• 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.

Case Dismissed - Kevin Ryan v. Underwriters Labs

I assume that our friends over at Loose Change are merely interpreting this as a part of the great conspiracy?

Lash, as a matter of interest, why do you think that halfway credible lawyers put their name to the case? Is there a greater strategic plan we're unaware of here?
 
Architect said:
I assume that our friends over at Loose Change are merely interpreting this as a part of the great conspiracy?

Lash, as a matter of interest, why do you think that halfway credible lawyers put their name to the case? Is there a greater strategic plan we're unaware of here?
Click to expand...
For the most part it seems LCF is either ignoring or just not commenting on this. IMO, I really think the silence isn't a bad thing.
 
They are embarrassed that they were defeated by the legal system. Ryan could show no evidence to back any of his legally relevent claims. It is now out there in all its glory, for anyone to read, that Kevin Ryan took careful aim and shot himself in the foot.
 
jaydeehess said:
Ryan could show no evidence to back any of his legally relevent claims.
Click to expand...



You're quite wrong. They never got to any stage where one had to produce evidence of a claim. Kevin Ryan was unable even to state a claim in the complete absense of evidence.

The words he said, all taken as undeniably true, were insufficient even to make liability by UL at all possible.

That's way worse.
 
I can't imagine the lawyers he had that wrote:

“Mr Ryan was fired because he made written whistleblowing reports in writing regarding apparent violations of law and misuses of public resources concerning the execution of public contracts by NIST contractors and NIST officials, and UL itself.”

He actually made written reports in writing???? Who would have thought?
 
negativ said:
But Ryan's lawyer still gets paid, right?

I just want to make sure someone's thinking of the children lawyers.
Click to expand...

:D

Gord_in_Toronto said:
And, if you make it as far as Toronto and are here on a third Friday of a month, don't forget the Toronto Skeptics dinner meeting -- see my sig.

Even better, if you do make it here, let me know in advance and I'll buy both you and LashL a beer (one each). :D
Click to expand...

The dinner meeting sounds like fun. I'll try to make it some time soon!

Loss Leader said:
My lord. Well, I was right about several things: Courts bend over backwards to try to find something to salvage from a Complaint. And Motions to Dismiss are generally met with a lecture from the Court on what you did wrong and exactly what to do to correct it.

I personally believe Ryan will file an amended complaint that tries to shoehorn itself into the judge's instructions. His goal is and always was to survive long enough to get to the discovery phase. And he and his lawyers are clearly stupid enough to disregard all the warnings about sanctions.

Whether his amended complaint will survive the inevitable motion to dismiss is another story.
Click to expand...

Yes, you were indeed right about several things, LL. No surprise there, my friend. :)

I'll keep watching PACER to see if Ryan files an amended complaint on or before the August 23 deadline.
 
Slightly off topic, but the following quote from the link above to Christopher Brown's page might shed some light on the whole 9/11 issue:

"It has come to my attention that at least six medical professionals have been influenced in their care of the public with post hypnotic suggestion administered by Native American Medicine people. The reason the Medicine people have done this is determine if they will be allowed to influence Medical professionals in the care they provide to the public with the hypnosis used by the Native Medicine community."

It's all very clear now.
 
Please return the hook, line and sinker. Thank you.

---

You guys are funny.

And lost.


There are two broad classes of deception:

- ambiguity-enhancing deception;
- ambiguity-reducing deception.

The first is just muddying things up.

(You guys are great at that.)


Ambiguity-reducing deception is more subtle.

Here the goal is to make the deception targets confident, decisive, and wrong.


Have you ever considered that maybe - just maybe - Kevin Ryan is an ambiguity-reducing plant, and you are the targets?


You all seem awfully confident and decisive.

After all, he must be a truther, right?

Right?

(Hook, line, and sinker.)


What's more amusing, you are totally blind to what is being brazenly hidden in plain view around Mr. Ryan.


It seems the last laugh is on you.


Max

---
 
I think what Max is trying to say is this: Kevin Ryan is a plant of the Vast 911 Conspiracy (V911C). He is supposed to be so obnoxiously wrong so as to increase our confidence. Therefore we become blind to the real hints about the V911C, and continue to defend it. With one spurious lawsuit, the V911C has bought an entire forum to help muddy the waters, and all without contributing a single dime to our punch and pie fund.

Those [rule10]!
 
Max Photon said:
---

Have you ever considered that maybe - just maybe - Kevin Ryan is an ambiguity-reducing plant, and you are the targets?


You all seem awfully confident and decisive.

After all, he must be a truther, right?

Right?

(Hook, line, and sinker.)


What's more amusing, you are totally blind to what is being brazenly hidden in plain view around Mr. Ryan.


It seems the last laugh is on you.


Max

---
Click to expand...

No problem, mate, just prove it. Or provide any credible evidence.
 
Architect said:
Lash, as a matter of interest, why do you think that halfway credible lawyers put their name to the case? Is there a greater strategic plan we're unaware of here?
Click to expand...

Architect, I don't know why any halfway credible lawyer would put their name on the crappy complaint and the crappy supporting briefs that the plaintiff delivered in this case. They did a poor job of research, a poor job of analysis of the law, and, frankly, they ignored binding precedent at their peril.

Their strategy from the beginning was likely, as LossLeader pointed out, simply to survive a motion to dismiss and get to discoveries. But to do that, they still had to present a claim in a rational and coherent enough fashion to make it past the very, very, VERY low threshold that exists to survive a motion to dismiss.

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the claim are taken as true. There is no need to prove any of them. All one has to do is put forward allegations covering all of the elements of the torts alleged that would, assuming them to be true, give rise to a triable issue (in light of the existing law and binding precedent). And they couldn't even manage that!

There is no rational "strategy" that I can think of that these lawyers could have dreamt up that deliberately included making themselves look like idiots.
 
slyjoe said:
I can't imagine the lawyers he had that wrote:

“Mr Ryan was fired because he made written whistleblowing reports in writing regarding apparent violations of law and misuses of public resources concerning the execution of public contracts by NIST contractors and NIST officials, and UL itself.”

He actually made written reports in writing???? Who would have thought?
Click to expand...

Heh. I giggled over that one, too. However, it was probably an editing error. E.g. it was probably initially written as "written whistleblowing reports" and later intended to be changed to "whistleblowing reports in writing" in order to track the language of the statute, but then someone forgot to remove the word "written".

It happens. But it's still sloppy. And it still made me giggle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom