• 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

omg.. that's like something written by an 8 year old.

i didn't read it throiugh, but did he even state what he thought was unsafe about the 747s?
 
David St.Hubbins/ You can't print that! Where'd they print that? /St.
Apparently nowhere on that page.

Can't even spell airline?

How much proof, of who you are, do you need to file a suit? Could this be hogwash?
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
David St.Hubbins/ You can't print that! Where'd they print that? /St.
Apparently nowhere on that page.

Can't even spell airline?

How much proof, of who you are, do you need to file a suit? Could this be hogwash?
Click to expand...

Pdoh?
 
Arus808 said:
omg.. that's like something written by an 8 year old.

i didn't read it throiugh, but did he even state what he thought was unsafe about the 747s?
Click to expand...


It seems to be centred around Boeing's use of the QRS-11 GyroChip.

It's a tiny chip that helps the aircraft determine it's relative orientation in the air. Boeing has run into trouble with the US government as it is also used for the same purpose in missiles (I guess because of its small size). As such it falls under dual use, thus Boeing cannot export it without permission from the USG.

PrisonPlanet have turned "gyro-stabilising" into "controls" and imply it is used for remote control.

This guy makes reference to Adam Air Flight 574. This was a 737-400 that disappeared in Indonesia, and it isn't know what happened to it. He seems to be suggesting that the QRS-11 chip resulted in it "vapourising".

-Gumboot
 
Dog Town said:
David St.Hubbins/ You can't print that! Where'd they print that? /St.
Apparently nowhere on that page.

Can't even spell airline?

How much proof, of who you are, do you need to file a suit? Could this be hogwash?
Click to expand...

While the lawsuit is, no doubt, complete and utter hogwash, it appears that McConnell is real, that it is his lawsuit, and that he is a full-blown nutcase troofer. Not surprisingly, he has a DVD to sell, too. It is called "Captain Sherlock Solves 9/11". I'm not kidding.

http://www.hawkscafe.com/105.html
http://www.hawkscafe.com/order.html
http://www.captainsherlock.com/

Could the whole thing be a hoax? Sure, it could. But if it is, it's a pretty elaborate one. The documents that I sent to enigma for hosting above come from PACER, so the lawsuits have definitely been filed. So far, no responding documents from the defendants have been filed. I would think it would be easy enough for those with access to various databases to confirm his identity, etc. His claims - as crazy as they are - are in keeping with the claims brought by other "truthers". You know, outrageous, ridiculous, ludicrous, completely lacking facts or evidence, with a healthy portion of batcrap lunacy tossed in to the mix.

Anyway, it's late and I have to get some sleep, but I'll post more links tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Ryan update.

It looks like Ryan's lawyers have finally realized how badly drafted their original complaint was.

They have now filed a motion to amend/correct their initial pleading, along with a proposed amended complaint, in recognition of the poor drafting of the original complaint and in recognition of the fact that they had not properly asserted their claims in the first instance.

I'll send the pdf docs to ~enigma~ and ask him to host them at the site he created for same, and ask him to post a link, for your reading pleasure :)
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Ryan update.

It looks like Ryan's lawyers have finally realized how badly drafted their original complaint was.

They have now filed a motion to amend/correct their initial pleading, along with a proposed amended complaint, in recognition of the poor drafting of the original complaint and in recognition of the fact that they had not properly asserted their claims in the first instance.

I'll send the pdf docs to ~enigma~ and ask him to host them at the site he created for same, and ask him to post a link, for your reading pleasure :)
Click to expand...



Thanks for doing all of this LashL. A couple of questions tho'. Why do you suppose they did such a poor job of drafting the initial complaint? Do you think Ryans lawyers know they have no case here and kinda did a rush job on it, spending more time on their more legit cases - or - perhaps it's the fact that Ryan can't afford a competent lawyer?? In any case, this latest development has got to be pretty embaressing for Ryan.

The other question is - in response to this latest motion, can the judge simply say "Uhhh, no. You've already wasted enough of my time - Case dismissed(gavel)" or does he more or less have to oblige? To be honest, I find it a little surprising that it hasn't been dismissed yet, but I understand the wheels of justice turn slowly but surly....
:)
 
Perhaps Ryans group believes this will come across a "truther" judges' docket.
They always leave out hope for many things. :rolleyes: I was at that point once.
Gotta love that name..."Spanky" Sparkette.
 
apathoid said:
Thanks for doing all of this LashL. A couple of questions tho'. Why do you suppose they did such a poor job of drafting the initial complaint? Do you think Ryans lawyers know they have no case here and kinda did a rush job on it, spending more time on their more legit cases - or - perhaps it's the fact that Ryan can't afford a competent lawyer?? In any case, this latest development has got to be pretty embaressing for Ryan.

The other question is - in response to this latest motion, can the judge simply say "Uhhh, no. You've already wasted enough of my time - Case dismissed(gavel)" or does he more or less have to oblige? To be honest, I find it a little surprising that it hasn't been dismissed yet, but I understand the wheels of justice turn slowly but surly....
:)
Click to expand...

I really don't know why they did such a poor job in drafting the initial complaint, apathoid. The lawyers appear to be competent, based on information in the other thread, so I can only surmise that it may have been a matter of "throwing everything at the wall in hopes that something sticks" because they recognized that their claims were tenuous, or because they gave the task to a student who didn't know any better. In either case, though, it is certain that they did not put much, if any, effort into making it legally coherent or concise. It could have something to do with how much (read: how little) they are being paid, but that is pure conjecture on my part.

As for Ryan's motion to amend, it appears to be an effort to salvage what he can prior to UL's motion to dismiss being heard.

At the hearing of UL's motion, two of the options open to the judge are
(a) to dismiss the claim with leave to amend; and
(b) to dismiss the claim without leave to amend.

If the judge were to exercise option (b), that would render Ryan's motion moot.

However, as mentioned earlier, courts tend to favour granting leave to amend unless they think that the complaint is utterly hopeless and beyond salvage. By filing his motion now, Ryan may be hoping to have both motions heard together, and therefore have the opportunity to put before the court the proposed amended complaint in an effort to shore up his arguments against outright dismissal of his claims.

I would be interested in hearing LossLeader's take on this, if he can drag himself away from his tagging duties for a few minutes ;)
 
Oh, and another thing I meant to mention...

In the initial complaint, as set out in the first post on this thread, Ryan was seeking:

- back pay from November 2004
- $200,000 in front pay or, alternatively, reinstatement to his job;
- $unquantified for cost of relocation and job search;
- $unquantified for lost value of medical insurance, retirement plan, benefits;
- $unquantified damages for emotional distress and damage to his reputation;
- $unquantified punitive damages.
Click to expand...

In his amended complaint, he is seeking:

- back pay from November 2004
- $200,000 in front pay or, alternatively, reinstatement to his job;
- $unquantified for cost of relocation and job search;
- $unquantified for lost value of medical insurance, retirement plan, benefits;
- $100,000 for emotional distress and damage to his reputation; and
- $1,000,000 in punitive damages.
 
I can't remember if we discussed this before, but presumably he needs the money on the grounds that he's never going to get a real job in his specialist field ever again.
 
Architect said:
I can't remember if we discussed this before, but presumably he needs the money on the grounds that he's never going to get a real job in his specialist field ever again.
Click to expand...

If he cannot get a real job in his field again, that is hardly UL's fault.
He certainly won't get a good reference from his previous employer, but if he stopped wandering all over the internet - and now into court - making a spectacle of himself, he could probably go back to water testing in a lab somewhere where nobody knows of his "Truther" antics.

He is making a tinhat spectacle of himself of his own volition. UL is not going to be held liable for that if it impacts on his ability to get a real job again.
 
I fear you misinterpreted my posting as justification or sympathy, rather than motive for the stupid little man trying to wring money out of his former employers.
 
Architect said:
I fear you misinterpreted my posting as justification or sympathy, rather than motive for the stupid little man trying to wring money out of his former employers.
Click to expand...

Oh, no, I did not misinterpret your post as justification or sympathy for Ryan; I know you better than that. ;)

I was just taking the opportunity to point out the counter-argument, just for fun.

ETA: Now, though, you've made me wonder. Does anybody know if he has a job these days, besides spreading the "Truth"? Or if he has even tried to get a job? If his case ever makes it to trial, he is going to have to show that he at least tried to find another job, and I don't think the court will consider hanging around the internet posting on conspiracy sites as a very good method of job searching.
 
Last edited:
~enigma~ said:
Legal comedy courtesy of our resident lovely lawyer...

http://www.geocities.com/enigmanwo/McConnell.pdf
Click to expand...
That's too funny. He calls Alfonso Gagliano "La Cosa Nostra" as though this is a title or something. The only reason Gagliano (admittedly involved in the sponsorship scandal) is "linked" to the Mafia is because he was born in Sicily and the informant who named him was obviously doing so to save his own skin--along with implicating everyone he could.

In his suit, McConnell also should probably call former Canadian Prime Ministers "The Right Honourable" rather than merely by their given and surnames. That would make him at least seemingly acquainted with the folks he's suing.

Looks sloppy.
 
stilicho said:
In his suit, McConnell also should probably call former Canadian Prime Ministers "The Right Honourable" rather than merely by their given and surnames. That would make him at least seemingly acquainted with the folks he's suing.

Looks sloppy.
Click to expand...
It has always bugged me when a news organization refers to a former President of the US, or other past head of state as Mr./Ms./Mrs. I'm not saying they should be refered to as "his/her excellency" everytime you refer to them, but keep some sense of protocol.
 
CptColumbo said:
It has always bugged me when a news organization refers to a former President of the US, or other past head of state as Mr./Ms./Mrs. I'm not saying they should be refered to as "his/her excellency" everytime you refer to them, but keep some sense of protocol.
Click to expand...
I'm unfamiliar with American protocol but a Canadian Prime Minister is always "The Right Honourable" into perpetuity. Certainly in a legal action you'd have to use it or risk dismissal due to frivolity.
 
I just found a YouTube video by Field McConnell - the guy with the lawsuit against boeing regarding their unsafe 747s.

It's a real work of art... his summary of 9/11 is just something to behold. Especially the bit with the people walking around with model airliners...

No really...



-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom