Kevin Ryan v. UL - the legal saga continues

LashL

Goddess of Legaltainment™
LashL
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
36,711
As many of the regulars at this subforum know, Kevin Ryan's lawsuit against Underwriters Laboratories (ostensibly a wrongful termination claim but, in reality, a backdoor attempt to draw attention to himself and the tinhat conspiracy theories that he believes in regarding the events of 9/11) was dismissed in its entirety - with prejudice - in late August.

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

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

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

Scroll down to September 2007 and see:

Motion to Amend
Affidavit of Kevin Ryan
Exhibit A to Ryan Affidavit (Termination letter from UL)
Exhibit B to Ryan Affidavit (Ryan letter to NIST)
Exhibit C to Ryan Affidavit (Email excerpt)

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

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

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

For ease of reference, the prior threads tracking this litigation are located - in reverse chronological order - here, here, here, and here.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Well you have to admit one thing, he's a sucker for punishment.
Click to expand...

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

Damn, you're good :D
 
*switches off his NWO mind control machine then sneaks out of the building*

:whistling
 
If Mr Ryan is currently unemployed, how is he managing to fund this legal process? Or will his legal rep be working for nothing?
 
So, Mick Harrison eventually supplies documentation, which surely he should have supplied earlier in the proceedings. The documentation does encapsulate Ryan's lie nicely, though:

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

J. Thomas Chapin said:
UL does not certify structural steel.



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


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


Kevin Ryan said:
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components use in the construction of the WTC buildings.
Click to expand...
 
Comsat Angel said:
If Mr Ryan is currently unemployed, how is he managing to fund this legal process? Or will his legal rep be working for nothing?
Click to expand...

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

Which brings up the question: when will he embrace the theory that chemtrails are a U.S. Government plot to inoculate the population with drugs?
 
This reminds me of my jury duty a year ago, in Beverly Hills Court. A civil case. Lasted four days and at the end - hung jury. Some of us jury members lamented and felt very disappointed. The judge told us to get over ourselves, and not to worry even a bit. She said the case had been going on for two years and it'd go on longer than that. Civil cases are NEVER over. Until the parties get together somewhere and come to some kind of compromise out of court.
 
Could Ryan possibly get some kind of injunction against him for filing frivolous lawsuits?
 
sleahead said:
So, Mick Harrison eventually supplies documentation, which surely he should have supplied earlier in the proceedings. The documentation does encapsulate Ryan's lie nicely, though:

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




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

A stunning, bold faced lie at that.
 
From the first dismissal:

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

Could have walked away, now he'll hopefully lose everything he owns. What a moron.
 
Lash, do you know anything about Morgan Reynolds' legal shenanigans? Someone mentioned that he was trying to make a case.
 
Comsat Angel said:
If Mr Ryan is currently unemployed, how is he managing to fund this legal process? Or will his legal rep be working for nothing?
Click to expand...

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

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

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

I hope he does because then there is still a possibility that LossLeader's prediction could come to pass (that some time around 2010, Ryan will go to jail. :) )
 
Civilized Worm said:
Lash, do you know anything about Morgan Reynolds' legal shenanigans? Someone mentioned that he was trying to make a case.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Correction: I overlooked Field McConnell. So, it is not accurate to say that all of the 9/11 woo plaintiffs have surnames beginning with the letter R. :)
 
dudalb said:
Could Ryan possibly get some kind of injunction against him for filing frivolous lawsuits?
Click to expand...

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

That said, if Ryan is unsuccessful with his motion for reconsideration (as I expect he will be) and if he is unsuccessful in any subsequent appeal, then he will not be able to re-assert a claim against UL for wrongful dismissal since the original judgment dismissed his claims with prejudice.
 
dudalb said:
Could Ryan possibly get some kind of injunction against him for filing frivolous lawsuits?
Click to expand...

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

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

Kevin,

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

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

From exhibit B...

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

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

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

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


He's falling off a cliff, so he's flapping his arms really hard on the theory that he might as well try to fly, as he's got nothing to lose. I suspect that Waterboy believes that testing the behavior of assemblies identical to those used in the WTC under various fire loads is somehow equivalent to testing the steel used in the actual assemblies. See here for more information on the UL tests.
 
~enigma~ said:
Is Ryan trying to lose? Why does he think filing an email from 12/2003 that contradicts his claim in the letter that got him fired 11 months later is evidence in his favor?
Click to expand...

And, in true twoofer fashion, he even cherrypicks his own bloody email exchange. He appends only page 2 of 5 and page 3 of 5, still manages to get them out of order, and renders the entire exchange without proper context or authentication. It makes me wonder what might be found in the other three pages, and I cannot help but suspect that they might provide details and context that would be harmful to Ryan's position. (Although is position is already about as bad as it can be. :D )
 
SpitfireIX said:
He's falling off a cliff, so he's flapping his arms really hard on the theory that he might as well try to fly, as he's got nothing to lose.
Click to expand...

Well, he might actually have something to lose this time around, in light of the judge's strong warning to Ryan and his lawyer about costs sanctions when the judge dismissed the complaint in August. I would not be surprised if the judge makes a costs award against Ryan if UL requests same.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I suspect that Waterboy believes that testing the behavior of assemblies identical to those used in the WTC under various fire loads is somehow equivalent to testing the steel used in the actual assemblies.
Click to expand...

Or maybe hoping that the judge won't understand the difference.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Or maybe hoping that the judge won't understand the difference.
Click to expand...
Let's see...on one hand we have a hope that a judge will be blind to the obvious difference between an assembly and a component and on the other hand we have Ryan and his lawyer facing legal repercussions such as a fine and possibly a jail term. Which side would you want to be on?
 
This just in: UL’s Opposition to Ryan’s Motion to Amend and Alter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have posted it to my site at http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/kevinryanv.ullitigation (direct link here: http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/57ULOppositiontoRyanMotiontoAmend.pdf )
and I have sent it to ~enigma~ for posting at his Aquaman, American Idiot site as well at http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/home
 
Too funny, LashL. How inept can one man and his lawyer(s) be?
 
Heh, I love 4. I am not even a lawyer and I could figure this one out.

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

Funny, indeed.

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

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


But not recently.

And not by experienced lawyers who should know better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom