Kevin Ryan v. UL - the legal saga continues

[LashL]

As many of the regulars at this subforum know, Kevin Ryan's lawsuit against Underwriters Laboratories (ostensibly a wrongful termination claim but, in reality, a backdoor attempt to draw attention to himself and the tinhat conspiracy theories that he believes in regarding the events of 9/11) was dismissed in its entirety - with prejudice - in late August.

As noted in the previous thread about the August 28 dismissal of his claims, there was still a possibility that Ryan would request that the court reconsider its decision, or that Ryan would appeal the decision.

Ryan has filed a Motion to Amend Judgment, in which he asks the court to reconsider its decision to dismiss his claims.

The documents can be found here: http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/kevinryanv.ullitigation

Scroll down to September 2007 and see:

Motion to Amend (http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/54RyanMotiontoAmendorAlterDecision.pdf)
Affidavit of Kevin Ryan (http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/56RyanAffidavit-sworn.pdf)
Exhibit A to Ryan Affidavit (http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/55-3ExhibitATerminationLetter.pdf) (Termination letter from UL)
Exhibit B to Ryan Affidavit (http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/55-4ExhibitBRyanslettertoNIST.pdf) (Ryan letter to NIST)
Exhibit C to Ryan Affidavit (http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/55-5ExhibitCExcerptsfromemailcorresp.pdf) (Email excerpt)

(Yeah, I finally bit the bullet and created my own site and figured out how to upload pdfs and such. This way, I can add other twoofermania lawsuits and other bits of legaltainmentTM when they arise without having to impose on others.)

I see no merit to his motion, and I do not anticipate that the court will change its decision, and I suspect that he may just be using this as an interim step on his way to an appeal. I am looking forward to seeing UL's response to this latest filing.

Notably, only one of his three lawyers signed off on this (Mick Harrison again). It appears that the other two are no longer willing to associate themselves with his case.

For ease of reference, the prior threads tracking this litigation are located - in reverse chronological order - here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91879), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90210), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81508), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72610).

[PhantomWolf]

Well you have to admit one thing, he's a sucker for punishment.

[LashL]

Well you have to admit one thing, he's a sucker for punishment.

You're quick! I was puttering along, thinking I was still in "preview" mode with the new thread, and trying to figure out how to make the links work to the pdfs, etc., and here you were already responding before I even knew I'd inadvertently posted the thread.

Damn, you're good :D

[PhantomWolf]

*switches off his NWO mind control machine then sneaks out of the building*

:whistling

[Comsat Angel]

If Mr Ryan is currently unemployed, how is he managing to fund this legal process? Or will his legal rep be working for nothing?

[timhau]

If Mr Ryan is currently unemployed, how is he managing to fund this legal process? Or will his legal rep be working for nothing?

Maybe he's acting as his own lawyer? If he is, he sure has the right kind of a client...

[quixotecoyote]

Any predictions, LashL?

[sleahead]

So, Mick Harrison eventually supplies documentation, which surely he should have supplied earlier in the proceedings. The documentation does encapsulate Ryan's lie nicely, though:

From an e-mail to Ryan, dated 1st December 2003, from J. Thomas Chapin, UL's General Manager, Fire and Construction

UL does not certify structural steel.



......The floor assembly in the World Trade Center was not was not a UL tested assembly.


From a letter, sent Oct/Nov 2004, by Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle of NIST, and subsequently published on twoof websites


As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components use in the construction of the WTC buildings.

[Alferd_Packer]

If Mr Ryan is currently unemployed, how is he managing to fund this legal process? Or will his legal rep be working for nothing?

From another thread, I believe that I read that Mr. Ryan is currently working as a QC manager at a pharmaceutical plant somewhere.

Which brings up the question: when will he embrace the theory that chemtrails are a U.S. Government plot to inoculate the population with drugs?

[timhau]

From another thread, I believe that I read that Mr. Ryan is currently working as a QC manager at a pharmaceutical plant somewhere.

That's undoubtedly the best argument against big pharma that I've ever heard.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

From another thread, I believe that I read that Mr. Ryan is currently working as a QC manager at a pharmaceutical plant somewhere.
. . .
More importantly, who's is it, so I can avoid their products.

[dudalb]

More importantly, who's is it, so I can avoid their products.

NEW,IMPROVED,JOKER PRODUCTS!

[ConspiRaider]

This reminds me of my jury duty a year ago, in Beverly Hills Court. A civil case. Lasted four days and at the end - hung jury. Some of us jury members lamented and felt very disappointed. The judge told us to get over ourselves, and not to worry even a bit. She said the case had been going on for two years and it'd go on longer than that. Civil cases are NEVER over. Until the parties get together somewhere and come to some kind of compromise out of court.

[dudalb]

Could Ryan possibly get some kind of injunction against him for filing frivolous lawsuits?

[Miss Anthrope]

So, Mick Harrison eventually supplies documentation, which surely he should have supplied earlier in the proceedings. The documentation does encapsulate Ryan's lie nicely, though:

From an e-mail to Ryan, dated 1st December 2003, from J. Thomas Chapin, UL's General Manager, Fire and Construction




From a letter, sent Oct/Nov 2004, by Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle of NIST, and subsequently published on twoof websites

A stunning, bold faced lie at that.

[Miss Anthrope]

More importantly, who's is it, so I can avoid their products.

YES!

[Drudgewire]

From the first dismissal:

"Given the possibility, however remote, that Mr. Ryan can allege facts showing, or at least from which it can be inferred, that UL violated laws or regulations, or misused public resources, in its execution of a public contract, and that he reported such facts to UL and NIST, the dismissal will be WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to the filing of an amended complaint within fifteen days. However, in considering whether to seek leave to amend the Amended Complaint, Mr. Ryan and his counsel should be mindful that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, assertions of wrongdoing by UL that are made without any evidentiary support could be a basis for monetary sanctions against Mr. Ryan, his counsel, or both."

Could have walked away, now he'll hopefully lose everything he owns. What a moron.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

YES!
Upon rereading, I think I should have used "whose". *sigh*

[Civilized Worm]

Lash, do you know anything about Morgan Reynolds' legal shenanigans? Someone mentioned that he was trying to make a case.

[boloboffin]

Yes, LashL, Reynolds was filing a suit against NIST and their subcontractors on behalf of the United States for defrauding the government.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case

A link to the unsealed original complaint is there, and you should be able to look up the case from that.

[LashL]

If Mr Ryan is currently unemployed, how is he managing to fund this legal process? Or will his legal rep be working for nothing?

In Mick Harrison's Response to the judge's Order to Show Cause (when the court found out that he was not licensed to practice law in Indiana and that he had not sought judicial authorization as required), Harrison indicated that he was acting for Ryan on a "contingency/reduced fee basis".

[LashL]

Any predictions, LashL?

I think that the judge will refuse to change his decision, primarily because the letter to NIST and the email excerpt still do not allege any wrongdoing on UL's part, nor do they amount to "whistleblowing" for purposes of the statute that Ryan has to make his complaint fit within, and in any event, Ryan could have provided the documents long ago.

Then, if Ryan still has an appetite for it, he will appeal the decision to a higher court.

I hope he does because then there is still a possibility that LossLeader's prediction could come to pass (that some time around 2010, Ryan will go to jail. :) )

[LashL]

Lash, do you know anything about Morgan Reynolds' legal shenanigans? Someone mentioned that he was trying to make a case.

Yes, LashL, Reynolds was filing a suit against NIST and their subcontractors on behalf of the United States for defrauding the government.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case

A link to the unsealed original complaint is there, and you should be able to look up the case from that.

Yes, we had some discussion about that in one of the prior Ryan threads and I looked up the documents at that time. I'm just about to leave the office but I will check PACER later tonight to see if anything has happened on that since Reynold's complaint was filed.

My legaltainment™ file is expanding at an alarming rate, and oddly enough, all of the woo plaintiffs' names begin with the letter R - Rodriquez, Ryan, and Reynolds.

[LashL]

My legaltainment™ file is expanding at an alarming rate, and oddly enough, all of the woo plaintiffs' names begin with the letter R - Rodriquez, Ryan, and Reynolds.

Correction: I overlooked Field McConnell. So, it is not accurate to say that all of the 9/11 woo plaintiffs have surnames beginning with the letter R. :)

[LashL]

I just noticed that I did not include a link to Ryan's Brief in Support of the Motion to Amend in the OP, so I am adding it here.

Ryan Brief in Support of Motion to Amend (http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/55RyanMemoinSupportofMotion.pdf)

[PhantomWolf]

Could Ryan possibly get some kind of injunction against him for filing frivolous lawsuits?

I'm sure he'd just apeal it...

[LashL]

Could Ryan possibly get some kind of injunction against him for filing frivolous lawsuits?

I think it's safe to say that the answer is no. Courts generally will not restrict a person's right to litigate, even if the person has a bad habit of filing frivolous claims. There may be exceptions, of course, but I am not under the impression that Ryan is a habitual abuser of the court process.

That said, if Ryan is unsuccessful with his motion for reconsideration (as I expect he will be) and if he is unsuccessful in any subsequent appeal, then he will not be able to re-assert a claim against UL for wrongful dismissal since the original judgment dismissed his claims with prejudice.

[orphia nay]

Could Ryan possibly get some kind of injunction against him for filing frivolous lawsuits?

What LashL said. And just to add that I think you're thinking of the Vexatious Litigants list. Perhaps do a search. Sorry - I'm in a hurry.

[~enigma~]

As always, the ongoing saga can be found on my website in addition to LashL's new addition with commentary.

http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/home

Which I recommend for those that like pretty pictures and want to avoid the commentary :)

[~enigma~]

From exhibit C...

On Monday, December 1, 2003 at 4:25 PM, J.Thomas.Chapin@us.ul.com wrote:

Kevin,

Thanks for your question and interest in our Fire-related safety initiatives. I will respond to your questions and comments in your Open line below.

UL does not certify structural steel. Structural steel meeting the appropriate ASTM designations are used as a component in assemblies tested by UL.

From exhibit B...

Letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle of NIST dated November 11th 2004

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.

Is Ryan trying to lose? Why does he think filing an email from 12/2003 that contradicts his claim in the letter that got him fired 11 months later is evidence in his favor?

[SpitfireIX]

. . . Is Ryan trying to lose? Why does he think filing an email from 12/2003 that contradicts his claim in the letter that got him fired 11 months later is evidence in his favor?


He's falling off a cliff, so he's flapping his arms really hard on the theory that he might as well try to fly, as he's got nothing to lose. I suspect that Waterboy believes that testing the behavior of assemblies identical to those used in the WTC under various fire loads is somehow equivalent to testing the steel used in the actual assemblies. See here (http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm) for more information on the UL tests.

[LashL]

Is Ryan trying to lose? Why does he think filing an email from 12/2003 that contradicts his claim in the letter that got him fired 11 months later is evidence in his favor?

And, in true twoofer fashion, he even cherrypicks his own bloody email exchange. He appends only page 2 of 5 and page 3 of 5, still manages to get them out of order, and renders the entire exchange without proper context or authentication. It makes me wonder what might be found in the other three pages, and I cannot help but suspect that they might provide details and context that would be harmful to Ryan's position. (Although is position is already about as bad as it can be. :D )

[LashL]

He's falling off a cliff, so he's flapping his arms really hard on the theory that he might as well try to fly, as he's got nothing to lose.

Well, he might actually have something to lose this time around, in light of the judge's strong warning to Ryan and his lawyer about costs sanctions when the judge dismissed the complaint in August. I would not be surprised if the judge makes a costs award against Ryan if UL requests same.

[TellyKNeasuss]

I suspect that Waterboy believes that testing the behavior of assemblies identical to those used in the WTC under various fire loads is somehow equivalent to testing the steel used in the actual assemblies.

Or maybe hoping that the judge won't understand the difference.

[~enigma~]

Or maybe hoping that the judge won't understand the difference.
Let's see...on one hand we have a hope that a judge will be blind to the obvious difference between an assembly and a component and on the other hand we have Ryan and his lawyer facing legal repercussions such as a fine and possibly a jail term. Which side would you want to be on?

[LashL]

This just in: UL’s Opposition to Ryan’s Motion to Amend and Alter.

UL has filed a short but sweet smackdown in response to Ryan’s motion for reconsideration.

It is only four pages long, but quite devastating to Ryan’s motion, in my view.

It sets out the three bases for a successful motion pursuant to Rule 59, citing binding precedents of the Indiana Court of Appeals, and (cleverly) citing a very recent decision by Judge Tinder on the same point (Tinder being the judge with carriage of the Ryan v. UL matter).

It sets out the criteria for a successful Rule 59 motion for reconsideration, in which the moving party has to show one of the following:

1) newly discovered evidence;
2) a manifest error of fact or law; or
3) an intervening change in the law between the time of the decision and the time of the motion for reconsideration.

Ryan’s motion materials do not meet any one of those thresholds, in my view.

I have posted it to my site at http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/kevinryanv.ullitigation (direct link here: http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/57ULOppositiontoRyanMotiontoAmend.pdf )
and I have sent it to ~enigma~ for posting at his Aquaman, American Idiot site as well at http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/home

[Gravy]

Too funny, LashL. How inept can one man and his lawyer(s) be?

[JamesB]

Heh, I love 4. I am not even a lawyer and I could figure this one out.

4. Plaintiff has also failed to show any newly discovered evidence. In fact, every point reaise by Plaintiff was known to him before he filed his first complaint in this case. For example, Plaintiff was aware that his employment with UL was terminated by letter, as shown by his repeated referencing of that document in previous pleadings and motions. The fact that Plaintiff has only recently decided to provide the Court with a copy of the letter of termination (which he has possessed since it was delivered to him by hand in Novemeber 2004) does not make it "newly discovered evidence" as contemplated by Rule 59(e)

[~enigma~]

LashL gets to lash me for lying. i put up the Ryan document tonight instead of in the morning as soon as I stopped laughing...

http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/home

[LashL]

Too funny, LashL. How inept can one man and his lawyer(s) be?

Funny, indeed.

And to answer your question, Ryan's motion for reconsideration is a pretty good example of just how inept one man and his lawyer can be. :D

Although I have to admit, I've seen worse.


But not recently.

And not by experienced lawyers who should know better.

[LashL]

LashL gets to lash me for lying. i put up the Ryan document tonight instead of in the morning as soon as I stopped laughing...

Are you sure you want to volunteer for that?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1110346f488517e4e4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8473)


Oh, wait.

LashL gets to lash me for lying. i put up the Ryan document tonight instead of in the morning as soon as I stopped laughing...

You didn't lie, so you're safe.

For now. ;)

[~enigma~]

Are you sure you want to volunteer for that?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1110346f488517e4e4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8473)


Oh, wait.



You didn't lie, so you're safe.

For now. ;)
Ok...i had to reread my email. Your right, I didn't say I will put it up in the morning. I said it will be up in the AM. Guess unless I take it down, it is up. And I was so looking forward to seeing you in leather :)

[LashL]

Heh, I love 4. I am not even a lawyer and I could figure this one out.

Beautiful, isn't it? :D

To be clear, though, Ryan would only have to meet any one of the three grounds articulated; he doesn't have to meet all three.

Those three grounds being:
1) newly discovered evidence;
2) a manifest error of fact or law; or
3) an intervening change in the law between the time of the decision and the time of the motion for reconsideration.

In the circumstances of this case, he has no chance whatsoever of meeting (1) or (3) and it would be a real stretch for any court to find that he meets (2).

So, I stand by my prediction that his motion for reconsideration will be denied. It that comes to pass, and if he appeals that decision to a higher court, I anticipate that any such appeal will also be tossed, but we will at least gain a few more months of legaltainment™ in the process.

[Loss Leader]

It that comes to pass, and if he appeals that decision to a higher court, I anticipate that any such appeal will also be tossed, but we will at least gain a few more months of legaltainment™ in the process.


Two years more entertainment, at least. New developments will just be very, very slow in coming.

[rwguinn]

Are you sure you want to volunteer for that?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1110346f488517e4e4.jpg


Oh, wait.



You didn't lie, so you're safe.

For now. ;)
um.. I'm 6'6, 220 lb...
I lie...:D

[Loss Leader]

Could Ryan possibly get some kind of injunction against him for filing frivolous lawsuits?


It's possible but very, very unlikely on these facts. He'd have to become a much, much bigger pest before a court took that kind of step. And, I guess, that's a good thing. Recourse to the courts for all citizens of all abilities is one of the great pillars of a democratic civilization. The cost is that you have to put up with some kooks.



Is Ryan trying to lose? Why does he think filing an email from 12/2003 that contradicts his claim in the letter that got him fired 11 months later is evidence in his favor?


As near as I can tell, he's focussed with laser-like intensity on the UL guy's statement that they had tested WTC steel components with fireproofing. Of course, I think that the author means UL tested them after 9/11. The wording is ambiguous and Ryan probably takes this as an admission that they tested it back in 1967. He's so wrapped up in this that he utterly fails to see that he's included facts that hurt his case right along with it.



I suspect that Waterboy believes that testing the behavior of assemblies identical to those used in the WTC under various fire loads is somehow equivalent to testing the steel used in the actual assemblies.
Or maybe hoping that the judge won't understand the difference.


Whether the judge understands it or not, it's not actually relevant. ULs post-9/11 tests only matter if: 1) UL performed pre-9/11 tests; and 2) this creates an actual conflict of interest; and 3) the conflict of interest actually did cause UL to fail to properly perform its contracted services; and 4) Ryan actually did try to warn the government about that conflict of interest in his letter to NIST.

If any one of those things is not true, Ryan loses before he starts. Since he never alleged #3 either in his first Complaint or his proposed Amended Complaint, he loses right there. As to #4, the plain reading of the letter shows that he never warned of a conflict of interest which negatively affected UL's performance (he only said that as UL had tested steel in 1967, NIST's results make no sense). #1 and #2 are issues of fact and, while they're not true, if the Court ever gets to weighing those issues, Ryan will have already won everything he wants.

And what is it he wants? Discovery.

[LashL]

When we last convened here in Part Five of the Kevin Ryan v. UL Litigation Saga, the situation was that Ryan had brought a motion for reconsideration of the court's decision in which it had dismissed all of Ryan's claims with prejudice, and UL had filed its opposition to Ryan's motion for reconsideration.

A couple of weeks ago, while following up on the matter, I found that UL had filed a motion for summary ruling dismissing Ryan's motion because Ryan had not filed any reply to UL's opposition (as Ryan was required by the rules to do). I did not post about that minor development at the time because, frankly, there was nothing much to say about it until something more happened with the Ryan motion and the UL motion.

Now, that "something more" has happened.

The court has denied Ryan's motion for reconsideration and has granted UL's motion for summary ruling, for Ryan's failure to file any reply and for the reasons predicted previously in this thread.

The Seventh Circuit recognizes only three valid grounds for a Rule 59(e) motion – newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in the controlling law, and manifest error of law. [citations removed] Mr. Ryan’s instant motion, however, fails to raise any of these grounds.


The judge also commented in a footnote about the oddness of the email that Ryan appended as an exhibit to his declaration in his motion materials, which had also been commented on earlier in this thread:

Exhibit C appears to have been altered from its original form, and Mr. Ryan’s declaration offers no explanation. Thus, it would be difficult to find that this exhibit should be treated as evidence.



The complete judgment is here (http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/59Order.pdf).

I'll send it (and UL's motion) to enigma to post on his Aquaman site as well.

The whole saga with all of the relevant documents, for those of you following along at home and for those who are new to the saga and wanting to catch up, is here (http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/kevinryanv.ullitigation).



The only thing that I find curious about this latest development is that Ryan's lawyer did not file a reply. It's not as though he merely filed it late (again); he didn't file one at all.

I wonder if that signifies that Ryan or Harrison - or both - have given up and admitted the futility of their case, especially in light of Ryan's other lawyers fleeing the case during the previous round. It certainly won't bode well for Ryan in any potential appeal that he didn't even bother to follow through on his motion for reconsideration. (I don't know if failure to do so precludes him from appealing entirely, I'll have to look into that.)

This might actually be the end of line for him in this litigation.

[ConspiRaider]

As always, LL, thanks much. And especially for translating the legalese into schoolboy English so that a dim legal bulb such as I can comprehend.

[Drudgewire]

These courts are SO UNFAIR!! How can altered stuff not be considered valid evidence?? POLICE STATE!!! :mad:

[Gravy]

Thanks again, LashL.

[orphia nay]

Good work, LashL, as usual. Much appreciated. :)

[Architect]

Of course the maroons will say it's all part of the conspiracy.....

[LashL]

As always, LL, thanks much. And especially for translating the legalese into schoolboy English so that a dim legal bulb such as I can comprehend.

Thanks again, LashL.

Good work, LashL, as usual. Much appreciated. :)


I get such a tremendous benefit from the contributions of so many here that I am always delighted when the opportunity arises to contribute within my own area of expertise.

Plus, I really, really enjoy seeing conspiracy fantasists getting their butts handed to them in court. :D

[LashL]

These courts are SO UNFAIR!! How can altered stuff not be considered valid evidence?? POLICE STATE!!! :mad:

:D

Of course the maroons will say it's all part of the conspiracy.....


Most of them have been oddly silent about Ryan's legal follies for quite a while. I wonder how many of them contributed to his "legal defense fund"...

[Rika]

Aww, the tales of Ryan v UL are over. BUt soon, the tales of LCFC will dawn over the horizon.

Join us, next time , on... Conspiracy Theatre 3000. *twang*


(Seriously, thanks for keeping up with this and translating LashL)

[bofors]

As many of the regulars at this subforum know, Kevin Ryan's lawsuit against Underwriters Laboratories (ostensibly a wrongful termination claim but, in reality, a backdoor attempt to draw attention to himself and the tinhat conspiracy theories that he believes in regarding the events of 9/11)

Oh... ok, that makes perfect sense... your assertation is quite obviously undeniable :boggled:


(Yeah, I finally bit the bullet and created my own site and figured out how to upload pdfs and such. This way, I can add other twoofermania lawsuits and other bits of legaltainmentTM when they arise without having to impose on others.)


Here is another one for your collection:

"9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST
Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf

[Tbone]

Oh... ok, that makes perfect sense... your assertation is quite obviously undeniable :boggled:



Here is another one for your collection:

"9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST
Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf

That isn't a matter for courts, and has nothing to do with the subject in this thread.

[R.Mackey]

Here is another one for your collection:

"9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST
Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf


Been there, destroyed that. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79311)

Just more ravings of scientific illiterates.

[Slayhamlet]

Oh... ok, that makes perfect sense... your assertation is quite obviously undeniable :boggled:



Here is another one for your collection:

"9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST
Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf

That's not a lawsuit, bofors. Can't you get anything right?

BTW, that petition has already been covered in depth here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79311).

ETA: oops, looks like Mackey beat me!

[jhunter1163]

Wasn't that RFC denied with rude commentary not long ago?

ETA: Why, yes, it was...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96221

[PhantomWolf]

I believe that the great and wise Philosopher, Nelson, said it best when he said:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/15579472e5bbc8deeb.gif

[Loss Leader]

The court has denied Ryan's motion for reconsideration and has granted UL's motion for summary ruling, for Ryan's failure to file any reply and for the reasons predicted previously in this thread.

...

The only thing that I find curious about this latest development is that Ryan's lawyer did not file a reply. It's not as though he merely filed it late (again); he didn't file one at all.


First of all, thanks again, Lash, for keeping on top of this. You are, without question, my favorite Canadian (Michael J. Fox excepted).

Second, after reading the Court's ruling, I can't tell if Ryan's motion for reconsideration was denied because he didn't file a reply to UL's responding papers or if it was denied and he didn't file the reply.

I understand that a reply is due within a certain period of time, but the rule doesn't state that one must be filed. It only states that one that is filed must be within the time limit. Frankly, a rule requiring a reply to oposition papers seems fairly ridiculous to me. If one believes one's argument has been made and sees no new issue to respond to, a reply would actually slow down the administration of justice.

Personally, when I receive opposition papers that I don't care to respond to, I write to the Court, "I've received these papers, they raise no new issue that requires a response, please consider my motion fully submitted." We don't know if Ryan's lawyer wrote such a letter or did nothing (bad practice). What we do know is that he has a habit of coming in late and making everybody nuts which is why, in my opinion, UL bothered with the motion for summary judgment. They just wanted the Court to take notice of the fact that time was over.

In any event, there's no doubt in my mind that the proceedings before the District Court are over. Next stop is the Court of Appeals. I don't know how long Ryan has to file a notice of appeal (or whatever is required in federal practice) but the clock is ticking.

[pomeroo]

Great job, LashL! Still, I expect the loons to spin this as a victory. I wonder how they'll manage that.

[LashL]

First of all, thanks again, Lash, for keeping on top of this. You are, without question, my favorite Canadian (Michael J. Fox excepted).

Oh my, where's that blushing smiley? Oh, here it is: :o

Second, after reading the Court's ruling, I can't tell if Ryan's motion for reconsideration was denied because he didn't file a reply to UL's responding papers or if it was denied and he didn't file the reply.

My take is that his motion was denied quite independently of his failure to file a reply.

I agree with you that the applicable local rule does not make a reply mandatory; it merely sets a deadline for one, and if no reply is submitted, it simply paves the way for the opposing side to bring a motion for summary ruling on the original motion.

The way I read the documents, taken together, is that the rule simply gave UL the opportunity to bring their motion for summary ruling, but that the court still had to consider the merits of Ryan's motion on the basis of the materials filed in support and in opposition of it. (Which the judge certainly did, and dismissed it for failing to meet the test for reconsideration.)

Like you, I do not often file a reply to my opponent's responding materials. I only file a reply if the responding party has presented something unexpected in its response that I need to address. Otherwise, we simply move forward and argue the motion on its merits. (There is no requirement to even write a letter to the court here to tell them that you are not filing a reply because the motion date has already been set prior to serving the notice of motion, so if no further filings have been made and no adjournments are requested, it just gets argued on the previously set date.)

In this case, however, Ryan definitely needed (both strategically and substantively) to file a reply in order to address UL's responding materials in which UL set out the actual test for reconsideration - which Ryan had not addressed at all in his initial motion material - to have even a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining a reconsideration.

That is why I am curious about his failure to reply. I mean, it HAD to be obvious to him that he needed to address the actual test which would decide the matter. Thus, my wondering whether he's just given up.

In any event, there's no doubt in my mind that the proceedings before the District Court are over. Next stop is the Court of Appeals. I don't know how long Ryan has to file a notice of appeal (or whatever is required in federal practice) but the clock is ticking.

As near as I can tell from the Seventh Circuit rules, it looks like 30 days. Tick tock, tick tock.

[Loss Leader]

I mean, it HAD to be obvious to him that he needed to address the actual test which would decide the matter.



Your assessment of what is and is not obvious to this particular party and his counsel appears not to be based on the evidence.

[LashL]

Your assessment of what is and is not obvious to this particular party and his counsel appears not to be based on the evidence.

:D You're quite right. I have the lawyer's habit of using the plaintiff's name in place of plaintiff's counsel's name, or the singular "he" or "she" when referring to plaintiff and/or plaintiff's counsel collectively, unless I specifically intend to refer to both of them individually. What I actually meant in that sentence is "it had to be obvious to Ryan's lawyer..." which you quite correctly point out, is not apparent on the evidence.

It would have been even more accurate for me to have said, "it had to be obvious to any competent lawyer..." and, based on the evidence, that may well have precluded it from being a reference to Ryan's lawyer. ;)

[slyjoe]

Great job, LashL! Still, I expect the loons to spin this as a victory. I wonder how they'll manage that.

"It was thrown out only on a technicality."

"The NWO got to my lawyer."

"The NWO got to the judge."

"The judge didn't say the claims were technically incorrect."

"..." add your own crap here.

Thanks LashL.

[Loss Leader]

"The judge didn't say the claims were technically incorrect."


Yeah, that's pretty close to the best claim troothers could make that is actually supported by the objective facts:

"Ryan did such a poor job even communicating his grievance that the Court dismissed his claim without ever considering whether UL had conducted tests on the WTC steel back when it was being built or whether UL had colluded with NIST to cover-up new test results that indicate a CD. If the Court had considered the claim, the CD would have become obvious."

[Loss Leader]

It would have been even more accurate for me to have said, "it had to be obvious to any competent lawyer..."


Or maybe "any non-besotted lawyer."

[Drudgewire]

"If the Court had considered the claim, the CD would have become obvious."
You say "become obvious," I say "been laughed aloud at."
Let's call the whole thing off. :mdance:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The dude's like a weeble, or one of those inflatable punching toys you get as a kid.

[PhantomWolf]

eh... I was thinking cockroach, but hey.....

[FactCheck]

Ryan will be on Air America radio on friday. He will be debating someone from skeptic magazine I believe. 12 - 3PM

[bofors]

Just more ravings of scientific illiterates.

Yah, right.

Do you read actually any of the papers you dismiss?

If so, I just can not believe that you actually have an kind of technical education.

Where did you say you went school again?

UC Santa Cruz or something?

Gee, I wonder what that place is ranked nationally in engineering (or even if any bothers to rank it).

[Drudgewire]

Where did you say you went school again?

UC Santa Cruz or something?

Gee, I wonder what that place is ranked nationally in engineering (or even if any bothers to rank it).
That's true. The fact they've all survived peer review by academia from REAL universities sure shows him, doesn't it?

Oh, wait...

[bofors]

That isn't a matter for courts, and has nothing to do with the subject in this thread.

Sorry, but it sounded like the legaltainmentTM asked for to me.

[AZCat]

Yah, right.

Do you read actually any of the papers you dismiss?

If so, I just can not believe that you actually have an kind of technical education.

Where did you say you went school again?

UC Santa Cruz or something?

Gee, I wonder what that place is ranked nationally in engineering (or even if any bothers to rank it).

I think you have some responses due in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97808). Perhaps it would be more productive if you posted over there in lieu of trying to compare curriculum vitae, especially when you seem to have forgotten the other school (http://www.caltech.edu/) the poster in question attended.

[PhantomWolf]

Do you read actually any of the papers you dismiss?

wow... I'm stunned... This from the same guy that admits that he's never read any of the NIST report but believes that he could do a critical analysis of it.....

[Loss Leader]

People, people, I think we're losing sight of the main point of this thread which is that Kevin Ryan is a moron.

[PhantomWolf]

People, people, I think we're losing sight of the main point of this thread which is that Kevin Ryan is a moron.

He's a truther, of course he a moron. That's like saying we're losing sight of the fact Lake Michigan is wet.

[Alferd_Packer]

People, people, I think we're losing sight of the main point of this thread which is that Kevin Ryan is a moron.


I don't think you can lose sight of that point. It's as big as an elephant.

[Bell]

Yah, right.

Do you read actually any of the papers you dismiss?

If so, I just can not believe that you actually have an kind of technical education.

Where did you say you went school again?

UC Santa Cruz or something?

Gee, I wonder what that place is ranked nationally in engineering (or even if any bothers to rank it).

Stundie material!

:dl:

[Minadin]

People, people, I think we're losing sight of the main point of this thread which is that Kevin Ryan is a moron.

I recall the day I watched Loose Change for the first time; it was in my office. When Kevin Ryan's quote came up, and it sourced him as "Kevin Ryan - Underwriter's Laboratories" I asked out loud (the couple of people within earshot were watching this travesty with me, so I wasn't talking to myself, I swear):

"Who the ***** did they get from UL?!? The <bleepin> janitor?"

I couldn't imagine anyone qualified to make a statement like that would have. It turns out I wasn't totally right, but I wasn't far off. Water-testing department? Puh-lease.

[NoZed Avenger]

Yah, right.

Do you read actually any of the papers you dismiss?




Aren't you the guy that claims to be able to critique the 911 Commission report without reading it?




So suddenly *now* you have to actually read things??

[SpitfireIX]

Yah, right.

Do you read actually any of the papers you dismiss?

If so, I just can not believe that you actually have an kind of technical education.

Where did you say you went school again?

UC Santa Cruz or something?

Gee, I wonder what that place is ranked nationally in engineering (or even if any bothers to rank it).


In addition to his undergrad from UCSC (in physics?), Ryan has a masters in Aeronautical Engineering from Caltech.

US News ranking (http://www.infozee.com/channels/ms/usa/aerospace-aeronautical-astronautical-rankings.htm) of top aeronautical engineering graduate schools in the United States:

1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2 Stanford University (CA)

3 California Institute of Technology

4 University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

5 Georgia Institute of Technology

6 Purdue University–West Lafayette (IN) [my alma mater :)]

7 Princeton University (NJ)

8 University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign

9 University of Texas–Austin

10 Cornell University (NY)


bofors, maybe you should quit posting before you embarrass yourself even further.

[~enigma~]

Finally updated my website with the two latest (and hopefully final) court documents but from the (final) order please enjoy this gem.


This Entry is a matter of public record and will be made available on the court’s web
site. However, the discussion contained herein is not sufficiently novel to justify commercial
publication.

[LashL]

Just to update, I have continued to check to see whether Kevin Ryan appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the refusal by the court to entertain his motion for reconsideration.

The deadline for him to file a notice of appeal was 30 days from the latter and the time for filing an appeal would have expired on November 24/07, but no appeal appears to have been filed to date (December 2/07).

So, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it appears that Kevin Ryan (aka Waterboy, aka Aquaman) has given up entirely on his frivolous claims against UL.

Although this post doesn't really add anything to the terrific discussion that has taken place over the course of several threads about the Kevin Ryan litigation, I thought that I should post it in the interests of completion and finality.

Cheers,
Lash

[~enigma~]

Just to update, I have continued to check to see whether Kevin Ryan appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the refusal by the court to entertain his motion for reconsideration.

The deadline for him to file a notice of appeal was 30 days from the latter and the time for filing an appeal would have expired on November 24/07, but no appeal appears to have been filed to date (December 2/07).

So, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it appears that Kevin Ryan (aka Waterboy, aka Aquaman) has given up entirely on his frivolous claims against UL.

Although this post doesn't really add anything to the terrific discussion that has taken place over the course of several threads about the Kevin Ryan litigation, I thought that I should post it in the interests of completion and finality.

Cheers,
Lash
I guess Aquaman got tired of running up against normal people :)

[slyjoe]

Thanks for keeping track of this saga, LashL. :)

[SpitfireIX]

Thanks for keeping track of this saga, LashL. :)


Seconded, as Waterboy's "Number One Fan." :rolleyes:

--Doug, Indiana resident and Purdue University graduate.

[JamesB]

Seconded, as Waterboy's "Number One Fan." :rolleyes:

--Doug, Indiana resident and Purdue University graduate.

Luckily for you, Ryan went to IU.

[SpitfireIX]

Luckily for you, Ryan went to IU.


Haha--I didn't know that! However, I have a post-baccalaureate certificate in accounting: 42 hours of accounting and business law classes that, along with my B.A., allowed me to sit for the Uniform Certified Public Accountant exam. I took most of the classes at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, but my certificate says "Indiana University" on it. (Oh, the shame of it all! :o)

[LashL]

I guess Aquaman got tired of running up against normal people :)

Looks like it. I suspect that when two of his three lawyers bailed on him (and would not sign on to his purported second amended complaint), that probably gave him a raging clue that he was going to lose badly and that the chances for any success in continued litigation were slim to none. He's very lucky that he didn't get hammered with sanctions by the judge.

The timing for the end of the Waterboy saga is convenient, though, as I now have yet another raving loon's lawsuits to try to keep track of here, and this guy is quite prolific:

http://simpsonlitigation.googlepages.com/home


Thanks for keeping track of this saga, LashL. :)

Seconded, as Waterboy's "Number One Fan." :rolleyes:



You are most welcome, gentlemen. :)

[T.A.M.]

Did I get this right? Is this George Simpson character trying to sue James Randi et al?

this guy is a real gem.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Yeah, he didn't like people making fun of his ET Corn Gods code, so he's suing Randi and several forum members for $20 million. If you've noticed all the corndog avatars, they're a salute to George.

[LashL]

Did I get this right? Is this George Simpson character trying to sue James Randi et al?

this guy is a real gem.

TAM:)

Yes, indeed. There is a thread about it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98855).

Yeah, he didn't like people making fun of his ET Corn Gods code, so he's suing Randi and several forum members for $20 million. If you've noticed all the corndog avatars, they're a salute to George.

As of today, when his "First Amended Complaint" was entered, the $20 million figure is no longer included, but he did add another 7 individual forum users (well, 5 users and 2 others whose names as written are not actually forum users). :D

Corndogs all around!

[ConspiRaider]

Yes, indeed. There is a thread about it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98855).

As of today, when his "First Amended Complaint" was entered, the $20 million figure is no longer included, but he did add another 7 individual forum users (well, 5 users and 2 others whose names as written are not actually forum users). :D

Corndogs all around!
I've been so casual stepping around here in JREF-Forum that I never knew, until a few minutes ago, what in the living hell this whole CORN DOG business was about! I'm so ashamed! A panel of extraterrestrial Corn Gods is what started this whole thing?!?

I've got to quit going out - I've got to stay IN more.

Corn dogs. ET Corn Gods. I stupidly thought that this Corn Dog Conspiracy was somehow tied into that Turing row, so I plowed through that nonsense but could pin down no corn dog!!! I got fooled because of all these avatars of Turing eating a corn dog! Even showed my JREF solidarity for awhile by changing my avatar to it - NEVER KNOWING HOW CLUELESS I WAS AND/OR IS!!!

Holy friggin' Toledo, I must find a doctor to PRESCRIBE even more COGNAC!!!

ET CORN GODS!!! 22 YEARS!!! SHEEZ!!!

[LashL]

I've been so casual stepping around here in JREF-Forum that I never knew, until a few minutes ago, what in the living hell this whole CORN DOG business was about! I'm so ashamed! A panel of extraterrestrial Corn Gods is what started this whole thing?!?

I've got to quit going out - I've got to stay IN more.

Corn dogs. ET Corn Gods. I stupidly thought that this Corn Dog Conspiracy was somehow tied into that Turing row, so I plowed through that nonsense but could pin down no corn dog!!! I got fooled because of all these avatars of Turing eating a corn dog! Even showed my JREF solidarity for awhile by changing my avatar to it - NEVER KNOWING HOW CLUELESS I WAS AND/OR IS!!!

Holy friggin' Toledo, I must find a doctor to PRESCRIBE even more COGNAC!!!

ET CORN GODS!!! 22 YEARS!!! SHEEZ!!!



It all started here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91938). **Caution: it is lengthy and full of batcrapcrazy, the length, depth and breadth of which challenges that to which the twoofers aspire.***

There was also a 9/11 angle to it and a brief split to this sub-forum (which also ended up in AAH) but I can't locate it at the moment.

Holy friggin' Toledo, I must find a doctor to PRESCRIBE even more COGNAC!!!
T.A.M.? What do you say?

[chillzero]

probably best to keep the corndog discussion to the relevant threads elsewhere.