Case Dismissed - Kevin Ryan v. Underwriters Labs

[~enigma~]

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.

Don't ruin this with facts counsellor.

Writtwn whistleblowing reports in writing...classic

 

[LashL]

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]!

William Rodriguez' lawsuit was orders of magnitude more obnoxiously wrong than Ryan's. I guess in Max's world, that makes Rodriguez a sooper duper NWO/V911C plant.

Oh, and Field O'Connell's lawsuit is vastly more obnoxiously wrong than Ryan's, too. Another obvious plant.

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

The only thing I can think of is that they are honestly unaware of how nuts they are. Many lawyers (sadly) take on their clients' personas and attitudes no matter how crazy. An attorney once said to me, "It's not my job to tell my client what's right, it's my job to get my client what he wants." Now, I think that's some horrifyingly bad reasoning but there are enough people out there that do it.

Either that or they're "true believers" and the lawsuit was never meant for the courts. It was meant for their fans. Losing, in such a twisted circumstance, would be a badge of honor. It would "prove" the violence inherent in the system or some such nonsense.

 

[LashL]

The only thing I can think of is that they are honestly unaware of how nuts they are. Many lawyers (sadly) take on their clients' personas and attitudes no matter how crazy. An attorney once said to me, "It's not my job to tell my client what's right, it's my job to get my client what he wants." Now, I think that's some horrifyingly bad reasoning but there are enough people out there that do it.

Yikes. While it is true that it is not a lawyer's job to tell a client what is right, it certainly is a lawyer's job to tell a client whether or not a claim has any merit, and whether, even if it has some merit, to tell the client whether or not it is likely to be successful, and to explain the risks involved in pursuing it.

If a client insisted on pursuing a claim that I believed was doomed to fail, I would still advocate vigorously on the client's behalf, but only after getting a signed acknowledgment that I had advised the client of the probable outcome. And I would not drop the ball by failing miserably to even state a claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Either that or they're "true believers" and the lawsuit was never meant for the courts. It was meant for their fans. Losing, in such a twisted circumstance, would be a badge of honor. It would "prove" the violence inherent in the system or some such nonsense.

That is possible, but I think it unlikely. Three troofer lawyers all acting on Ryan's case? Nahhhhhh.

I am inclined to chalk this one up to bad lawyering and greed. I find it difficult to comprehend how they could do such a pitiful job without either working really hard at it, or simply not giving a damn.

 

[rwguinn]

snip>>>

I am inclined to chalk this one up to bad lawyering and greed. I find it difficult to comprehend how they could do such a pitiful job without either working really hard at it, or simply not giving a damn.

LashL, Loss Leader:
It is with deep regret that I must tell you that here in the Untied States of 'Murica, there are vast numbers of people (i.e., >5) who believe that there is absolutely no way anyone can lose a job for any reason except rank discrimination of some form.
Mostly, it is race, but often, sexual orientation, sexual harrassment, "Hostile workplace"--you name it. Lawyers are not exempt from it, and these types of lawyers are prone to seeking "Legislation though lawsuit"--or whatever that phrase is--but it means imposing your mores on the population when Congress won't do what you think they should. The worst part is that they actually believe that they know what is best...
I wish it were otherwise...

 

[Loss Leader]

LashL, Loss Leader:
It is with deep regret that I must tell you that here in the Untied States of 'Murica, there are vast numbers of people (i.e., >5) who believe that there is absolutely no way anyone can lose a job for any reason except rank discrimination of some form.
Mostly, it is race, but often, sexual orientation, sexual harrassment, "Hostile workplace"--you name it. Lawyers are not exempt from it, and these types of lawyers are prone to seeking "Legislation though lawsuit"--or whatever that phrase is--but it means imposing your mores on the population when Congress won't do what you think they should. The worst part is that they actually believe that they know what is best...
I wish it were otherwise...

Your political position notwithstanding, Lash and I are lawyers and we know that for all but the smallest minority of attorneys, one's good reputation is the most important thing one has. These lawyers who seek "legislation through lawsuit" are, in the main, a myth. Large public interest organizations like the NAACP and ACLU may engineer lawsuits but these are very rare and almost always occupy some vague space in the upper echelons of appellate litigation.

I feel confident that Ryan and his trio of dingleberries don't have anything to do with what you're talking about.

Also, Lash is Canadian. I'm right here in America with you.

 

[rwguinn]

Your political position notwithstanding, Lash and I are lawyers and we know that for all but the smallest minority of attorneys, one's good reputation is the most important thing one has. These lawyers who seek "legislation through lawsuit" are, in the main, a myth. Large public interest organizations like the NAACP and ACLU may engineer lawsuits but these are very rare and almost always occupy some vague space in the upper echelons of appellate litigation.

I feel confident that Ryan and his trio of dingleberries don't have anything to do with what you're talking about.

Also, Lash is Canadian. I'm right here in America with you.

I will admit that my post was intentional hyperbole.
There are, however, "run-of-the-mill" folks here who actually DO believe that everything is discrimination or a conspiracy against them (twoofers, anyone?), and one can always find a lawyer willing to take your money and the risk. Wee this not true, we wouldn't have all the urban legends with a grain of truth (McDonalds Coffee), and "This is true" would be out of business...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

What's Kevin Ryan's e-mail address? I think I peeved off Dylan Avery on MySpace cause I think he had his friend Korey Rowe or Jason Bermas reply back to me.

I just want to ask Kevin Ryan if water can cut steel. (I already know it does but I want to see if he knows anything that's real)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I would imagine that with enough pressure water could cut steel.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I would imagine that with enough pressure water could cut steel.

You would imagine correctly.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

 

[LashL]

Your political position notwithstanding, Lash and I are lawyers and we know that for all but the smallest minority of attorneys, one's good reputation is the most important thing one has. These lawyers who seek "legislation through lawsuit" are, in the main, a myth. Large public interest organizations like the NAACP and ACLU may engineer lawsuits but these are very rare and almost always occupy some vague space in the upper echelons of appellate litigation.

I feel confident that Ryan and his trio of dingleberries don't have anything to do with what you're talking about.

I concur, my learned friend.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Don't ruin this with facts counsellor.

Writtwn whistleblowing reports in writing...classic

Well, I went with "written whitsleblowing reports in writing that blew whistles within the report," bu tthey tightened it a little.

 

[LashL]

I will admit that my post was intentional hyperbole.
There are, however, "run-of-the-mill" folks here who actually DO believe that everything is discrimination or a conspiracy against them (twoofers, anyone?), and one can always find a lawyer willing to take your money and the risk. Wee this not true, we wouldn't have all the urban legends with a grain of truth (McDonalds Coffee), and "This is true" would be out of business...

I concur with some of this as well. As I mentioned above, I chalk this one up to bad lawyering and greed (which I see as being similar to your point about the small number of lawyers "willing to take your money and the risk").

But I do not think in Ryan's case that his lawyers are truthers; rather, I think that they just engaged in bad lawyering motivated, in whole or in part, by greed. (And greed on Ryan's part, as well.) I remember someone posting some history on these particular lawyers quite some time ago and although I do not recall the details, I do recall that one or more of them had at least some history of taking on several dubious "anti-government" cases. He might fall loosely into the category of "believing everything is discrimination or everything is a conspiracy" or, perhaps more likely, "everything the government is involved in is bad so let's just keep suing them for anything and everything".

I haven't seen anything to indicate that they are actually truthers, though, and I doubt that there could be three truther lawyers all acting on Ryan's behalf.

 

[Minadin]

I just think they are bad lawyers. I mean, if you read their submissions in the other thread, how could you think otherwise? Someone with a communications degree, or a philosophy degree, and no legal expertise whatsoever could have written a much more compelling (and gramatically correct) argument.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

That is possible, but I think it unlikely. Three troofer lawyers all acting on Ryan's case? Nahhhhhh.

Why not? Surely the roster of full-blown truthers includes plenty of lawyers; wouldn't they jump at the chance to rep Ryan? And wouldn't Ryan look for lawyers who've drunk the kool-aid, and are inclined to believe his nonsense?

Remember, we're talking delusional people here - lawyers included. IMO, the only way they could've ever presented such a preposterous case is if they had also broken from reality, and actually believed in Ryan. Assuming they have the truther ability to disregard reality, just sweep it aside, all bets are off as to what they were actually thinking.

Sometimes the results of such a delusional mindset are quite embarrassing, obviously.

 

[jhunter1163]

Why not? Surely the roster of full-blown truthers includes plenty of lawyers; wouldn't they jump at the chance to rep Ryan? And wouldn't Ryan look for lawyers who've drunk the kool-aid, and are inclined to believe his nonsense?

Remember, we're talking delusional people here - lawyers included. IMO, the only way they could've ever presented such a preposterous case is if they had also broken from reality, and actually believed in Ryan. Assuming they have the truther ability to disregard reality, just sweep it aside, all bets are off as to what they were actually thinking.

Sometimes the results of such a delusional mindset are quite embarrassing, obviously.

I disagree. I doubt there are many, if any, truther lawyers. For one thing, if there were, wouldn't they be doing things like suing the government to disclose information not covered under FOIA? The fact that Twoofers have lawyers should not be interpreted to mean that the lawyers believe. Lawyers are (generally) paid advocates; it's their JOB to advance their clients' claims.

I'd like to think that anyone smart enough to pass a bar exam would be smart enough to realize that the Twoofy claims are nonsense. I would like to think that. Really I would. Don't burst my bubble.

 

[rwguinn]

I just think they are bad lawyers. I mean, if you read their submissions in the other thread, how could you think otherwise? Someone with a communications degree, or a philosophy degree, and no legal expertise whatsoever could have written a much more compelling (and gramatically correct) argument.

I guess I have to agree with the consensus.
I mean, when even Lawyers are telling us that there are bad, incompetent lawyers, there has to be at least a grain of truth (in the factual sense, not twoof and/or Pravda sense) there..

 

[rwguinn]

Here's an interesting take on the lawyer bit from "The Rocky Mountain News"

And now I'm done. I'm wayyyyy over my head....

They say cops develop a dark view of human nature given all the predators, creeps and failures they encounter.
But maybe some attorneys develop a similar affliction: They spend so much time around people portraying themselves as victims of injustice that they begin to doubt that anyone is treated fairly in the normal course of events.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

The fact that Twoofers have lawyers should not be interpreted to mean that the lawyers believe.

True, but I'm not making a general claim. I'm just saying that in this instance their arguments are so laughable, a split with reality seems the only logical explanation.

Some people are just broken. Once they leave reality behind, how educated or intelligent they once were becomes irrelevant.

Take Philip J. Berg, Esq., for example...

http://www.911forthetruth.com/

 

[jhunter1163]

Hmmm. That site hasn't been updated since January. When was Rodriguez' suit dismissed?

I'd agree with BRV in principle that anyone, no matter how highly educated, can go wacky. I'd like to think though that such occurrences are rare among the really smart folks. Rare, but not unheard of.