboy is completely **********.

[LashL]

Remind me (it's been a while since I've had a law class). To dismiss "with prejudice" means he can't file again?
Thx.

Yes, that is correct.

If Ryan's complaint against UL is dismissed "with prejudice," it would mean that he cannot re-file the same claim in amended form against UL.

[LashL]

The latest installments in the waterboy saga can be found at...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/14ULBriefreMotiontoDismissAmendedComplaint.pdf

and

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/13ULMotiontoDismissAmendedComplaint.pdf

Thank you, once again, for your kind assistance, enigma! Much appreciated :)

[~enigma~]

The geocities links still work but....

http://home.houston.rr.com/enigmaviking/

All the waterboy saga is there...any viking jokes?

[Civilized Worm]

Could LashL please sum up these links for the layperson? Cheers.

[boloboffin]

Well, here's this layperson's reading of the motion to dismiss:

Kevin Ryan is a daft git who hasn't provided the court a single reason within established law to justify this suit, and we ask the court to use a steel-toed boot when kicking him in the danglies about it.

I think that's about the size of it.

[Minadin]

I noticed earlier today that Swing Dangler from SLC "fame" has joined this forum and has posted in this sub-forum. He's a pretty staunch supporter of Mr. Ryan. If he's still around, I was hoping we could get an update on his outlook since this:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/screwloosechange/3805768357465979302/

Kevin Ryan was completely out of place to make the statements he did, both publicly, and to the NIST, and he deserved to be fired. It's not his department, it's not his field, and he's not in a position to speak for the whole company. I don't think that any competant professional would expect less in this situation. If fact, in my own field, I would be in a good deal more trouble than he is in.

That he's now trying to turn his wrongful termination suit into a farce of a 9/11 investigation, apparently, only reinforces how correct the UL was in letting him go. I expect the judge in his case will see this, and I would be extremely suprised to see any sort of verdict in his favor.

[Civilized Worm]

So does this mean that Ryan is totally ********** now?

[stilicho]

I doubt it. He's a manager and not a scientist. As long as he has sufficient people skills he'll find a job.

[William Rea]

Why did Ryan feel the need to bring the events of 911 into his case?

It seems to me that regardless of his opinions on 911 his strongest case is that...

1. He was not contravening UL Employee IT policy by using the e-mail facility for personal use.

2. The official status of his e-mail is a matter of opinion because of UL's Employee IT policy (his e-mail to NIST has a tone that suggests he is representing UL which could be a slight problem for him).

3. If he can demonstrate beyond doubt that he was using the e-mail in a personal capacity then UL must have fired him for his personal opinions which I understand is a limitation on his right to free speech as a private individual.

Hopefully UL have now addressed their IT policy to forbid the personal use of their e-mail system.

One thing that I do find curious is the claim that this was published on the internet almost immediately. Why would NIST publish an official correspondence so quickly?

[Minadin]

3. If he can demonstrate beyond doubt that he was using the e-mail in a personal capacity then UL must have fired him for his personal opinions which I understand is a limitation on his right to free speech as a private individual.

As far as I know, a private company, such as the UL, isn't bound by the same "freedom of speech!!1!" rules as is the government, because they can't reprimand you for your free speech in the way that the government can. (It's un-possible for a private company to abridge your right to freedom of speech).

One thing that I do find curious is the claim that this was published on the internet almost immediately. Why would NIST publish an official correspondence so quickly?

NIST didn't publish it. Mr. Ryan copied it to conspiracy fanatasist sites himself when he sent it to the NIST. That's one of the more damning facts of the case against him, in my opinion.

[stilicho]

One thing that I do find curious is the claim that this was published on the internet almost immediately. Why would NIST publish an official correspondence so quickly?
That's not at all what happened. The fellow contacted one of those conspiracy sites (could have been 911letsroll) either before or simultaneously to his send button. Both the email date and the appearance of his epiphany on the internet were almost identical.

You also aren't acquainted with IT policies. Generally, you can't use the systems for personal use, but that's rarely enforced. The policy that Mr Ryan violated was using his title and the corporate name as representative or indicative of his authority. That's clearly crossing the line.

There are likely federal or state regulations that allow such prohibitions. It will be up to Mr Ryan to prove that they don't apply in his case--which is rather unlikely.

[stilicho]

Let me put this another way. If my avatar was my company's corporate logo and I signed my name with my title, you would expect that I am speaking as a representative of that company and not as an individual on a forum. Big difference.

And, yes, I would expect to be disciplined if I did that.

[Architect]

The issues are quite clear.

Ryan posted personal correspondence on office e-stationery, in a manner which might be reasonably construed as reflecting a formal view in the course of his business. I have not seen the actual note (although I'm sure that someone can provide a link) and assume that he similarly failed to mark such a distinction in the body of the text.

It was a personal view, and should have remained as such. Most employers would do the same on any controversial subject. I know that mine would if I went woo and started using my post and office paper to send letters to third parties.

Mo

[LashL]

The issues are quite clear.

Ryan posted personal correspondence on office e-stationery, in a manner which might be reasonably construed as reflecting a formal view in the course of his business. I have not seen the actual note (although I'm sure that someone can provide a link) and assume that he similarly failed to mark such a distinction in the body of the text.

It was a personal view, and should have remained as such. Most employers would do the same on any controversial subject. I know that mine would if I went woo and started using my post and office paper to send letters to third parties.

Mo

In his email, Ryan did not make any distinction between his personal capacity and his capacity as a representative of EHL or UL. Moreover, he uses terms such as "we" and "my company" several times, and I have no difficulty seeing how it could be easily construed as having been written on behalf of UL.

As for the distribution of it, it appears that he deliberately copied it to conspiracy theorists, and he acknowledges within the body of the email that he was copying it to someone - apparently David Griffin.

According to this conspiracy site (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451),

Ryan copied the letter to Gayle in e-mails to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and to Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board. Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties. The letter was published Friday (11/12) at septembereleventh.org, the site of the 9/11 Visibility Project.


Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:

[NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at www.ehl.cc). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at www.ul.com). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project, see wtc.nist.gov. Dr. Gayle's biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle. The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. - 911Truth.org][NOTE: In this reproduction, the bolding is mine, not that of the conspiracy site - Lash]



From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov

Date: 11/11/2004



Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend

[LashL]

Could LashL please sum up these links for the layperson? Cheers.

Sure, I will compose a summary of the saga to date, over the weekend.

(Although bolo's interpretation (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2654549&postcount=93) of UL's motion to dismiss is pretty darned good :D )

[LashL]

The geocities links still work but....

http://home.houston.rr.com/enigmaviking/

All the waterboy saga is there...

Hey, that's a GREAT new page! Very nicely done, indeed.

any viking jokes?

Hmmm... I'm thinking along the lines of Ryan being (metaphorically) ravaged and plundered in court...

[Architect]

My goodness, do you never rest?!?

[William Rea]

That's not at all what happened. The fellow contacted one of those conspiracy sites (could have been 911letsroll) either before or simultaneously to his send button. Both the email date and the appearance of his epiphany on the internet were almost identical.

You also aren't acquainted with IT policies. Generally, you can't use the systems for personal use, but that's rarely enforced. The policy that Mr Ryan violated was using his title and the corporate name as representative or indicative of his authority. That's clearly crossing the line.

There are likely federal or state regulations that allow such prohibitions. It will be up to Mr Ryan to prove that they don't apply in his case--which is rather unlikely.

Actually, being a signatory to several IT and confidentiality policies I am very aquainted with them so I would ask you not to make baseless assumptions about my knowledge of such matters. Whether they are generally stringently enforced is not at issue in this discussion.

The point is that it appears that UL did NOT have any such policy regarding personal use so Ryan could defend himself by saying he was using it in a personal capacity in accordance with company policy. In my opinion his defence regarding Corporate headings and footings being added automatically would have some credibility if it were not for the problems with the official tone of his letter. As I previously said, the tone indicates to me that he will have a problem making that defence.

In my opinion, UL have a poor IT policy and really needs to review it, if it hasn't done so already.

If Ryan cc'd it to a third party then he gets all he deserves in that respect.

Another point that struck me from the document Case 1:06-cv-01770-JDT-TAB Document 25 Filed 06/01/2007...

"UL then terminated Plaintiff's employment because his letter (1) clearly created the impression that the outrageous opinions contained therein were those of the company and (2) commented on testing performed by UL for a client, thereby harming the company’s relationship with that client."

I'm not a lawyer but I don't understand how the degree of outrageousness comes into the argument? There is clearly politicking going on here.

[SpitfireIX]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't understand how the degree of outrageousness comes into the argument? There is clearly politicking going on here.

Making your employer look foolish or crazy in the eyes of a client definitely goes to the issue of wrongful termination.

[Arus808]

sorry, but isn't all STATES in the union of the AT-will status of employment these days? They could have fired him for having purple hair and wearing poka dotted pants to work, and he'd still have no recourse for suing

[LashL]

<snip>
The point is that it appears that UL did NOT have any such policy regarding personal use...</snip>

<snip>In my opinion, UL have a poor IT policy and really needs to review it, if it hasn't done so already.</snip>

Upon what facts, evidence and sources do you base the foregoing two assertions?

[~enigma~]

Hey, that's a GREAT new page! Very nicely done, indeed.



Hmmm... I'm thinking along the lines of Ryan being (metaphorically) ravaged and plundered in court...
I'm game for a pillaging and plundering session with the waterboy :)

@ arch...builder guy, NO, rest and sleep are a waste of time :)

[SpitfireIX]

sorry, but isn't all STATES in the union of the AT-will status of employment these days?

I don't know about all states, but Indiana is, which is all that matters in this case.

They could have fired him for having purple hair and wearing poka dotted pants to work, and he'd still have no recourse for suing

There are a few public-policy exceptions, such as being fired for refusal to perform an illegal act, retaliatory firing against a whistleblower, or certain forms of discriminatory firing. Some of these are codified in Indiana and Federal law; a very few others have been created by court decisions.

Ryan is claiming that he falls under a couple of public-policy exceptions--as the UL briefs show, he's all wet, so to speak. :v: :v:

[stilicho]

"UL then terminated Plaintiff's employment because his letter (1) clearly created the impression that the outrageous opinions contained therein were those of the company and (2) commented on testing performed by UL for a client, thereby harming the company’s relationship with that client."


I'm not a lawyer but I don't understand how the degree of outrageousness comes into the argument? There is clearly politicking going on here.

I agree with you William. I think that the case ought to have merely used the word "opinions" instead of the qualified expression "outrageous opinions".

Lawyers make mistakes, sometimes.

The fact is, Ryan expressed personal opinions in a form that might have been construed as his employers'. He never made it clear that they weren't the same.

Wouldn't you have fired him for doing that?

[LashL]

sorry, but isn't all STATES in the union of the AT-will status of employment these days? They could have fired him for having purple hair and wearing poka dotted pants to work, and he'd still have no recourse for suing

I don't think that ALL states adhere to the at will doctrine, but Indiana does.

I started writing a brief analysis of a recent Indiana case a couple of weeks ago, and then got sidetracked by real life and never posted it. But since this is on topic, I'll post the draft now.

Now that I have had time to read the Meyers v. Meyers case, upon which the court in the Ryan matter sought supplemental briefs from the parties on UL’s Motion to Dismiss, I can certainly see why UL is pleased to have the Meyers decision to rely upon in its pending Motion to Dismiss.

I thought I would set out a short synopsis and analysis of the case in order to illustrate its relevance to the Ryan matter.

In Meyers, the plaintiff sought damages for failure to pay overtime under the Indiana Code, recovery of money for taxes withheld from the plaintiff's payroll checks but not deposited with the IRS, and damages for his wrongful dismissal in retaliation for his complaint about the employer’s failure to pay overtime and deposit withheld taxes.

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the retaliatory discharge count for failure to state a claim.

The plaintiff tried to argue – as Ryan is trying to argue – that an at will employee may maintain a cause of action for a retaliatory discharge if the employee had been terminated from his employment for exercising a statutory right or refusing to violate a statutory duty.

However, Indiana generally follows the employment at will doctrine, which permits both the employer and the employee to terminate the employment at any time for a “good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.” According to the decision in Meyers, only on rare occasions have Indiana courts recognized narrow exceptions to this doctrine.

The Meyers court reiterated that which had been stated in Indiana courts many times in the past: that the "employment at will doctrine has steadfastly been recognized and enforced as the public policy of this state" and that "[r]evision or rejection of the doctrine is better left to the legislature."

The plaintiff in Meyers sought to rely upon the 1973 decision in Frampton v. Cent. Indiana Gas Co. because at one point, the Frampton opinion commented that "when an employee is discharged solely for exercising a statutorily conferred right, an exception to the general rule must be recognized."

However, the Meyers court said that the decisions during the intervening thirty years have made it plain that this language is intended to recognize quite a limited exception, and most courts have refused to extend Frampton. Other than the Frampton exception, which is grounded on express statutory language, the Indiana appellate cases permitting retaliatory discharge actions have generally involved plaintiffs allegedly terminated in retaliation for refusing to commit an illegal act, or for fulfilling a statutory duty.

(For example, a truck driver was permitted to pursue a retaliatory discharge claim against his employer who fired him when he refused to haul a load that exceeded the amount allowed on Illinois roads, an illegal act for which the employee could have been held personally liable; an employee was permitted to pursue a retaliatory discharge claim where he alleged he was fired for refusing to file fraudulent tax return; and an employee was permitted to pursue a retaliatory discharge claim where she alleged she was fired for complying with a summons for jury duty.) None of these situations are analogous to Ryan’s situation.)

It looks as though Indiana is not keen on watering down its employment at will doctrine. The Meyers decision mentions some additional cases of relevance the Ryan case, including one in which employment was terminated because the employee complained about the employer's products and alleged improper activities by supervisors, and one in which employment was terminated for truthful reporting of a supervisor's improper activities. Given the at will employment doctrine in Indiana, the courts in those cases found that the plaintiffs could not succeed.

It appears to me that Ryan’s case is not even as strong as the latter two above, which failed.

{Note: As I said above, I started writing this a couple of weeks ago - when UL filed its supplementary brief regarding the Meyers v. Meyers case, as the parties were invited to do by the judge - and before the recent additional documents were filed, so I will stop there for now. The purpose in posting this was just to set out my understanding of the current state of the law in Indiana regarding the at will employment doctrine. I'll post more later on the other points, and on the recent filings, by way of the summary of the saga to date that I am working on.}

[LashL]

By way of update, I wasn't able to finish summarizing the saga to date over the weekend, and then today I found that several additional documents have been filed with the court since Friday, so there is more to add and more to summarize. In addition, there is another document that was, apparently, filed on May 11 but which did not show up on the docket form when I updated back then.

I will be out of town on Tuesday and Wednesday so, realistically, I won't likely get to this to until the end of the week. Thus, I thought that I would at least provide a list of the additional documents and a very, very brief outline of what they are.

1) The May 11, 2007 document that did not appear previously is Ryan's Supplementary Brief in opposition to UL's Motion to Dismiss relating to the Meyers v. Meyers decision.

The documents dated June 3, 2007 (yes, Sunday) are:

2) Ryan's Motion to Withdraw his previously filed First Amended Complaint - because it was "inadvertently and incorrectly" submitted in a manner that breached proper procedure since Ryan has not yet obtained leave of the court to amend his complaint.

3) Ryan's corrected Motion for Leave to file his First Amended Complaint, with attached proposed First Amended Complaint. (But these documents contain nothing new of substance - Ryan's lawyers are just cleaning up their procedural errors)

3) Ryan's Motion for Leave to file a "Corrected Supplemental Response" in opposition to UL's Motion to Dismiss, relating to the Meyers v. Meyers decision. (That is, he seeks to file a "corrected" version of what he filed on May 11, 2007 as set out in #1 above.) In this document, Ryan's lawyers say that although they had read the Meyers decision and other relevant cases carefully before submitting their May 11 Supplemental Response, they have since re-read the cases and want to expand upon their previous brief.

3) Ryan's proposed "Corrected Supplemental Response" relating to #2 above.

4) Ryan's Preliminary Exhibit List. (But they messed this up, too. Ryan's lawyers purported to file his Exhibit List but the document that was actually attached and entered was a different document.)

5) Ryan's Motion to Withdraw the document noted in #4 above because it was the wrong document.

6) Ryan's "Corrected Preliminary Exhibit List" re: numbers 4 and 5 above.

7) Ryan's Preliminary Witness List.

Needless to say, the witness list and exhibit list make rather interesting reading. ;)

[SpitfireIX]

Do you suppose Ryan's lawyers are planning to use the Chewbacca defense? :D

[LashL]

Do you suppose Ryan's lawyers are planning to use the Chewbacca defense? :D

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? :D









(I'll get me hat...)

[Triterope]

Another point that struck me from the document Case 1:06-cv-01770-JDT-TAB Document 25 Filed 06/01/2007...

"UL then terminated Plaintiff's employment because his letter (1) clearly created the impression that the outrageous opinions contained therein were those of the company and (2) commented on testing performed by UL for a client, thereby harming the company’s relationship with that client."



You highlighted the wrong part. Here's a version of that paragraph that highlights the relevant part:

"UL then terminated Plaintiff's employment because his letter (1) clearly created the impression that the outrageous opinions contained therein were those of the company and (2) commented on testing performed by UL for a client, thereby harming the company’s relationship with that client."

[LashL]

You highlighted the wrong part. Here's a version of that paragraph that highlights the relevant part:

"UL then terminated Plaintiff's employment because his letter (1) clearly created the impression that the outrageous opinions contained therein were those of the company and (2) commented on testing performed by UL for a client, thereby harming the company’s relationship with that client."

Indeed, you have captured the relevant portions of that paragraph which William Rea missed and/or ignored. Needless to say, that will be the subject of argument if and when the matter ever makes it to trial.

Since my update from last week, there have been several more documents filed - up to #39 now - although many of them are boring, redundant and of little to no interest to most people. Still, I've been trying to make time to get through them all in order to present a proper summary of events, without boring everyone with the redundant and non-essential documents, but it's been a busy week IRL.

Hopefully, the flurry of filings is over for the time being and I'll be able to find the time to summarize all of the happenings in detail soon. As it stands, despite the flurry of recent activity, Ryan's case still looks shaky and at risk of being turfed on the motion to dismiss. The threshold to meet for tossing a claim on a motion to dismiss is pretty high, but boy, if I was in Ryan's shoes, I wouldn't be feeling particularly confident at the moment despite that high threshold that the defendant has to meet.

I will try to complete the summary this week and post it here (and hope that the parties do not file any further documents in interim, for crying out loud ;) )

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So, is KR trying to use the usual twoofer tactic of thread gulling IRL wrt the docs being filed?

[gumboot]

3. If he can demonstrate beyond doubt that he was using the e-mail in a personal capacity then UL must have fired him for his personal opinions which I understand is a limitation on his right to free speech as a private individual.

The Bill of Rights outlines rights and protections citizens have against their government, nothing else. It is intended to limit the powers of the Federal Government.

Private companies and individual citizens are not bound by the Bill of Rights. In other words, an individual cannot infringe your First Amendment right, only the government can.

-Gumboot

[SpitfireIX]

. . . The threshold to meet for tossing a claim on a motion to dismiss is pretty high, but boy, if I was in Ryan's shoes, I wouldn't be feeling particularly confident at the moment despite that high threshold that the defendant has to meet. . . .


Isn't that "all of the facts and allegations, even if viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, clearly don't win," or something to that effect?

[SpitfireIX]

The Bill of Rights outlines rights and protections citizens have against their government, nothing else. It is intended to limit the powers of the Federal Government.

Private companies and individual citizens are not bound by the Bill of Rights. In other words, an individual cannot infringe your First Amendment right, only the government can.

-Gumboot


The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) extended the Bill of Rights to state governments.

[Tirdun]

I agree with you William. I think that the case ought to have merely used the word "opinions" instead of the qualified expression "outrageous opinions".

Lawyers make mistakes, sometimes.

I don't think it was a mistake. UL's lawyers are trying to describe the level of damage done to UL's reputation from the claims. Painting the statements as "outrageous" rather than simply incorrect quantifies UL's position.

I'd guess that UL's lawyer team sat around for a few moments picking exactly the adjective.

[gumboot]

The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) extended the Bill of Rights to state governments.


Quite correct. I should have said "It was intended to limit the powers of the Federal Government".

-Gumboot