Case Dismissed - Kevin Ryan v. Underwriters Labs

[LashL]

UL's Motion to Dismiss Kevin Ryan's lawsuit has been granted.

I will send a copy of the document to ~enigma~ for posting at the site he created to host the documents, but here is a brief summary.

The claims alleging a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine in Indiana (on 7 different bases, which became 14 in his amended complaint) were dismissed wholesale WITH PREJUDICE on the basis that Ryan simply does not come within the very clear precedents established by Indiana law that govern the narrow public policy exception.

The claims alleging "whistleblower" protection for Ryan were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 15 DAYS, on the basis that:

1) the statute that Ryan attempted to rely upon applies only to wrongdoing by the private employer that relates to the execution of public contracts;

2) nothing in the Ryan complaint inferred any connection to any contract that UL may have had involving NIST or the collapse of the WTC towers, or anything from which it could be inferred that Ryan had any knowledge about how UL executed its contracts;

3) nothing in the letter that Ryan sent to NIST provided the basis for any inference of the existence of any violation of law or misuse of public resources by UL (which is a prerequisite to successfully invoking the 'whistleblower' statute that Ryan sought to rely upon);

4) the whistleblower statute is not aimed at protecting plaintiffs who believe that the conduct of an employer might reveal violations of law or regulation or misuse of public resources, but rather it seeks to protect employees who report that an employer has, in the execution of a public contract, broken the law or misused public resources;

5) Ryan's complaint is not about allegations of misconduct by UL or the misuse of public funds at all, but rather it is about the competency of the investigations following September 11, 2001 and an alleged failure by NIST (and potentially UL) to uncover or consider evidence that other, as yet unknown, conspirators were involved; and

6) the Ryan complaint provided no reasonable basis for inferring that UL broke the law or spent public money for any unallowed purpose, nor did it provide any basis for inferring that Ryan reported any such conduct to either UL or NIST.

In the result, Ryan's letters to UL and to NIST did not allege a violation of federal, state, or local laws or regulations, or a misuse of public resources, regarding UL’s execution of its contract with NIST.

Thus, the claim on this basis was also dismissed, albeit WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 15 DAYS.

However, the court added this, which strikes me as a pretty strong warning to Ryan:

Quote:

"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."

ETA: Here is a link to a previous thread tracking the litigation, for those who are interested.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81508&highlight=Ryan+litigation

[defaultdotxbe]

i believe i speak for everyone here when i say

[kookbreaker]

Down in flames!

[PhantomWolf]

No, down in flames and stomped on by a herd of elephants to put the fire out.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i believe i speak for everyone here when i say

Yes... yes you do.

[Gravy]

Thanks, LashL. I wonder if the drowning man is testing the water that's being poured on him.

[CHF]

Poor Mr. Ryan.

Quote:

4) the whistleblower statute is not aimed at protecting plaintiffs who believe that the conduct of an employer might reveal violations of law or regulation or misuse of public resources, but rather it seeks to protect employees who report that an employer has, in the execution of a public contract, broken the law or misused public resources;

Gee wiz, so you need solid proof in a court of law after all. Take note, twoofers.

[Alareth]

Was Mr. Ryan certified by UL to be fireproof?

[Miss Anthrope]

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by CHF

Gee wiz, so you need solid proof in a court of law after all. Take note, twoofers.

He probably didn't help his case by responding "I'll answer that if you answer a question for me first" repeatedly under cross.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

No, down in flames and stomped on by a herd of elephants to put the fire out.

Yes, it is a pretty heavy duty smackdown. As you'll see when you read the judgment, the full effect is a pleasure to behold.

[Alareth]

It's obvious "they" got to the judges.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by Alareth

It's obvious "they" got to the judges.

OF course! The troofers are so concerned with they patsy organization (nwo) they are blind to The eternal Order of They!!! Muhahahahahaha!

[LashL]

I have sent the judgment to enigma but he might not be able to upload the docs and post the link until tomorrow (Eastern time - it's already tomorrow for some of you ). If anyone wants a copy of the decision sooner, feel free to send a PM to get a copy by email.

[Brainster]

Waterboy Wonder's case collapsed at freefall speed, even though fire can't melt legal briefs of steel? Guess it was a case of shoddy construction?

[LashL]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Waterboy Wonder's case collapsed at freefall speed, even though fire can't melt legal briefs of steel? Guess it was a case of shoddy construction?

[LashL]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i believe i speak for everyone here when i say

http://freon.shackspace.com/misc/Nelson_haha.jpg

Yep, you nailed it in 1, defaultdotxbe.

[SezMe]

Clearly his case needed strengthening by 3" rebar on 4' centers.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by LashL

Yep, you nailed it in 1, defaultdotxbe.

I find this graphic quite fitting at the moment...

[JamesB]

So can I get all that money back that I donated to the Kevin Ryan Defense Fund?

[nicepants]

Quote:

"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 support11 could be a basis for monetary sanctions against Mr. Ryan, his counsel, or both."

My favorite part.

Twoofers should know not to mess around in a place that requires things like facts and proof.

[Alt+F4]

Thanks so much for posting this LashL. Do you think the Ryan dismissal will have any effect on this mess? BTW, this is not the Dr. Judy request.

Quote:

This week Visibility 9-11 welcomes attorney James Gourley, author of the Request for Correction petition to the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).

Quote:

Requesters on the RFC include 9-11 victim family members Bob McIlvine and Bill Doyle, Physicist Steven Jones, Architect Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice.

[~enigma~]

Hey guys, didn't realize Acrobat 8 converts unprotected PDFs to plain text files so if you don't want to wait till I get the PDFs up sometime tomorrow. I am attaching the 2 text files as a zip.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Clearly his case needed strengthening by 3" rebar on 4' centers.

Ack - don't give Christophera any ideas. I dread the thought of trudging through another one of his lawsuits.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by JamesB

So can I get all that money back that I donated to the Kevin Ryan Defense Fund?

Good luck!

(all $0.00 of it?)

[Jonnyclueless]

I guess dealing with a court of law is a tad bit different than making crap up on an internet chat forum eh? Now if Lyte would just start presenting his little claim into the legal system.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Now if Lyte would just start presenting his little claim into the legal system.

You smokin somthin?

[Minadin]

Enigma - if you would like, I can make PDF's of them in a few minutes and email them back to you.

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Minadin

Enigma - if you would like, I can make PDF's of them in a few minutes and email them back to you.

Did I say that right...yes. Don't confuse me Minadin

I have the PDFs and I will upload them tomorrow. For the impatient masses, I uploaded the text that Acrobat 8 converted through save as.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i believe i speak for everyone here when i say

QFE. Waterboy vaulted to the top of my [expletive deleted] list with his "open letter" to the president of Purdue University:

Quote:

Dear President Córdova,

Congratulations on your recent appointment at Purdue University. As a long time citizen [sic] of the state of Indiana, I welcome you to what I know to be an outstanding institution of higher learning. At the same time, I hope to help you see an immediate opportunity to make a great positive difference in the lives of the people of our state and, in fact, a great difference in the lives of people everywhere. Through your appointment you have been given this opportunity to speak out and denounce what can be called, at best, criminally negligent science on the part of a small segment of the Purdue faculty. []

Last month, a few Purdue professors, along with some students, presented a short animation ostensibly related to the 9/11 tragedy at the World Trade Center (WTC). Surprisingly the University then announced this animation in a news release, as if it represented a scientifically accurate simulation of the impact of a Boeing 767 into the WTC’s north tower. Unfortunately, this short video clip is far from a scientifically-based production, as it actually contradicts several of the government’s own, much more intensive studies, and shamefully fails to capture some of the most basic aspects of the related events. To make things worse, Purdue University paradoxically implies that this brief animation provides support for the overworked fire-induced collapse hypothesis. By simultaneously contradicting and voicing support for the official story, Purdue has helped to promote the Bush Administration’s fraudulent 9/11 Wars, and instantly earned a notorious place in modern history. []

In one important way this new animation does reflect reality, although in doing so it negates the official stance taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In their September 2005 report, NIST presented their “collapse initiation sequence”, and explained how they felt the loss of fireproofing was the key to the destruction of the towers. NIST suggested that the fireproofing loss occurred as a result of aircraft debris, in the form of shotgun-like blasts, scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area. But from Purdue’s new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST’s primary explanation. []

Apart from that small inadvertent success, these Purdue professors show that they do not understand even the simplest aspects of the WTC events, let alone the latest government story in support of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Professors Irfanoglu and Hoffman described the details of their project in a paper entitled “An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1″, published on the Purdue University website. In this paper it is explained how the authors simulated the performance of WTC-1 during “the impact of American Airlines Flight 77″. Quite a feat, one might say, considering that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This obvious example of the simple errors made throughout this project is an embarrassment, without a doubt. But errors do not become grave mistakes unless they go uncorrected. In this case, however, it appears that we are witnessing gross negligence at a minimum, as later in the same paper the authors make things worse by stating that the animation actually reflects the “impact of Flight AA71″. If the authors can’t even get these basic details right, in several attempts, why should people expect that the animation produced has any relevance to reality? More importantly, did anyone at Purdue review this paper at all before putting the University’s reputation on the line in major media reports around the world? [Waterboy obviously doesn't realize that papers are often posted for comment and correction; further, some secretary probably misread one of the authors' 1's as 7's.]

There is no question that, if any review or oversight did occur for this project, it did not involve anyone who had any familiarity with the US government’s previous WTC investigations. This fact is evident when one reads the abstract of this paper, which states — “a core collapse mechanism could be initiated if the core column temperatures were elevated to about 700 C.” Considering that “core collapse” may be the one and only theory we have not yet seen from the scientists supporting the Bush Administration’s WTC story, it is a wonder that so few noticed the discrepancy. In fact, the latest in a long string of false explanations given in support of the fire-based hypothesis begins with the failure of perimeter columns, not core columns, as the former were pulled inward by sagging floors.

There are many more significant differences between the latest official story for “collapse” of the WTC towers, as given by NIST, and this poor animation put out by a misdirected and unsupervised group at Purdue. [] Here are a few more examples.

• NIST reported that 9 core columns were severed or heavily damaged by aircraft impact, and this was in their “more severe” case. Purdue now says that 52 core columns were “destroyed or heavily damaged” over a height six floors (see Irfanoglu and Hoffman, table 1). First note that there was a total of 47 core columns in the building. Even if several of these were “destroyed” at multiple levels, Purdue is now asking us to accept a level of damage that is far greater than years of government research could support.
  
• NIST reported that the damage done to the south face of WTC 1 was limited to one dislodged panel, encompassing three exterior columns (329,330 and 331), caused by whatever small amount of debris passed through and exited the far side of the building. Purdue’s team now wants us to believe that 12 exterior columns were severed on the south face of WTC 1.
  
• NIST told us that the center fuel tank of the aircraft was completely empty when it struck WTC 1. But this new animation shows the center tank to be completely full. Additional comments from the animation’s creators indicate they have no idea how much jet fuel was available inside the building, or how this fuel played a part in the destruction.

I could go on describing the stupefying failure of this new Purdue animation, and how it contradicts the reports it pretends to support. But I ask you to review this project yourself, and consider asking for clarification from the authors. []

You might start with Purdue’s Mete Sozen, a long time leader of official investigations for terrorist acts, and a mainstay of “expert” testimony for those supporting Bush’s war of terror. Professor Sozen also happens to be the chairman of a US Department of Defense program, which puts him among the least likely people to objectively judge the scientific basis for the origins of this war. But my guess is that Mete Sozen is more than just a simple war profiteer, and may have more sinister personal reasons for promoting the Bush Administration’s genocide for oil program. ["Hi, boys and girls. Today's word is 'libel.' Can you say 'libel,' boys and girls? I knew you could."]

In any case, it is disturbing that a respected academic institution like Purdue would offer what is essentially a half-baked video game as another explanation for the most important events of the 21st century. [] It is just as disturbing, although less surprising, that major media sources would uncritically repeat ridiculous assertions by the animation’s creators as if they were statements of fact. For example the Associated Press and the New York Times quoted Purdue Computer Science professor Christoph Hoffman when he said “One thing it does point out…is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures” and “This is something that wasn’t originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn’t code at that time.” In these articles the reader can’t tell if it is the reporters, or just the professors, who are hopelessly confused. Not only were the WTC buildings fully fireproofed, that fireproofing had been dramatically upgraded in the two years prior to 9/11. [Wrong, Waterboy. The upgrade was ongoing; the floors of the impact zone in WTC 2 hadn't received it, except for the lowest one.]

President Córdova, I ask you to consider Purdue’s part in the propagation of false stories behind 9/11 and the devastating damage they are doing to our country and the victims of the 9/11 Wars.[ ] As a physicist you must understand that the near free-fall “collapse” of three tall buildings, of which only two were struck by airliners, is the most improbable, and yet politically convenient, series of events that the world has ever seen. [] Now that we have witnessed multiple false official explanations for these events, many scientists are waking to, and are willing to stand against, this fraud in order to save our country and end these wars of aggression. [Er, pardon me, Waterboy, but your agenda is showing. :rolleyes] As the leader of a university that has been thrust into the center of this critical national discussion, you should lead this effort.

If you can spare one hour of your time to better understand these issues, I would be happy to make a detailed presentation to you and any members of your staff. [ ]

Sincerely,

Kevin R. Ryan
[emphasis added; citations omitted]

--Doug

(B.A., American and European History, Purdue University, 1991. Currently a sophomore in mechanical engineering at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.)

Believe me, no one here is enjoying this moment more than I am.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by LashL

Good luck!

(all $0.00 of it?)

Nah, he sent US$0.25, with a note telling Waterboy to call someone who cares.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Did I say that right...yes. Don't confuse me Minadin

I have the PDFs and I will upload them tomorrow. For the impatient masses, I uploaded the text that Acrobat 8 converted through save as.

Sorry about that, for some reason I thought that you were suggesting that you were going to have to make new PDF's . . . just trying to help

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Minadin

Sorry about that, for some reason I thought that you were suggesting that you were going to have to make new PDF's . . . just trying to help

I'm not mad...see my smile

[LashL]

Originally Posted by nicepants

My favorite part.

Twoofers should know not to mess around in a place that requires things like facts and proof.

I liked that part, too.

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Thanks so much for posting this LashL. Do you think the Ryan dismissal will have any effect on this mess? BTW, this is not the Dr. Judy request.

My pleasure.

I have not yet read that mess in detail, so I really cannot opine in depth about what effect, if any, the dismissal of Ryan's claim will have on it.

However, generally speaking, the outcome of Ryan's claim for wrongful dismissal, even though he purported to base it on 9/11 conspiracy theories, is unlikely to have much, if any, impact on a wholly unrelated matter that has nothing to do with the courts. The RFC process is not connected to Ryan's wrongful dismissal complaint, NIST is not a court or even an administrative tribunal, and the matters at issue in Ryan's lawsuit are/were legal issues, completely unrelated to NIST's internal standards and policies regarding its publications.

As I said, I haven't read the RFC carefully yet (although I will - I've just skimmed it very briefly from your link now) but if I had to give an off-the-cuff response based solely upon fundamental principles of law, it would be that it is unlikely that the outcome of Ryan's personal lawsuit against UL will have much impact on the RFC whining at NIST in a completely different context and a completely different forum, except perhaps to the extent that it refers to Ryan being wrongly terminated by UL as a result of his conspiratorial beliefs regarding NIST and the collapse of the WTC towers.

That portion of the RFC could potentially be undermined by the fact that a court has found that he did not make out a case of wrongful termination against UL and that the court said that he did not adduce evidence sufficient to even infer a conclusion that UL did anything wrong within the parameters of the whislteblower statute, etc. That could potentially impact on Ryan's credibility as a named "requester" in the RFC, but the overall impact of his loss in court will likely still be negligible as it pertains to the RFC overall.

That said, the credibility of the majority of the requesters in the RFC is close to non-existent already, the RFC appears to be meritless as it is merely a rehash of long-debunked conspiracy theories and cherry-picked quotes, and the NIST aren't a bunch of dummies. In other words, I doubt that the RFC will go anywhere in any event, regardless of the Ryan litigation being turfed.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

QFE. Waterboy vaulted to the top of my [expletive deleted] list with his "open letter" to the president of Purdue University:




--Doug

(B.A., American and European History, Purdue University, 1991. Currently a sophomore in mechanical engineering at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.)

Believe me, no one here is enjoying this moment more than I am.

I'll gladly join you with a beverage, Spitfire.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by LashL

I'll gladly join you with a beverage, Spitfire.

Next time I'm in Ontario, you're on. I'm hoping to vacation in Canada next summer with my friend and her kids, but it will depend on money and time (I'm also thinking of taking my vacation to visit my best friend, who lives just outside Washington, D.C., in order to track down all the witnesses Lyte "missed" ).

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I just love picking on certain people (Kevin Ryan, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones)

[LashL]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Next time I'm in Ontario, you're on. I'm hoping to vacation in Canada next summer with my friend and her kids, but it will depend on money and time (I'm also thinking of taking my vacation to visit my best friend, who lives just outside Washington, D.C., in order to track down all the witnesses Lyte "missed" ).

Excellent. Drop me a note if/when you will be in area and I'll be delighted to hoist a beverage or three with you and your friend, while simultaneously finding an appropriate diversion for the children.

Originally Posted by ThereIsNoConspiracy

I just love picking on certain people (Kevin Ryan, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones)

@ the pic.

[~enigma~]

Ok...who wants to do a little photoshopping?

[LashL]

Oh, I should have added in the OP that the dismissal is dated August 8, so the 15 days within which Ryan can file an amended complaint with respect to the claims that the court struck "without prejudice" started to run from that date. (The claims that were struck "with prejudice" cannot be re-asserted at all, of course.) Sometimes, it takes several days before the documents are uploaded and posted to PACER. (E.g. the decision had not been posted when I checked on Friday, August 10.)

Tick tock.

Tick tock.

ETA: Hmmm, but of course, Ryan would have been informed of the decision on the day it was pronounced. Gee, I wonder why it wasn't mentioned on twoofer sites last week and why it hasn't been mentioned on twoofer sites since.