Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds smacked down by court... again.

[LashL]

As many here will recall, the lawsuits brought by Judy "Space Beams" Wood and Morgan "No Planes" Reynolds against - well, just about everybody and his brother - making all manner of unfounded allegations in support their various 9/11 fantasies, were both dismissed with prejudice by the court on June 26, 2008.

By way of update, both Reynolds and Wood filed motions for reconsideration on July 11, 2008.

Reynolds Motion for Reconsideration

Wood Motion for Reconsideration


And...both were denied on July 11, 2008, in a one-sentence order by Judge Daniels.

Reynolds Motion Denied

Wood Motion Denied

Reynolds did not file a Notice of Appeal.

However, Wood filed a Notice of Appeal on July 25, 2008, which you can read here.

So, hey, at least the Legaltainment™ - insofar as Wood is concerned - continues for a little while longer.

Enjoy!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Lash, I'm wondering about the attorney representing Dr. Wood.

In my opinion, the attorney either:

a. buys into her theories

b. feels obliged to represent her to the best of his ability as long as she can pay for his services; or

c. some other reason I can't think of.

Just wondering how you felt about the guy?

 

[Dog Town]

WoW! Has Enigma shuffled off to...?
Thank you, for the re-cap.

 

[X]

I thought "dismissed with prejudice" meant that further motions would be considered an active attempt to waste the court's time, and subject to fines.

Or something.

A lawyer I am not.

 

[LashL]

Lash, I'm wondering about the attorney representing Dr. Wood.

In my opinion, the attorney either:

a. buys into her theories

b. feels obliged to represent her to the best of his ability as long as she can pay for his services; or

c. some other reason I can't think of.

Just wondering how you felt about the guy?

In Jerry Leaphart's case, the answer is (a). He appears to be a full blown 9/11 conspiracy fantasist. See, for example, this audio clip, beginning at 17:50 -- he buys entirely into Judy's "dustification" nonsense, calls her a "hero of the 9/11 truth movement", believes in "free fall", he finds her material "jaw dropping", he believes that the towers just went "poof", and "literally as if a magic wand had been, you know, touched upon them and they disappeared; it's literally the stuff of myths and the only thing that can account for that would be exotic weaponry" under the control of the U.S. government. Etc. etc.

Audio link

 

[Hokulele]

As many here will recall, the lawsuits brought by Judy "Space Beams" Wood and Morgan "No Planes" Reynolds against - well, just about everybody and his brother - making all manner of unfounded allegations in support their various 9/11 fantasies, were both dismissed with prejudice by the court on June 26, 2008.

I am having trouble accessing these PDF's. I get a little progress bar as it is loading, then a blank page. I haven't had any problems with your links in the past.

 

[WildCat]

I am having trouble accessing these PDF's. I get a little progress bar as it is loading, then a blank page. I haven't had any problems with your links in the past.

They work for me.

 

[KDLarsen]

LashL, let me just use this occasion to thank you for putting up these documents! I've been reading through some of it, and it's mind-boggling at what people are willing to throw out to try and see if they can get something to stick.

Poor judges who have to read through that garbage :/

 

[Hokulele]

They work for me.

Bother. I guess I will try updating Adobe and see what happens.

 

[LashL]

I thought "dismissed with prejudice" meant that further motions would be considered an active attempt to waste the court's time, and subject to fines.

Or something.

A lawyer I am not.

"Dismissed with prejudice" means that the plaintiffs in these cases cannot amend or re-file their claims, but it doesn't preclude them from trying to get a reconsideration or an appeal in accordance with the rules of procedure.

So, the plaintiffs brought motions for reconsideration which were, frankly, destined to fail, and they were smacked down in less than a day.

Judy's appeal will take a little longer to be smacked down (because the District Court has now forwarded records to the appellate court and it will take some time for the appellate court to get to it) but I have no doubt that her appeal will also be smacked down when it eventually wends it way through the appellate court.

What a gross waste of judicial resources and tax dollars these frivolous lawsuits are.

The only upside is the Legaltainment™ value.

 

[LashL]

LashL, let me just use this occasion to thank you for putting up these documents! I've been reading through some of it, and it's mind-boggling at what people are willing to throw out to try and see if they can get something to stick.

Poor judges who have to read through that garbage :/

You're most welcome, KDLarsen. And if you want to read the actual complaints these two filed (if you have the stomach for it), some of the outrageous affidavits they filed, and the dismissals of their claims, you can find them here.

Bother. I guess I will try updating Adobe and see what happens.

That might be the problem, Hokulele. I recently got a new computer and I wasn't able to read pdf documents that I had previously been able to access until I updated Adobe.

 

[X]

"Dismissed with prejudice" means that the plaintiffs in these cases cannot amend or re-file their claims, but it doesn't preclude them from trying to get a reconsideration or an appeal in accordance with the rules of procedure.

So, the plaintiffs brought motions for reconsideration which were, frankly, destined to fail, and they were smacked down in less than a day.

Judy's appeal will take a little longer to be smacked down (because the District Court has now forwarded records to the appellate court and it will take some time for the appellate court to get to it) but I have no doubt that her appeal will also be smacked down when it eventually wends it way through the appellate court.

What a gross waste of judicial resources and tax dollars these frivolous lawsuits are.

The only upside is the Legaltainment™ value.

Ah.
Thank'ee.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... And...both were denied on July 11, 2008, in a one-sentence order by Judge Daniels...

Reynolds Motion Denied

Wood Motion Denied

Lash, are one-sentence denials unusual? On the one hand, I'd guess that they couldn't be because you'd think some sort of explanation would be forthcoming. On the other hand, I can argue that they're common, because I don't see a judge wanting to waste time or give a persistent gadfly traction to play either legal or public stunts with the verbiage.

 

[Drudgewire]

Lash, are one-sentence denials unusual?

Sadly, it's not considered proper legal etiquette to add "and the horse you rode in on" to them.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hokulele, unless you have a real old version of Adobe Reader, I think it should work. I don't see anything unusual about these PDFs that would require anything particularly new feature-wise in Reader. But try the upgrade anyway, see if that helps.

If the files still don't open after an upgrade, post the problem and I'm sure one of us can email the files to you. I can, for one. Also, you can try other PDF viewers like Foxit Reader. As an alternative: I don't know if you work for an enterprise or business that uses Exchange mail, but if you do, and if it's Exchange Server 2007, then we can email you the files and you can open them with Outlook Web Access and view them. OWA has something called "Web Ready Document Viewing" where the Exchange server automatically displays certain document types for you, even if you don't have the software installed, so when Reader malfunctions, OWA can be used as an alternate "program" to view PDF's with.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Sadly, it's not considered proper legal etiquette to add "and the horse you rode in on" to them.

Sadly true, considering how well earned such a line would be.

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, unless you have a real old version of Adobe Reader, I think it should work. I don't see anything unusual about these PDFs that would require anything particularly new feature-wise in Reader. But try the upgrade anyway, see if that helps.

Well, I do have a fairly old version of Adobe, so I can make PDF's from a fairly old custom application.

If the files still don't open after an upgrade, post the problem and I'm sure one of us can email the files to you. I can, for one. Also, you can try other PDF viewers like Foxit Reader. As an alternative: I don't know if you work for an enterprise or business that uses Exchange mail, but if you do, and if it's Exchange Server 2007, then we can email you the files and you can open them with Outlook Web Access and view them. OWA has something called "Web Ready Document Viewing" where the Exchange server automatically displays certain document types for you, even if you don't have the software installed, so when Reader malfunctions, OWA can be used as an alternate "program" to view PDF's with.

Exchange Server?

*Flees screaming into the sunset*

I used to work in IT. If I am lucky, I will never work in IT again.


Thankfully, the upgrade worked so I can sit back and enjoy some quality Legaltainment^TM. Woo ahoy!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, I currently work in IT, so I don't have the luxury to flee screaming when it comes to Exchange questions. Normally, I just sit in place and scream.

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Lash, I'm wondering about the attorney representing Dr. Wood.

In my opinion, the attorney either:

a. buys into her theories

b. feels obliged to represent her to the best of his ability as long as she can pay for his services; or

c. some other reason I can't think of.

Just wondering how you felt about the guy?

B.

I have nothing else to say.

 

[Jontg]

Hmm, wonder where Jammonius is...