• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kevin Ryan's lawsuit - Update and Court documents here

pvt1863 said:
That's hilarious. I actually believed at first that this could be a real truther lawsuit, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Their real "work" is so bad, it is practically a parody of itself.
Click to expand...
It got me too. I had no Idea it was a parody site. Like the quote from B.J. Edwards says: 9/11 Truth is Stranger than Fiction.
 
capracus said:
It got me too. I had no Idea it was a parody site. Like the quote from B.J. Edwards says: 9/11 Truth is Stranger than Fiction.
Click to expand...

Bought it briefly! Laughed hard, at the symmetry of da twoofers, in it!

With da twoofers, "fact" is fiction, and vice-a-versa! 1111))0ooo111eleven!100000000!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
It really is comedy gold.

But before we laugh too much, consider just how much of UL's time and money Ryan is wasting on this fishing expedition. Not so funny if you're over there.

Likewise let's ask ourselves why the three Indianapolis solicitors are wasting their time on such a frivilous claim. With due respect to Lash, lawyers don't tend to work for nowt. So do they work on a "no win, no fee" basis expecting a settlement (heaven forbid) or is some daft eejit paying them?

[sigh]
 
pvt1863 said:
That's hilarious. I actually believed at first that this could be a real truther lawsuit, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Their real "work" is so bad, it is practically a parody of itself.
Click to expand...


I thought it was real at first too. But then I realized, if they want to actually win a lawsuit, they'd have to prove what they say. And no twoofer is going to put himself/herself in a situation where they'd have to actually PROVE something.
 
Architect said:
It really is comedy gold.

But before we laugh too much, consider just how much of UL's time and money Ryan is wasting on this fishing expedition. Not so funny if you're over there.

Likewise let's ask ourselves why the three Indianapolis solicitors are wasting their time on such a frivilous claim. With due respect to Lash, lawyers don't tend to work for nowt. So do they work on a "no win, no fee" basis expecting a settlement (heaven forbid) or is some daft eejit paying them?

[sigh]
Click to expand...

Oh, I hear you on the waste of time, money and resources that it is costing UL to defend against Ryan's claim. It is not funny at all.

Unfortunately, people bring frivolous lawsuits against defendants with "deep pockets" every day, in hopes that the deep pocketed defendant will toss them some money as a "nuisance" settlement - i.e., it is more economical to toss them a small amount of money to go away than it is to spend a much greater amount of money defending the claim, as frivolous as it may be - especially when the plaintiff is essentially "judgment proof" in the sense that he has not sufficient assets to satisfy an eventual judgment for costs, etc.

As far as these particular lawyers are concerned in this particular case, I have no idea whether they are acting on a contingency fee basis or not, but it is pretty common in the U.S. to do so. (It is not nearly so common in Canada, and until a few years ago, it was not even legal in Canada for lawyers to do so.)

The contingency fee arrangment is the "no win, no fee" scenario that you mentioned. I.e., if the plaintiff obtains a settlement or a judgment in his favour, the lawyers get a specified percentage of same - plus their disbursements and such - before the plaintiff sees a dime of any settlement or judgment).

That said, Kevin Ryan has been panhandling for donations since he launched his lawsuit (which seeks only monetary damages for himself personally, don't forget, and which seeks no declaratory relief of any kind whatsoever relating to the events of 9/11), ostensibly to help with his legal fees, (he calls it a "defence fund" even though he's the plaintiff). This would lead donors to believe that he is required to pay his lawyers, and would suggest that they are not acting on a contingency fee basis. However, the "defence fund" site that I read back when he started his panhandling did not set out any details whatsoever about the arrangements he had with his lawyers, did not say that he had any specific financial commitment to meet, did not have any oversight whatsoever, did not even link to his complaint, did not have any mechanism for accounting for donations, did not have any mechanism for ensuring that donations received would go to the purpose alleged, did not have any checks and balances in place, did not have anything at all in place to assure donors that money donated to Kevin Ryan would go to funding his lawsuit any more than it would go to funding his grocery bill, his hydro bill, or his bar tab at his local pub.

More re: the lawyers. jaydeehess posted something to the effect that these particular lawyers were all extremely liberal politically and into what he described as "Big Brother" cases in which they acted against corporations or government agencies, on behalf of "the little guy" and he posted some links in support of his assessement in the other thread. I have not done any research whatsoever into the proclivities of these particular lawyers because my interest is in the lawsuit rather than the laywers, but since you raised the point about why lawyers might do this without being paid, I thought I should mention this. The previous thread is here for anyone who wants to check out the links that jaydeehess provided and research them further.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
I bought it too. I had no problem believeing that this was a real suit.

Other than its ridiculous nature, what gives it away as a spoof? I mean, really, given what the twoofers do in fact believe, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...

Other than its ridiculous nature, not a thing.

The spoof lawsuit looks downright sensible on its face compared to those filed by William Rodriguez and Kevin Ryan. And given that the lawsuits filed by Rodriguez and Ryan are entirely ludicrous, yet are blindly accepted without question by the "truth" movement, that speaks volumes about the gullibility, naivete, and stupidity of members of the "truth" movement.
 
Last edited:
NIST doesnt lie there... it simply fails to mention some obscure phenomenon nobody knows about known as thermal conductivity.
Click to expand...

racerX on LC

That is why insulation is unneccessary on structural steel. Heat is conducted away from hot zones too fast to allow it to heat up to the point of losing significant strength.
 
jaydeehess said:
racerX on LC

That is why insulation is unneccessary on structural steel. Heat is conducted away from hot zones too fast to allow it to heat up to the point of losing significant strength.
Click to expand...

All of our clients ever are going to be furious when they find out.

We're going to have to start a brand new world wide conspiracy in the building professions to keep anyone from changing the codes.
 
It's interesting that not a single troofer has anything substantive to say at all about this ridiculous lawsuit of Ryan's. I don't blame them - I'd be embarrassed, too, if I was in their shoes.
 
Some additional documents have been filed with the court today (May 11) and Wednesday (May 9) - I will send the docs to ~enigma~ and ask him to host them on the site he graciously created for that purpose so that they are available for everyone to read.

It appears that at the pretrial on May 3, 2007, the judge invited the parties to provide supplemental briefs in light of a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision on the issue of public policy exceptions to the common law at-will employment doctine, which had been decided subsequent to the filing of the initial briefs on UL's Motion to Dismiss.

UL has, as a result, submitted a supplementary brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss, in which it says that the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in the other matter (Meyer) supports their contention that Ryan cannot succeed in trying to expand the public policy exception in the manner in which he is attempting to do so via his Complaint.

No supplementary brief has been filed on Ryan's behalf yet in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, but I'll keep watching :)
 
Thanks, ~enigma~ much appreciated. :)

As an aside, there is another crazy lawsuit that I would like to post. This one is by Field McConnell, making all manner of allegations spanning 1970-2001 against a vast array of defendants including:

several former U.S. presidents;
several former Canadian prime ministers;
a bevy of politicians including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry, to name only a few; and
other notables, including Jane Garvey, Rudy Guiliani, Teresa Heinz, David Rockefeller, George Tenet.

The list is quite staggering. The above-mentioned are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Also, there is a long list of alleged co-conspirators not named as defendants, which includes, as a mere sampling:

Kofi Annan, Conrad Black, Hans Blix, Noam Chomsky, Vince Foster, Jimmy Hoffa Jr., Saddam Hussein, Ted Kaczynski, Pierre Trudeau, Joseph Massino, and Vito Rizzutto.

I don't want to start a new thread for this one because I am pretty sure that it will go absolutely nowhere, but I thought it might be worth posting a copy of the complaint, as another insight into the mind of truthers and the ridiculous lawsuits they launch.

So, I will email it to you if you don't mind hosting it.
 
Sweet Holy Mother of Mercy!

How did that person manage to get to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel?

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Sweet Holy Mother of Mercy!

How did that person manage to get to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Pretty unbelievable, isn't it?

He has also launched another lawsuit against Boeing and A.L.P.A. I'll pass that one along to ~enigma~ as well, if he doesn't mind hosting it. It is short and self-explanatory. Boeing and ALPA told him that he is "crazy". I think they are correct in that assessment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom