...creates a[] massive amount of paperwork, in triplicate.
The suit alleges this was all just covered up and remains covered up despite Stalcup's heroic efforts at eking information out of the military and FBI.
There is an air-cap to make sure civilian aircraft don't fly into the designated test area which has to be in place before the test.
The suit alleges that Stalcup's FOIA requests uncovered records of live-fire exercises in
May 1996 off the New Jersey coast. But he has no records of such exercises being conducted in
July 1996, when TWA flight 800 crashed. As expected, he hangs most of the suit on the same claims he's been trumpeting unsuccessfully for so many years: "I have radar evidence!" and "All these witnesses said they saw a missile." It's a wash-rinse-repetition of his prior claims, sprinkled with a tidbit of new-but-irrelevant disclosure. The Navy were shooting missiles in May, so they "must" have been shooting missiles in July too, because what else explains all these witnesses who saw one?
It's not uncommon for sailors of neighboring vessels to take photos and videos of the launch.
And for contractors (wink, wink) and relatives of officers who can pull strings for them (wink, wink) to be on hand to witness the tests. You know, for quality control purposes.
Why was this footage not requested?
It likely was, since FOIA requests generally ask for "any and all" pertinent information "in whatsoever form." But it's irrelevant anyway, since he has
zero documentary evidence for July from the Navy. He's very proud of having a court uphold his subpoena. But the actual evidence he got as a result is a big nothing-burger.
My guess, the footage doesn't exist, because no missile was fired.
Of course that's the parsimonious answer. But Stalcup is undeterred. He chalks up his inability to obtain information for July 1996 on the ongoing efforts of the FBI, the CIA, and the Dept. of Defense to keep him from uncovering the truth. And he cites his recent victory in subpoenaing and obtaining previously undisclosed records as proof that they're probably still hiding things. In other words, standard conspiracy-theorist rhetoric.
I showed the complaint to a friend of mine who's a part-time law professor at the University of Utah and, until recently, was an associate in a Big Law firm. He's now in-house counsel for a very large company that I used to work for. He skimmed it over a cocktail and listened to me talk about Stalcup's prior work, then rendered this opinion :—
The case is not overtly crackpot; it has documentary evidence that is facially congruent with the representations made in the complaint regarding eyewitness testimony. It pleads plausibly, although that's an exceptionally low bar. You can allege all kinds of stuff "upon information and belief" in a complaint that will be utterly destroyed during discovery or at trial. What makes this case attractive to Big Law is the crusader pseudo-plaintiff. This case was clearly brought by Stalcup; the named plaintiffs are just for Article III standing. If the motivating party is at least facially credible and has shown a prior willingness to engage in long-term billable litigation, then that's an attractive client. If it goes to trial, they'll probably lose just based on the tenuous connection between the allegedly smoking missile launcher evidence and the eyewitness testimony. But they'll have made lots of money, and that's literally all a Big Law firm cares about.
