Slam-Dunked In The Valley Of The Sun

<===Don't forget to click the ChipIn.  This kind of comedy....and the bitch-slapping you are about to read...don't come cheap.

This is the first real ruling in the case of John Gilding V. John S. Carr, et. al.  You can get a copy of your own right here...

Download decision_gilding_v. Carr.pdf 

The first thing the judge did was exert jurisdiction over the matter by dismissing my motion to Dismiss For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction.

The second thing the court did was say:

"The statements of co-defendants Johnston and Marks, whether or not they engaged in a conspiracy with Defendant Carr, ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE under Rule 801(d)(2) because they were not made in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.  "Statements are not admissible if they are declarations of past acts or if mere opinion of one conspirator but must be made to aid the prosecution of the conspiracy."  See ya, Bob and Jerry.

"The Plaintiff's reliance on his "exoneration" by the FAA is not well founded."

"That the FAA subsequently made contrary factual findings is of no legal consequence."

"To the extent that the contents of the blog are consistent with the findings of the ALJ and/or the EEOC, THEY ARE CONCLUSIVELY DEEMED TRUTHFUL AS A MATTER OF LAW."

"These findings include all of the Findings of Fact enumerated in Section IV of the ALJ's initial decision and factual statements in Section V of the initial decision, INCLUDING THAT IN NUMEROUS INSTANCES PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY WAS "NOT CREDIBLE" OR "LACK(ED) CREDIBILITY." 

"This encompasses the allegation that Plaintiff was untruthful characterized by the ALJ as "not credible.  Therefore, ANY CLAIMS BASED ON THESE STATEMENTS FAIL."

The judge concluded, "Therefore, IT IS ORDERED Defendant Carr's Motion For Summary Judgment Based On Truth As An Absolute Defense, Motion For SummaryJudgement Based On Opinion and Motion For Summary Judgment Based On Absence Of Malice ARE GRANTED, except with respect to the allegation that Plaintiff was responsible for the death of Ms. Petersen and any other allegations based on material posted by Defendant outside the EEOC record."

This is a major victory for our side, and leaves the Plaintiff only the smallest eye of a needle in which to try and thread his case.  In fact, the judge earlier says, "The test (of a defamation suit) is whether the opinion can reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved, or is instead "imaginative expression" or "rhetorical hyperbole."  Here, whether the statements made by defendant fall into the latter category rather than the former is for a jury to decide.

LET'S GET IT ON.  LET'S "TEE IT UP."

So far we've "tee'd it up" and it looks like my Tiger Woods is playing their Rodney Dangerfield.  Let's do that some more.  It's fuuuuuuuuuun.  And may I just say....seeing entered into an official record....AGAIN...that "IN NUMEROUS INSTANCES PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY WAS "NOT CREDIBLE" OR "LACK(ED) CREDIBILITY," well, that's like three free lines of bowling.  That's worth every penny of this gig.

"She arrived at her driveway as she arrived at the end of her rope."  If that ain't imaginative expression I don't know what is.....unless you think I was in the driveway.  But I have no problem letting a jury decide.  We can put in the record AGAIN the Plaintiff's credibility or lack thereof.

Read the decision for yourself.  It is a 95% victory for our side.  The other 5% will cost plenty to fight, but fight it we will.  WE.  I am never alone, as long as I have you.  My union might have abandoned me, but you never have.  Give generously.  The fight I fight is for you, too.

Comments

[Thomas Gray]

Congratulations. I'm no expert but it seems like that sort of clear repudiation of a plaintiff's claim(s) in something as (relatively) minor as a pre-trial motion is rare. It seems like judges often like to err on the side of caution and allow most borderline testimony through to the jury. Gilding won't be he ought to do the smart thing and cut bait while the cutting is still good.

[Thomas Gray]

What I meant to say was: "Gilding won't BUT he ought to do the smart thing...

[AWOL in AZ]

Congrats on the win! Keep fighting the good fight. Go get 'em.

[ZDC]

Congrats John. Keep up the good work and the good fight.

[ZTLGuy]

Congrats John. Glad to see your spending my money wisely with your selection of lawyers.

[An Army of One]

Please expose the union member representing numbnuts.

[Roscoe]

The numbnuts is question is, I believe, Michael Pearson.

[Blue Eyed Buddhist]

Congratulations, amigo! It's good to hear.

[Roscoe]

Oops, I mean the alleged numbnuts. Don't sue me. Bitch

[Stephen Ramsden]

Great News ,go get'em Johnny.

[On the recieving end]

What is nice is that the judge recongnized the importance of FAA management's oversite of one of their own. Judge finds management not credible but mangement finds no wrong doing.

Controllers complain about safety, management says we are in the safest period in history and safety is never...

Management testifies before the peoples representatives, congress sends letter to rouge agency about lack of truthfullness...

Management forces work rules on employees due to impass, controllers claim management did not negotiate in good faith (whitnessed by member of congress when management moved goal posts) and fraudulently declared impass...

Management continues to get pay reises added to their base pay while freezing controllers pay and starting B scale wages to save money while getting new furniture for their offices...

Management fires controllers for falisfying physical forms while they find against the findings of law judge...

Who would any reasonable person or political representative believe...politics sucks.

[ImGoneAndHappy!]

Congrats! If there is a jury trial for the last 5% of this, maybe you can auction "seats" to witness the final blow to these idiots.

Get us retired guys. We'll wear our best Don Corleone outfits. When it's all over, we'll get Buddy Whittington outside the courthouse singing a great blues number.

[Shourded in secrects]

Congrats, good news indeed. The 5% club hopes you rip them a new one on the last 5%.

[SOS]

Once again Mr. Carr proves the FAA and their sycophants are clueless idiots. Tiger Woods vs. Rodney Dangerfield. LOL!!

This entire case reminds me of a famous quote by Abe Lincoln.

"Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"

The FAA management sycophants have not only opened their mouth you can drive a truck into that pie hole. There remains no doubt. FAA management and their sycophant minions are fools to the tenth degree.

[Griffin]

This blog is based largely on opinions and how can you be sued if you express your opinion? I don't see how you can lose. I hope you countersue for attorney's fees.

[Irishman]

what Griffin said. Make him pay. Take his house, his cars, even his fucking dog. This guy deserves no less than to live the rest of his days as a pauper. Rue the day!

[JstJoanie]

And when you win your legal fees back from this doofus, wouldn't it be fun to have contest to figure out what charity should get the portion donated by the Main Bangers? Of course, I belive you would certainly be due whatever you can manage to reap in the form of a Pain & Suffering countersuit. Just a thought.

[Eddie]

Does this mean Bob is no longer a defendant? Anyway, sorry for the delay but my chip in is on the way. Kick his ass, brother.

[MerlinMine]

Does Mr. Gilding really want to persue this any farther? It is true that no court has found him directly quilty of Linda Peterson's death. This could all change if he continues along his course. Perhaps he doesn't care if the courts actually find a basis on that assertion. That said, congratulations John.

[Resigned 01/03/07]

Congrats on the win!

[Jennifer Carr]

Money can't buy love, but it can sometimes buy justice. Thanks for fighting the good fight on all of our behalf's.

[Jennifer Carr]

Money can't buy love, but it can sometimes buy justice. Thanks for fighting the good fight on all of our behalf's.