ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th December 2007, 07:45 PM   #1
jberryhill
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 252
UL Moves For Sanctions Against Morgan Reynolds and Leaphart

UL's Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion For Sanctions:

http://www.johnberryhill.com/morgan-...-sanctions.pdf

The show so far:


Date Filed # Docket Text

05/31/2007 Case Designated ECF. (laq) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007 1 ORDER; that the plaintiff's request to file his complaint under seal is Granted. (Signed by Judge Leonard B. Sand, Part I, on 5/30/2007) (kkc) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/11/2007 (Aquino, Lourdes). (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007 Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman is so designated. (laq) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

07/11/2007 4 ORDER that the US having declined to intervene in this action pursuant to the False Claims Act, the complaint shall be unsealed and service upon defts by the plaintiff-relator is authorized. The govt's Notice of Election to Decline Intervention shall be served by the plaintiff-relator upon defendants only after service of the complaint. The seal shall be lifted as to all other matters occuring in this action after the date of this Order, and as further set forth in this document. (Signed by Judge Gerard E. Lynch on 7/6/07) (cd) (Entered: 07/12/2007)

07/11/2007 5 QUI TAM COMPLAINT against Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P., Hughes Associates, Inc., Ajmal Abbasi, Eduardo Kausel, David Parks, David Sharp, Daniele Veneziano, Josef Van Dyck, Kasper William, Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA), Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C., Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc., Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, L.L.P., Teng & Associates, Inc., Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., American Airlines, Silverstein Properties, United Air Lines, Science Applications International Corporation, Applied Research Associates, Inc., Boeing, NuStats, Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc., Datasource, Inc., GeoStats, Inc. (This document was filed under seal envelope #2 and unsealed by Order doc. #4)Document filed by Morgan Reynolds.(ae) (Entered: 08/08/2007)

07/11/2007 6 GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE of Election to Decline Intervention. Filed by AUSA Benjamin H. Torrance. (This document was filed under under seal envelope #3 and unsealed with order doc. #4) (ae) (Entered: 08/08/2007)

08/23/2007 7 MOTION for William David Byassee to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Applied Research Associates, Inc. (jco) (Entered: 08/29/2007)

08/28/2007 CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Notice of Assignment to follow. (laq) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

08/28/2007 8 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge George B. Daniels. Judge Gerard E. Lynch is no longer assigned to the case. (laq) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

08/30/2007 Mailed notice to the attorney(s) of record. (laq) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

08/31/2007 CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 08/23/2007, Receipt Number 625193. (jd) (Entered: 08/31/2007)

09/05/2007 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE. Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. served on 8/9/2007, answer due 8/29/2007. Service was made by MAIL. Document filed by Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.. (Pollack, David) (Entered: 09/05/2007)

09/05/2007 10 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David M. Pollack on behalf of Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. (Pollack, David) (Entered: 09/05/2007)

09/06/2007 11 ORDER granting 7 Motion for William David Byassee to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/6/07) (pl) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

09/06/2007 Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 11 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating of Attorney Information. (pl) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

09/06/2007 12 MOTION for Gail D. Zirkelbach to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Applied Research Associates, Inc. (jco) (Entered: 09/07/2007)

09/11/2007 13 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION granting 12 Motion for Gail D. Zirkelbach to Appear Pro Hac Vice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gail D. Zirkelbach of Jackson, Kelly, PLLC is admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Applied Research Associates, Inc. the in the above-captioned case. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/11/07) (tro) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

09/11/2007 Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 13 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating of Attorney Information. (tro) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

09/11/2007 CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 13 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, in the amount of $25.00, paid on 09/06/2007, Receipt Number 626199. (jd) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

09/21/2007 14 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David M. Pollack on behalf of Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc. (Pollack, David) (Entered: 09/21/2007)

09/21/2007 15 WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc. waiver sent on 9/21/2007, answer due 11/20/2007. Document filed by Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.. (Pollack, David) (Entered: 09/21/2007)

09/25/2007 16 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Philip Carmine Semprevivo on behalf of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (Semprevivo, Philip) (Entered: 09/25/2007)

09/26/2007 17 MOTION for E. Leslie Hoffman, III to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Applied Research Associates, Inc. (jco) (Entered: 09/27/2007)

10/01/2007 CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 17 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 09/26/2007, Receipt Number 628078. (jd) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/01/2007 18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Philip Touitou on behalf of Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA), Teng & Associates, Inc., Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (Touitou, Philip) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/01/2007 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Appearance on October 1, 2007. Document filed by Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA), Teng & Associates, Inc., Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.. (Touitou, Philip) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/02/2007 20 ORDER granting 17 Motion for E. Leslie Hoffman, III to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/2/2007) (jmi) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

10/02/2007 Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 20 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating of Attorney Information. (jmi) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/05/2007 21 FIRST RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc..(Pollack, David) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

10/05/2007 22 FIRST RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc..(Pollack, David) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

10/05/2007 23 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss. Document filed by Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation In Support# 2 Memorandum of Law)(Pollack, David) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

10/08/2007 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Document filed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, L.L.P..(Sjoquist, Chad) (Entered: 10/08/2007)

10/08/2007 25 FILING ERROR - WRONG DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Declaration and Exhibits). Document filed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, L.L.P. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B.1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B.2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B.3# 5 Exhibit Exhibit B.4# 6 Exhibit Exhibit B.5# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit Exhibit B.7)(Sjoquist, Chad) Modified on 10/9/2007 (KA). (Entered: 10/08/2007)

10/08/2007 26 FILING ERROR - WRONG DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Memorandum of Law). Document filed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, L.L.P. (Sjoquist, Chad) Modified on 10/9/2007 (KA). (Entered: 10/08/2007)

10/09/2007 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DOCUMENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Chad Everette Sjoquist to RE-FILE Document 25 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Declaration and Exhibits). Use the document type Declaration in support of Motion found under the document list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (KA) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DOCUMENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Chad Everette Sjoquist to RE-FILE Document 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Memorandum of Law). Use the document type Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion found under the document list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (KA) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 27 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document filed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, L.L.P.. (Sjoquist, Chad) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 28 DECLARATION of Michael J. Vardaro in Support re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document filed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, L.L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B.1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B.2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B.3# 5 Exhibit Exhibit B.4# 6 Exhibit Exhibit B.5# 7 Exhibit Exhibit B.6# 8 Exhibit Exhibit B.7)(Sjoquist, Chad) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 29 NOTICE of Motion. Document filed by Applied Research Associates, Inc.. (Zirkelbach, Gail) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 30 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Applied Research Associates, Inc..(Zirkelbach, Gail) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 31 FIRST RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Document filed by Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA).(Touitou, Philip) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 32 SECOND RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Coporate Parent. Document filed by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (Touitou, Philip) Modified on 10/10/2007 (tro) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 33 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Complaint. Document filed by Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA), Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Philip Touitou in support of Motion to Dismiss# 2 Supplement Memo of Law in Support of Defendants Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.'s and Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss)(Touitou, Philip) Modified on 10/10/2007 (KA). (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 34 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Silverstein Properties.(Jansenson, Dina) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 35 MOTION to Dismiss. Document filed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc..(Semprevivo, Philip) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 36 DECLARATION of Philip C. Semprevivo in Support re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document filed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.. (Semprevivo, Philip) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 37 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc..(Semprevivo, Philip) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 38 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 9(b). Document filed by Applied Research Associates, Inc..Responses due by 10/23/2007(Zirkelbach, Gail) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 39 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 38 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 9(b).. Document filed by Applied Research Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Gail D. Zirkelbach in Support of Applied Research Associates, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 9(b)# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F)(Zirkelbach, Gail) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 40 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff/Relator's Complaint. Document filed by Hughes Associates, Inc..Responses due by 10/23/2007(O'Leary, Sean) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 41 DECLARATION of Sean T. O'Leary in Support re: 40 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff/Relator's Complaint.. Document filed by Hughes Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(O'Leary, Sean) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 42 NOTICE of Motion in Support of Silverstein Properties, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Silverstein Properties. (Jansenson, Dina) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 43 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion in Support of Silverstein Properties, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Silverstein Properties.(Jansenson, Dina) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 44 DECLARATION of Dina R. Jansenson in Support re: 43 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion in Support of Silverstein Properties, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss.. Document filed by Silverstein Properties. (Jansenson, Dina) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007 55 MOTION for Edward B. Keidan to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Teng & Associates, Inc. (jco) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/10/2007 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Philip Touitou to RE-FILE Document 33 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Complaint. ERROR(S): Filing Error of Attachments. Supporting documents must be filed individually. Event codes located under Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (KA) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

10/10/2007 45 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - FIRST MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. (Pollack, David) Modified on 10/11/2007 (KA). (Entered: 10/10/2007)

10/11/2007 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - NON-ECF DOCUMENT ERROR. Note to Attorney David M. Pollack to MANUALLY RE-FILE Document No. 45 Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice. This document is not filed via ECF. (KA) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. Document filed by Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA). (Touitou, Philip) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. Document filed by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.. (Touitou, Philip) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Motion to Dismiss; Declaration of Philip Touitou and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA), Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.. (Touitou, Philip) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 49 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jason Andrew Harrington on behalf of Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P. (Harrington, Jason) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 50 WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P. waiver sent on 9/10/2007, answer due 11/9/2007. Document filed by Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P.. (Harrington, Jason) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 51 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT: Teng's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in this proceeding shall be extended to, and, including November 9, 2007 (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/11/07) (js) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 52 ORDER ADMITTING ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE. Attorney Edward B. Keidan for Teng & Associates, Inc. admitted Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/11/07) (js) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 53 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL:Plaintiff and Relator Dr. Morgan Reynolds, through its undersigned counsel, hereby dismisses this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(i), with respect to the following defendants: The Boeing Company, United Airlines, and American Airlines. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/4/07) (js) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/11/2007 54 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P..(Harrington, Jason) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/15/2007 56 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - FIRST MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Patrcia Garry. Document filed by Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc..(Pollack, David) Modified on 10/16/2007 (KA). (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/16/2007 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - NON-ECF DOCUMENT ERROR. Note to Attorney David M. Pollack to MANUALLY RE-FILE Document No. 56 Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice. This document is not filed via ECF. (KA) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/16/2007 57 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint - (Motion refiled due to document error on 10/9/07). Document filed by Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA), Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc..(Touitou, Philip) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/16/2007 58 DECLARATION of Philip Touitou in Support re: 33 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Complaint., 57 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint - (Motion refiled due to document error on 10/9/07).. Document filed by Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA), Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.. (Touitou, Philip) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/16/2007 59 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 33 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Complaint., 57 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint - (Motion refiled due to document error on 10/9/07).. Document filed by Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA), Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.. (Touitou, Philip) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/17/2007 CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 55 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 10/09/2007, Receipt Number 628964. (jd) (Entered: 10/17/2007)

10/19/2007 60 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Jerry V. Leaphart dated 10/15/07 re: Counsel writes to request an extension of time to file opposition to the pending and anticipated motion to 1/28/08. ENDORSEMENT: So Ordered., Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 35 MOTION to Dismiss. 23 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss. 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. 38 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 9(b). 40 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff/Relator's Complaint. 43 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion in Support of Silverstein Properties, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. 57 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint - (Motion refiled due to document error on 10/9/07). Responses due by 1/28/2008 (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/19/07) (jco) (Entered: 10/19/2007)

10/25/2007 62 MOTION for Kevin R. Sido and Renee C. Choy to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P., Hughes Associates, Inc., Ajmal Abbasi, Eduardo Kausel, David Parks, David Sharp, Daniele Veneziano, Josef Van Dyck, Kasper William, Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. (RJA), Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C., Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc., Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, L.L.P., Teng & Associates, Inc., Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Science Applications International Corporation, Applied Research Associates, Inc., NuStats, Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc., Datasource, Inc., GeoStats, Inc. (jco) (Entered: 10/31/2007)

10/26/2007 61 STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AGAINST SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES, INC.: this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the F.R.C.P. as to defendant Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/26/07) (kco) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

10/31/2007 63 MOTION for Louis J. Dennis to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, L.L.P. (jco) (Entered: 11/05/2007)

11/05/2007 64 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION granting 62 Motion for Kevin R. Sido and Renee C. Choy to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kevin R. Sido and Renee C. Choy are admitted to practice pro hac vice to argue or try this particular case in whole or part on behalf of Defendants Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. in the above captioned case. Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/5/07) (tro) (Entered: 11/05/2007)

11/05/2007 Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 64 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating of Attorney Information. (tro) (Entered: 11/05/2007)

11/07/2007 65 ORDER granting 63 Motion for Louis J. Dennis to Appear Pro Hac Vice for defendant Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/7/07) (cd) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

11/07/2007 Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 65 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating of Attorney Information. (cd) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

11/08/2007 66 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION to Dismiss (Notice of Motion to Dismiss). Document filed by Teng & Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss# 2 Declaration of Edward B. Keidan in Support of Motion to Dismiss# 3 Certificate of Service)(Margolin, Jeffrey) Modified on 11/13/2007 (KA). (Entered: 11/08/2007)

11/09/2007 67 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION to Dismiss qui tam Complaint. Document filed by Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration)(Harrington, Jason) Modified on 11/13/2007 (KA). (Entered: 11/09/2007)

11/13/2007 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Jeffrey Steven Margolin to RE-FILE Document 66 MOTION to Dismiss (Notice of Motion to Dismiss). ERROR(S): Filing Error of Attachments. Supporting Documents must be filed individually. Event codes located under Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (KA) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/13/2007 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Jason Andrew Harrington to RE-FILE Document 67 MOTION to Dismiss qui tam Complaint. ERROR(S): Filing Error of Attachment Supporting Declaration must be filed individually. Event code located under Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (KA) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/13/2007 68 MOTION to Dismiss qui tam Complaint. Document filed by Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P..(Harrington, Jason) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
11/13/2007 69 FILING ERROR - WRONG DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - MOTION to Dismiss (Declaration in Support). Document filed by Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P.(Harrington, Jason) Modified on 11/13/2007 (KA). (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/13/2007 70 MOTION to Dismiss. Document filed by Teng & Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service via Federal Express on November 8, 2007)(Margolin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/13/2007 71 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 70 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document filed by Teng & Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service via Federal Express on November 8, 2007)(Margolin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/13/2007 72 DECLARATION of Edward B. Keidan in Support re: 70 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document filed by Teng & Associates, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service via Federal Express on November 8, 2007)(Margolin, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/13/2007 ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DOCUMENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Jason Andrew Harrington to RE-FILE Document 69 MOTION to Dismiss (Declaration in Support). Use the document type Declaration in Support of Motion found under the document list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (KA) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/13/2007 73 DECLARATION of Jason Harrington in Support re: 68 MOTION to Dismiss qui tam Complaint.. Document filed by Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek L.L.P.. (Harrington, Jason) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/13/2007 CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 64 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, in the amount of $50.00, paid on 10/25/2007, Receipt Number 631139. (jd) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

11/14/2007 CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 65 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 10/31/2007, Receipt Number 631568. (jd) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/21/2007 CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 64 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, in the amount of $50.00, paid on 11/14/2007, Receipt Number 632526. (jd) (Entered: 11/21/2007)

12/07/2007 74 MOTION for Sanctions. Document filed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc..(Semprevivo, Philip) (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/07/2007 75 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 74 MOTION for Sanctions.. Document filed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.. (Semprevivo, Philip) Modified on 12/12/2007 (gf). (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/07/2007 76 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - AFFIRMATION of Philip C. Semprevivo in Support re: 74 MOTION for Sanctions.. Document filed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (part 1), # 2 Exhibit A (part2), # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C (part 1), # 5 Exhibit C (part 2), # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E (part 1), # 8 Exhibit E (part 2), # 9 Exhibit F)(Semprevivo, Philip) Modified on 12/12/2007 (gf). (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/07/2007 77 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 74 MOTION for Sanctions.. Document filed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.. (Semprevivo, Philip) (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/07/2007 78 AFFIRMATION of Philip C. Semprevivo in Support re: 74 MOTION for Sanctions.. Document filed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (part1), # 2 Exhibit A (part 2), # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Errata C (part 1), # 5 Exhibit C (part 2), # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E (part 1), # 8 Exhibit E (part 2), # 9 Exhibit F)(Semprevivo, Philip) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
jberryhill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 07:58 PM   #2
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
Umm... Do you have that in a recognizable human language?
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:00 PM   #3
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
I echo the above sentiment.
Sabrina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:13 PM   #4
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
What does this torrent of words mean in actual human terms?
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:30 PM   #5
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by jberryhill View Post
UL's Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion For Sanctions:

http://www.johnberryhill.com/morgan-...-sanctions.pdf

The show so far:
<snipped out the rest>


Thanks, jberryhill.

I haven't followed the Morgan Reynolds litigation or the Judy Wood litigation recently, primarily because it is apparent that both of their complaints will be turfed in due course for being purely batcrap crazy, and secondarily because I have been following various other tinhatter lawsuits and there are only so many hours in a day.

For those who asked what that wall of text above is, I believe that it is the text of the docket report on the Reynolds litigation from Pacer, which shows the steps taken in the litigation so far, and the documents filed so far. Most of them are inconsequential, and I am guessing that that is probably why jberryhill didn't elaborate on them.

ETA: However, the motions to dismiss by various parties, including Silverstein Properties, might be interesting. Hint, hint, jberryhill.

Last edited by LashL; 12th December 2007 at 08:58 PM. Reason: to correct Morgan Reynolds' name (thanks, TAM)
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:37 PM   #6
Alareth
Philosopher
 
Alareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,682
LashL! Save us from the legalese!
Alareth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:38 PM   #7
jberryhill
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 252
Oh, sorry about that.

What you want to read is the .pdf document linked at the top of the post.

UL has filed a motion for sanctions against Reynolds and his attorney. This is a motion seeking a monetary award on the basis that the complaint was brought in violation of Federal Rule 11. Rule 11 requires that there be a good faith basis for allegations after due inquiry, for every document signed and submitted to the court.

The body of the post is the case docket. Each dated entry is a document filed or order in the case thus far.

Most of them are compulsory filings - attorneys filing a notice of appearance; Rule 7.1 statements (identifying certain information about the corporations who have appeared as defendants)

Of note are the voluntary dismissals of certain parties. For example, Reynolds has agreed to the dismissal of Boeing, American Airlines, and Silverstein Associates, apparently because he no longer believes they are culpable.

And, yes, I went for the UL brief first, since it is the first one seeking an ounce of flesh out of Reynolds and Leaphart. I will be reading and posting some of the 12(b) motions in due course.

Last edited by jberryhill; 12th December 2007 at 08:39 PM.
jberryhill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:41 PM   #8
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Thank you. I couldn't make sense out of this. Made my brain hurt.

Of course, anything requiring more than just snark does that.
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:42 PM   #9
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Thanks, jberryhill.

I haven't followed the Reynold Morgan litigation or the Judy Wood litigation recently, primarily because it is apparent that both of their complaints will be turfed in due course for being purely batcrap crazy, and secondarily because I have been following various other tinhatter lawsuits and there are only so many hours in a day.

For those who asked what that wall of text above is, I believe that it is the text of the docket report on the Morgan litigation from Pacer, which shows the steps taken in the litigation so far, and the documents filed so far. Most of them are inconsequential, and I am guessing that that is probably why jberryhill didn't elaborate on them.

ETA: However, the motions to dismiss by various parties, including Silverstein Properties, might be interesting. Hint, hint, jberryhill.
fyi, I believe it is Morgan Reynolds...

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:45 PM   #10
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by jberryhill View Post
Of note are the voluntary dismissals of certain parties. For example, Reynolds has agreed to the dismissal of Boeing, American Airlines, and Silverstein Associates, apparently because he no longer believes they are culpable.

Very interesting indeed. The motions to dismiss will still also be interesting, though

Last edited by LashL; 12th December 2007 at 08:57 PM. Reason: to add the word "also"
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:46 PM   #11
jberryhill
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 252
Here's a part of the UL smackdown:

It is apparent that Relator and his counsel, Mr. Leaphart, are using the filing of this lawsuit as a guise. The Complaint has been filed for no reason other than an attempt to promote and market the ridiculous and absurd conspiracy theories to which both Relator and Mr. Leaphart subscribe. Indeed, the pleading is essentially a piece of propaganda seeking to advance the legitimacy of their conspiracy theory organization -- "Scholars for 9/11 Truths" [sic] It, along with another nearly identical lawsuit, filed by Mr. Leaphart, on April 25, entitled Dr. Judy Wood v. Applied Research Assoc., Inc, [...] have been utilized to promote the Scholars for 9/11 Truths, the Relator's own websites, and Mr. Leapharts own speaking engagements promoting their common agenda.
jberryhill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:46 PM   #12
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
fyi, I believe it is Morgan Reynolds...

TAM
Duh on me! Of course. I'm a little dyslexic tonight for some reason. Been working too hard this week, methinks.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:47 PM   #13
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I hope the pooch isn't being deprived of his diet of corn on the cob as a result of all that work.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 08:55 PM   #14
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
I hope the pooch isn't being deprived of his diet of corn on the cob as a result of all that work.

TAM
[OT] Lol. Not to worry, the ET Corn Gods will provide sufficient amounts of corn for all dogs for all eternity ... or something like that.
[/OT]
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 09:17 PM   #15
jberryhill
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 252
Ah, Silverstein's motion consisted of:

For the sake of brevity Silverstein adopts and incorporates by reference as
though fully stated herein the following memoranda: Applied Research Associates, Inc.’s
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
9(b) (the “ARA Mem”) and Defendants Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. and Computer
Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.’s Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(h)(3) (the “SGH
Mem”).


It looks like Applied Research covered the more ground of the two prior motions to dismiss....

Relator believes that the events of September 11 were a hoax and that no aircraft struck
the World Trade Center Towers. Relator is attempting to misuse the False Claims Act to profit from this tragedy in a most peculiar way. Relator alleges that the Defendants conspired with the United States Government to demolish the World Trade Center Towers using lasers orbiting in space and then created an elaborate cover story including the lie that aircraft struck the World Trade Center.<1> As part of this supposed conspiracy, Relator alleges that the Defendants submitted false claims for payment to the United States Government. Ignoring the absurd nature of Relator’s allegations, Defendant Applied Research Associates, Inc. “(ARA”)hereby moves the Court to dismiss Relator’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to plead fraud with particularity.

<1> Relator maintains a website, www.nomoregames.net, detailing his conspiracy theories. However, Relator’s theories are considered outlandish and inflammatory even in conspiracy theorist circles. For example, following an interview on FOX News Channel in 2006 in which Relator said that no aircraft struck the WTC, Relator was expelled from the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (“SPINE”). See http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...s_booted_spine. In August 2006, the Journal of 9/11 Truth Studies refused to publish a paper co-written by Relator outlining his theory that no aircraft struck the WTC. See http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php...ner_crash_myth.


Beyond that, the primary grounds for dismissal are (1) Reynolds doesn't qualify under the FCA because he is not an "original source" of information about the alleged fraud, (2) all of his claims are based on public information, and (3) he has not alleged fraud with the required particularity in order to make out a claim of fraud.

The UL sanctions brief goes for the jugular.

Last edited by jberryhill; 12th December 2007 at 09:18 PM.
jberryhill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 10:34 PM   #16
fezzic
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 499
I read the linked PDF...

Oh my lord...
fezzic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2007, 11:22 PM   #17
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
What does "service upon defts" mean? It's in the fourth paragraph.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2007, 12:20 AM   #18
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,188
Originally Posted by jberryhill View Post
<1> Relator maintains a website, www.nomoregames.net, detailing his conspiracy theories. However, Relator’s theories are considered outlandish and inflammatory even in conspiracy theorist circles. For example, following an interview on FOX News Channel in 2006 in which Relator said that no aircraft struck the WTC, Relator was expelled from the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (“SPINE”). See http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...s_booted_spine. In August 2006, the Journal of 9/11 Truth Studies refused to publish a paper co-written by Relator outlining his theory that no aircraft struck the WTC. See http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php...ner_crash_myth.[/i]
Heheh, sounds like they're saying that if it wasn't accepted even by the idiots at JONES, it must really be nutty.

I agree!
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2007, 12:52 AM   #19
Gazpacho
Master Poster
 
Gazpacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,136
Pages 1-4 of the filing are just a flashback. The good stuff starts on page 5.

Oh Jerry, we hardly knew you.

Originally Posted by Gravy
What does "service upon defts" mean? It's in the fourth paragraph.
Serving the complaint upon the defendants, I think.

Last edited by Gazpacho; 13th December 2007 at 12:55 AM.
Gazpacho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2007, 02:59 PM   #20
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,291
Another reason Morgan's kin should have him committed before he gives away any assets he has to cover his liability for the lies and fraud he spreads like the rest of 9/11 truth.

Last edited by beachnut; 13th December 2007 at 03:00 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2007, 10:05 PM   #21
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
What does "service upon defts" mean? It's in the fourth paragraph.
Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
Serving the complaint upon the defendants, I think.

Yes, "service upon defts" in the docket report means "service upon defendants".


Jberryhill, any chance that you can host and post links to the other pdfs that you've referred to? Since you've already referenced them and, I presume, downloaded them from Pacer, it would be great if you could link them rather than others having to pay for access to them. If that is not feasible, I would be happy to host and post them if you drop me a PM with the docs. Thanks in advance!
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2007, 12:51 AM   #22
jberryhill
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Jberryhill, any chance that you can host and post links to the other pdfs that you've referred to? Since you've already referenced them and, I presume, downloaded them from Pacer, it would be great if you could link them rather than others having to pay for access to them. If that is not feasible, I would be happy to host and post them if you drop me a PM with the docs. Thanks in advance!
I read them live on Pacer, and the bulk of the motions are fairly dense treatments of the impropriety of the Relator's claims under the FCA. I have a brief due in one of my own cases later today, but over the weekend I will catch up on the fun & games in the Judy Wood case, and post more with adequate warnings about which are dull and which have fun bits in them.

The Judy Wood case is also cited in various of the Reynolds briefs as a basis for dismissal of the Reynolds case on the first-filed rule.
jberryhill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2007, 01:05 AM   #23
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
 
stilicho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,757
Originally Posted by jberryhill View Post
I read them live on Pacer, and the bulk of the motions are fairly dense treatments of the impropriety of the Relator's claims under the FCA. I have a brief due in one of my own cases later today, but over the weekend I will catch up on the fun & games in the Judy Wood case, and post more with adequate warnings about which are dull and which have fun bits in them.

The Judy Wood case is also cited in various of the Reynolds briefs as a basis for dismissal of the Reynolds case on the first-filed rule.
This interests me.

I am not so interested in seeing the court documents themselves if you are able to supply a summary with mere references. That way we can go read the original documentation if we wish to.

If I read this properly, some of the companies and individuals named in legal actions by Morgan Reynolds and others are replying in kind and employing their own legal rights to defend against libel.

Is this close? Are Boeing and Westfield America satisfied with simple admission by Reynolds that his accusations are baseless? What legal weight does it hold that Reynolds has dropped them from his actions? Do they know that they remain on his "no more games" website as liable for 9/11?
__________________
"Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue... It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness." -- REPO MAN

LondonJohn: "I don't need to cite."
Rolfe: "I really hate lawyers."
stilicho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2007, 05:24 AM   #24
bonavada
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,073
does this case hinge on deciding what were Reynolds (and his attorneys) motives for making their original accusations? am i on the right track?

BV
bonavada is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2007, 03:33 PM   #25
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by jberryhill View Post
I read them live on Pacer, and the bulk of the motions are fairly dense treatments of the impropriety of the Relator's claims under the FCA. I have a brief due in one of my own cases later today, but over the weekend I will catch up on the fun & games in the Judy Wood case, and post more with adequate warnings about which are dull and which have fun bits in them.

The Judy Wood case is also cited in various of the Reynolds briefs as a basis for dismissal of the Reynolds case on the first-filed rule.
Thanks, jberryhill. I'd love to read them, and I'm on vacation now until January 2, so I have lots of time for Legaltainment™.

Last edited by LashL; 15th December 2007 at 03:34 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2007, 03:53 PM   #26
Gazpacho
Master Poster
 
Gazpacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by bonavada View Post
does this case hinge on deciding what were Reynolds (and his attorneys) motives for making their original accusations? am i on the right track?
The case depends on whether Leaphardt ignored his procedural responsibilities. If it can be shown that getting publicity was more important to him than following procedure, that would count against him.
Gazpacho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2007, 04:31 PM   #27
bonavada
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
The case depends on whether Leaphardt ignored his procedural responsibilities. If it can be shown that getting publicity was more important to him than following procedure, that would count against him.
i am a complete layman on legal matters but playing the devil's advocate here.....
would it be a valid defence for Leaphardt to plead that the procedural cock-ups were simply administration errors? and as for the publicity seeking, Reynolds could possibly insist that the original action was brought because of protecting public interest. his counter could be that he genuinely believes the issues so important and that that alone rules out any frivolousness on his part. proving that wrong seems quite difficult given it's subjective nature.

BV
bonavada is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2007, 05:17 PM   #28
Gazpacho
Master Poster
 
Gazpacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by bonavada View Post
would it be a valid defence for Leaphardt to plead that the procedural cock-ups were simply administration errors?
He would have an interesting time explaining how an administration error led to naming so many defendants in a lawsuit without making any recognizable claims against them.
Gazpacho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2007, 06:09 PM   #29
bonavada
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
He would have an interesting time explaining how an administration error led to naming so many defendants in a lawsuit without making any recognizable claims against them.
sorry i assumed the procedural matter you referred to was the "first to file" infringement (point I(B) in the pdf) of course, as you point out, the sheer volume of unsubstantiated claims is staggeringly asinine.

so is it simply a cynical ploy by these characters to have "their day in court"? or is there no credit to be given to Reynolds in that he may genuinely believe his accusations to have substance? it seems very foolish to risk (as it seems) high financial penalties on such a venture. Reynolds and co must have been aware that a counter claim was likely. i just can't grasp the logic or the method behind it all. it all seems so very pointless.

BV
bonavada is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2007, 07:38 PM   #30
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by bonavada View Post
is there no credit to be given to Reynolds in that he may genuinely believe his accusations to have substance?
It appears that that is addressed in the motion for sanctions by the "empty-head pure-heart" portion of the argument.


"Subjective good faith...provides [no] safe harbor..." as the objective standard was established "to eliminate any "empty-head pure-heart" justification for patently frivolous arguments..." (See page 5 of the document -- page 8 of the PDF)
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2007, 08:09 PM   #31
bonavada
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
It appears that that is addressed in the motion for sanctions by the "empty-head pure-heart" portion of the argument.
"Subjective good faith...provides [no] safe harbor..." as the objective standard was established "to eliminate any "empty-head pure-heart" justification for patently frivolous arguments..." (See page 5 of the document -- page 8 of the PDF)
thanks for the pinpoint...
i must admit i only skimmed the pdf at first. though now after a good going over it looks like Reynolds is doomed. but is he still likely to be able to air some of his outlandish views on 9-11 in a court of law? if he does get that chance then (as the UL case states the whole exercise was to garner publicity) Reynolds may think it was all worth it. unless the sanctions are likely to be heavily punishing financially, i can't see who the winners and losers are here.....

BV
bonavada is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2007, 08:27 PM   #32
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by bonavada View Post
thanks for the pinpoint...
i must admit i only skimmed the pdf at first. though now after a good going over it looks like Reynolds is doomed. but is he still likely to be able to air some of his outlandish views on 9-11 in a court of law? if he does get that chance then (as the UL case states the whole exercise was to garner publicity) Reynolds may think it was all worth it. unless the sanctions are likely to be heavily punishing financially, i can't see who the winners and losers are here.....

BV
I don't want to steal jberryhill's thunder so I'll make this brief but it appears that Leaphart has doomed Reynolds' case to oblivion by violating the "first to file" rule in the specific circumstances of this case (and also by failing to meet the criteria for bringing a qui tam case on behalf of the federal government, and also by failing to properly plead the various causes of action that he alleges).

All of which would mean that Reynolds is not going to have the opportunity to argue his tinhat views in a court of law at all, as it will likely be dismissed without ever getting even to the stage of an Answer to Complaint having to be filed by the defendants.

This, of course, would make Leaphart and Reynolds the clear losers.

Last edited by LashL; 15th December 2007 at 08:30 PM. Reason: minor edits for clarity
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2007, 12:58 AM   #33
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,796
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
I don't want to steal jberryhill's thunder so I'll make this brief but it appears that Leaphart has doomed Reynolds' case to oblivion by violating the "first to file" rule in the specific circumstances of this case (and also by failing to meet the criteria for bringing a qui tam case on behalf of the federal government, and also by failing to properly plead the various causes of action that he alleges).

All of which would mean that Reynolds is not going to have the opportunity to argue his tinhat views in a court of law at all, as it will likely be dismissed without ever getting even to the stage of an Answer to Complaint having to be filed by the defendants.

This, of course, would make Leaphart and Reynolds the clear losers.

Is there any way this even could have survived a motion to dismiss, and/or for sanctions, even with perfect legal work by a team of highly competent lawyers, and no "first-to-file" issues? Doesn't the entire "space lasers" claim fail by itself due to lack of any possible basis in fact?
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2007, 06:44 AM   #34
bonavada
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Is there any way this even could have survived a motion to dismiss, and/or for sanctions, even with perfect legal work by a team of highly competent lawyers, and no "first-to-file" issues? Doesn't the entire "space lasers" claim fail by itself due to lack of any possible basis in fact?
this is what puzzles me. the case (against ul) seems so hopeless from the outset. what kind of rational person would risk high financial penalties on such idiocy? btw what level are the sanctions likley to be? thousands? tens of thousands?

BV
bonavada is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2007, 08:41 PM   #35
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Is there any way this even could have survived a motion to dismiss, and/or for sanctions, even with perfect legal work by a team of highly competent lawyers, and no "first-to-file" issues? Doesn't the entire "space lasers" claim fail by itself due to lack of any possible basis in fact?
In the absence of other issues, the claim could survive a motion to dismiss if it adequately pleaded the necessary elements and the necessary factual foundation to make out the causes of action that it asserts. The threshold to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is very low. That said, I do not think that Reynolds' complaint properly pleads the causes of action that it alleges.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court is required to assume, for purposes of the motion only, that the facts pleaded in the Complaint are true, and is required to assess only whether or not the Complaint manages to properly plead the cause(s) of action that it alleges.

That is not to say that the complaint doesn't have to set out an appropriate and sufficient factual basis before it is allowed to proceed, but it does mean that the court cannot just dismiss the claim because the judge happens to think that the facts pleaded are nutty. (In my own jurisdiction, the court can also dismiss a claim on a motion to dismiss for failure to properly state a cause of action if the facts pleaded are incapable of proof, but that's another topic.)

Also, a motion to dismiss for failure to properly state a cause of action is different than, for instance, a motion for summary judgment. In the latter, additional evidence (usually by way of affidavit) is admissible and the court can assess the claim and the opposition to it in greater depth than it is allowed to do on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

See the Kevin Ryan litigation and/or the threads here, here, here, here, and here at JREF about it, for a good example of a complaint being turfed on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Even though Ryan asserted all manner of woo in relation to the events of 9/11, he still didn't manage to properly plead any of the causes of action that he was alleging, despite the judge assuming, as he was required to do, that every fact asserted was true.


The instant case, however, is a motion for sanctions, which is a different thing entirely than either a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action or a motion for summary judgment. (In Ontario, there is no such thing as a motion for sanctions because the general rule is "costs follow the event" so the loser almost always has to pay the costs of the winner, but that is not the case in many jurisdictions in the U.S., apparently.)

I haven't yet read the motions to dismiss in the instant case, as jberryhill hasn't yet posted them, but I'm looking forward to reading them when he does.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2007, 08:54 PM   #36
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by bonavada View Post
this is what puzzles me. the case (against ul) seems so hopeless from the outset. what kind of rational person would risk high financial penalties on such idiocy? btw what level are the sanctions likley to be? thousands? tens of thousands?

BV

As I mentioned above, there is a defacto presumption of costs being awarded against the losing party and in favour of the winning party in my jurisdiction, so that, naturally, reduces the number of wholly and utterly frivolous lawsuits that are pursued here. In jurisdictions where no such presumption exists, it is not surprising that there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits, such as the one brought by Morgan Reynolds in this instance.

It is unfortunate, in my view, that people have to spend significant amounts of money to defend against frivolous and vexatious lawsuits without any assurance that they will recoup at least some of their costs in the process, and it is unfortunate that they have to bring motions for "sanctions" in order to recover their costs.

As for the quantum of costs that a motion for sanctions might impose, it will depend entirely upon what stage the litigation has reached and what costs have been or are likely to be incurred. If early in the process and without a lot of costs having been incurred, perhaps thousands. If later in the process and if significant costs have been incurred, perhaps tens of thousands.

The highest award of costs that I have ever obtained on a client's behalf was just shy of a million dollars, but that was after approximately 4 years of litigation involving a legal team of several lawyers (and law clerks, etc.) and including numerous motions and other interlocutory proceedings, and a lengthy trial (and the client had, of course, paid more than that in fees). And that's in a jurisdiction where, as I mentioned above, the general rule is that "costs follow the event". Even here where the presumption is in place, the winning party almost never recovers 100% of their actual costs, though, (the scales used are "partial indemnity" or "substantial indemnity" and the decision on which to apply depends on various circumstances in each case) so it's still not a perfect system. But, geez, having to defend against frivolous claims where there is no presumption in favour of recovering at least part of one's costs against ludicrous claims is really unfortunate.

Last edited by LashL; 16th December 2007 at 09:18 PM. Reason: Addition for clarity.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2007, 07:45 AM   #37
bonavada
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
It is unfortunate, in my view, that people have to spend significant amounts of money to defend against frivolous and vexatious lawsuits without any assurance that they will recoup at least some of their costs in the process, and it is unfortunate that they have to bring motions for "sanctions" in order to recover their costs.
OF COURSE.
surely it would be more sensible to allow the original defendants to move for sanctions when the original case is thrown out? then if the judge deems frivolity* full costs should be awarded there and then. why have to dredge it all up again, incurring more time/cost?

*smile using that term. as a Brit it seems amusing somehow.

BV

Last edited by bonavada; 17th December 2007 at 07:45 AM. Reason: syntax
bonavada is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2007, 07:58 AM   #38
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
Let's cut to the fun; Any chance that the sanctions will be enough to financially ruin the plaintiffs?
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2007, 08:39 PM   #39
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Let's cut to the fun; Any chance that the sanctions will be enough to financially ruin the plaintiffs?
Probably not if the claim is dismissed at this early stage. But give troofers enough time and enough rope...
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2007, 10:42 PM   #40
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Bumping for ease of reference for jberryhill and his further input, which I am looking forward to.


Last edited by LashL; 19th December 2007 at 10:43 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.