• 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

Miss Anthrope said:
:deconfus:
Click to expand...

Me, too. I can't even see the post in question, except via your quoting it and Hokulele quoting it. Strange, indeed.

ETA: To address the content of the post that I cannot locate, though...

No, Apollo, it was not a semantic slip on my part; it was a lack of comprehension on your part.

As for the time I spend checking for and providing updates on Ryan's case, it's pretty short work for someone who knows what they're doing and with access to the documents. It is kind of you, I'm sure, to worry about how I spend my free time, though, even if somewhat creepy.

What is it that you are wondering about Chris Bollyn? As I understand it, you can read all of his anti-Semitic crap at his site, which I tend to avoid like the plague. However, if you care to provide some info on whatever federal lawsuits he has pending at present that are relevant to the subject matter, I will take a look at PACER for them.

The rest of your post is a (not so) thinly veiled personal attack, which is wholly undeserved. Really, Frank, you should rise above such pettiness, stick to the subject at hand, and attempt to address matters in an adult manner.

Now, do you have anything meaningful to contribute to the thread or are you just playing silly buggers?
 
Last edited:
The post was most likely deleted after it was quoted.

Anyway, I am glad that LashL spends some of her time (probably the amount it takes to find the motion and read the high points) and shares it with us. This is a very interesting chain of events to learn about..

Keep up the good work!
 
Tokorona said:
The post was most likely deleted after it was quoted.
Click to expand...

Ahh, of course. I hadn't thought of that (I'm on the injured list with a torn ligament sustained on Saturday so I blame the painkillers instead of blaming Lisa). I probably shouldn't have replied to it if it was deleted but, oh well.

Tokorona said:
Anyway, I am glad that LashL spends some of her time (probably the amount it takes to find the motion and read the high points) and shares it with us. This is a very interesting chain of events to learn about..

Keep up the good work!
Click to expand...

Thanks, Tokorona. Your comments are very much appreciated :)
 
Further update and new filings today

There were additional documents filed in the Ryan litigation today (June 1, 2007).

UL has filed a motion to dismiss Ryan's Amended Complaint and a Brief in support of that motion. Not surprisingly, there is some necessary overlap/repetition in the new brief (as compared to the initial brief in respect of the initial motion to dismiss the initial complaint) but there are also some excellent additions and unique updates that make this latest brief very interesting reading, indeed.

I will send the docs to ~enigma~ and ask for his assistance again in posting the documents for your reading pleasure :)
 
All the law stuff I lknow is from TV, but it still seems very obvious to me that waterboy is completely ****ed.
 
slyjoe said:
Remind me (it's been a while since I've had a law class). To dismiss "with prejudice" means he can't file again?
Thx.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct.

If Ryan's complaint against UL is dismissed "with prejudice," it would mean that he cannot re-file the same claim in amended form against UL.
 
Last edited:
Well, here's this layperson's reading of the motion to dismiss:

Kevin Ryan is a daft git who hasn't provided the court a single reason within established law to justify this suit, and we ask the court to use a steel-toed boot when kicking him in the danglies about it.
Click to expand...

I think that's about the size of it.
 
I noticed earlier today that Swing Dangler from SLC "fame" has joined this forum and has posted in this sub-forum. He's a pretty staunch supporter of Mr. Ryan. If he's still around, I was hoping we could get an update on his outlook since this:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/screwloosechange/3805768357465979302/

Minadin said:
Kevin Ryan was completely out of place to make the statements he did, both publicly, and to the NIST, and he deserved to be fired. It's not his department, it's not his field, and he's not in a position to speak for the whole company. I don't think that any competant professional would expect less in this situation. If fact, in my own field, I would be in a good deal more trouble than he is in.

That he's now trying to turn his wrongful termination suit into a farce of a 9/11 investigation, apparently, only reinforces how correct the UL was in letting him go. I expect the judge in his case will see this, and I would be extremely suprised to see any sort of verdict in his favor.
Click to expand...
 
I doubt it. He's a manager and not a scientist. As long as he has sufficient people skills he'll find a job.
 
Why did Ryan feel the need to bring the events of 911 into his case?

It seems to me that regardless of his opinions on 911 his strongest case is that...

1. He was not contravening UL Employee IT policy by using the e-mail facility for personal use.

2. The official status of his e-mail is a matter of opinion because of UL's Employee IT policy (his e-mail to NIST has a tone that suggests he is representing UL which could be a slight problem for him).

3. If he can demonstrate beyond doubt that he was using the e-mail in a personal capacity then UL must have fired him for his personal opinions which I understand is a limitation on his right to free speech as a private individual.

Hopefully UL have now addressed their IT policy to forbid the personal use of their e-mail system.

One thing that I do find curious is the claim that this was published on the internet almost immediately. Why would NIST publish an official correspondence so quickly?
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
3. If he can demonstrate beyond doubt that he was using the e-mail in a personal capacity then UL must have fired him for his personal opinions which I understand is a limitation on his right to free speech as a private individual.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, a private company, such as the UL, isn't bound by the same "freedom of speech!!1!" rules as is the government, because they can't reprimand you for your free speech in the way that the government can. (It's un-possible for a private company to abridge your right to freedom of speech).

William Rea said:
One thing that I do find curious is the claim that this was published on the internet almost immediately. Why would NIST publish an official correspondence so quickly?
Click to expand...

NIST didn't publish it. Mr. Ryan copied it to conspiracy fanatasist sites himself when he sent it to the NIST. That's one of the more damning facts of the case against him, in my opinion.
 
William Rea said:
One thing that I do find curious is the claim that this was published on the internet almost immediately. Why would NIST publish an official correspondence so quickly?
Click to expand...
That's not at all what happened. The fellow contacted one of those conspiracy sites (could have been 911letsroll) either before or simultaneously to his send button. Both the email date and the appearance of his epiphany on the internet were almost identical.

You also aren't acquainted with IT policies. Generally, you can't use the systems for personal use, but that's rarely enforced. The policy that Mr Ryan violated was using his title and the corporate name as representative or indicative of his authority. That's clearly crossing the line.

There are likely federal or state regulations that allow such prohibitions. It will be up to Mr Ryan to prove that they don't apply in his case--which is rather unlikely.
 
Let me put this another way. If my avatar was my company's corporate logo and I signed my name with my title, you would expect that I am speaking as a representative of that company and not as an individual on a forum. Big difference.

And, yes, I would expect to be disciplined if I did that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom