💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › ufo › caseasc.ufo captured on 2023-11-14 at 12:28:27.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-16)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
RICHMOND, Va. -- An Army publicist who claims he received a poor job
evaluation because of his off-duty efforts to expose military UFO coverups
argued before a federal appeals panel he needs an injunction to protect him
from his supervisors' ire.
But a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
suggested Tuesday the entire case may be unnecessary since the offending
evaluation had already been excised from Larry Bryant's file.
Bryant, 52, a 32-year civil service veteran from Alexandria who works
as a civilian editor for the Army News Service, claimed his First Amendment
right to free speech was violated because his job rating was based in part on
his longtime interest in UFOs and the military.
In 1985, after running ads asking for help in ending "the Cosmic
Watergate," Bryant received his first-ever unsatisfactory job rating. Bryant
sued, claiming the Army was trying to block his search for Army
whistleblowers. The Defense Department later agreed to stop bothering him
about the ads, but Bryant continued to press his First Amendment case.
The U.S. District Court in Alexandria threw the case out, saying
there were other ways to settle the matter besides a lawsuit. The 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, but the U.S. Supreme court overturned them
both and ordered a hearing.
As the July 1989 trial began, Bryant asked for a delay because a key
witness -- a supervisor who allegedly was out to get him because he was "an
embarrassment" -- was on assignment in Antartica. The court proceeded without
the witness, ruled in favor of the government, and this appeal followed.
To Judge Francis Murnaghan Jr.'s inquiries about the proof of UFOs,
Bryant's lawyer, James Heller of Washington contended Bryant had a First
Amendment right to seek answers to "unknown events."
"Why wouldn't he be an embarrassment" if he's following "a theory for
which no scientific basis has been found?" Murnaghan asked.
Judge Dickson Phillips Jr., also wondered why Bryant couldn't "get
his supervisors off his back ... without getting into the First Amendment
jurisprudence?
"If the ax really drops on him, then he can sue," Phillips said.
Heller said Bryant fears that without the protection of an
injunction, he'll be fired. Since Bryant sued, all his evaluations have been
top-notch, Heller said.
In answer to a question, Koppel also noted that the offending
evaluation wasn't even in the file, because they are automatically thrown out
after three years.
Phillips, apparently convinced the revelation made the case legally
worthless, asked Koppel "Why didn't the Supreme Court look at mootness? They
put two courts to a lot of trouble for a moot case."
A decision is expected in about 60 days.