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 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.

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:

Originally Posted by LossLeader

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ryan Response

“...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.


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:

Originally Posted by UL Reply

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.

Originally Posted by UL Reply

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.

Originally Posted by UL Reply

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.

[Gravy]

Thanks, LashL!

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Posted By:chillzero

[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 in the works.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by bje

There's a more important lawsuit in the works.

Roffle!

[capracus]

Originally Posted by bje

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[LashL]

Originally Posted by bje

There's a more important lawsuit in the works.

Gotta love that 911 Booger site. Very funny stuff

Originally Posted by capracus

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)

[pvt1863]

Originally Posted by bje

There's a more important lawsuit 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]

Originally Posted by pvt1863

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]

Originally Posted by pvt1863

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]

Originally Posted by capracus

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]

Originally Posted by pvt1863

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]

Originally Posted by 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]

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 and research them further.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by bje

There's a more important lawsuit 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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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...68357465979302

[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]

Originally Posted by gumboot

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]

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

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.