Is Dan Gryder the biggest asset to aviation on youtube?

Man I ****ed them off. The owner came after me hard. I never mentioned their name but he said "Your mocked up forms look similar to ours" and threatened legal action if I didn't take the video down.
Did you take the video down? I saw it when it first came out but don't see it now. I was thinking about that the other day and I was wondering how they might react to that. I think they could have taken the high road and issued a statement asking people not to submit oil samples of chocolate syrup or whatever it was you quote unquote mailed in.
 
Man I ****ed them off. The owner came after me hard. I never mentioned their name but he said "Your mocked up forms look similar to ours" and threatened legal action if I didn't take the video down.
I hope you told them to pound sand.
 
In the video it says that an expert was able to prove that DG opened an email (the summons).

Any IT experts here that would know how that is possible absent DG forwarding the email in question or replying back?

My assumption has always been that it was not possible to know if the recipient opened and read an email until such point as they reply back to you. Which perhaps works good as a practical assumption but falls short when it comes to the ability to legally prove it.

Just curious.
 
In the video it says that an expert was able to prove that DG opened an email (the summons).

Any IT experts here that would know how that is possible absent DG forwarding the email in question or replying back?

My assumption has always been that it was not possible to know if the recipient opened and read an email until such point as they reply back to you. Which perhaps works good as a practical assumption but falls short when it comes to the ability to legally prove it.

Just curious.

Partly it depends on the service being used, but every email service I've ever used has been able to track which emails I've read and which I haven't. I assume that there's a way to pull that data from the email provider, validate it, and show it to the court. (just guessing)
 
Partly it depends on the service being used, but every email service I've ever used has been able to track which emails I've read and which I haven't. I assume that there's a way to pull that data from the email provider, validate it, and show it to the court. (just guessing)
You can also determine his location via his cellphone and match it with the IP address of the laptop. Yes, still hard to prove he read it, but you have sufficient evidence that he was at his home and close to his laptop. That´s enough for a jury
 
In the video it says that an expert was able to prove that DG opened an email (the summons).

Any IT experts here that would know how that is possible absent DG forwarding the email in question or replying back?

My assumption has always been that it was not possible to know if the recipient opened and read an email until such point as they reply back to you. Which perhaps works good as a practical assumption but falls short when it comes to the ability to legally prove it.

Just curious.

You can't, barring information from the email provider (e.g., Google could record and provide info on reading an email in browser).

I ran an email marking technology company for the better part of a decade, and have done a fair bit of work in software forensics. While there are definitely ways to track opens that are correct in aggregate (i.e., useful for marketing), they are not reliable to the point they should be admissible in court. Tracking pixels, for instance, track when they are loaded. This is usually caused by the recipient opening the email, but could just as easily be caused by the recipient's software pre-loading the image (Apple Mail does this, for instance). Many email clients are specifically designed to make the email appear read even when it's not (to thwart tracking).

You could also track clicks in the email. If a unique link is clicked and rendered in a full-featured browser (and this browser is linkable to the recipient), this would also be compelling.

I would not be surprised if the expert relied on tracking pixels, even though these have not been reliable for years.
 
In the video it says that an expert was able to prove that DG opened an email (the summons).

Any IT experts here that would know how that is possible absent DG forwarding the email in question or replying back?

My assumption has always been that it was not possible to know if the recipient opened and read an email until such point as they reply back to you. Which perhaps works good as a practical assumption but falls short when it comes to the ability to legally prove it.

Just curious.

return receipt? still doesn't prove you READ it, only that you clicked on it.
 
Glad to hear the background of the case.

I disagree with what he said about attorneys withdrawing from a case though. I don't know what the reason was here, but, while the reasons can sometimes be salacious, the most common reason is the client's not paying his bills.
Video was excellent.

As far as attorneys withdrawing, one can just look at Jim Campbell's various lawsuits. He had multiple lawyers on several of them. Reasons given for withdrawing includes "Irreconcilable Differences" (first attorney in Cirrus case). Lost his second attorney in the Cirrus case by not "substantially fulfilling..obligations to the law firm" (probably financial obligations) and "...representation has recently been rendered unreasonably difficult by the defendant..." Overall, he had roughly ~10 changes of attorney over ~40 lawsuits. Most included a reason.

Maybe the standard in Texas is different, but the Florida attorneys didn't seem reluctant to provide a cause when requesting withdrawal.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Courts should rely on official correspondence using the USPS. I realize this is 2023 but you need real acknowledgment of receipt. I get tons of email. I get tons of spam. I get tons of vendor email. Most I delete without opening. Some I open realize what they are and delete them. Typically if I don't know the sender it has about a 98.753% chance of getting deleted.
 
Courts should rely on official correspondence using the USPS.
Which is, presumably, why the court was inclined to vacate if Dan had done even the tiniest bit of normal procedural argument.
 
Video was excellent.

As far as attorneys withdrawing, one can just look at Jim Campbell's various lawsuits. He had multiple lawyers on several of them. Reasons given for withdrawing includes "Irreconcilable Differences" (first attorney in Cirrus case). Lost his second attorney in the Cirrus case by not "substantially fulfilling..obligations to the law firm" (probably financial obligations) and "...representation has recently been rendered unreasonably difficult by the defendant..." Overall, he had roughly ~10 changes of attorney over ~40 lawsuits. Most included a reason.

Maybe the standard in Texas is different, but the Florida attorneys didn't seem reluctant to provide a cause when requesting withdrawal.

Ron Wanttaja
Funny you bring that up. Somewhere in the middle of the Millican video I thought “Gryder is just another Jim Campbell!”
 
for those of us who aren't going to click on it, care to summarize?

In August 2021 a Champ crashed at Flying Oaks Airport in Texas killing two people. The crash was attributed to high density altitude and being 200 pounds overweight. Dan Gryder released three videos discussing the crash, claiming that the owner of Flying Oaks Airport, Charles Cook, was directly responsible for the crash. He stated Cook had handpropped the aircraft at the start of the accident flight, accused Cook of coaching the Champ pilot how to take off overweight, and claimed the airport was full of unlicensed pilots, had been a source of illegal activity and had been reported to the FAA numerous times, that Cook destroyed the aircraft logbooks, and that Cook was having an affair. The source of Gryder's information was two previous airport tenants that had been evicted several weeks earlier. The two men were not present at the airport during the crash and were not witnesses to the crash.

But the owner, Charles Cook, also was not present during the crash. He had been in the hospital for several weeks preceding the crash, and on the day of the crash, was at home asleep hooked up to an oxygen machine. There was no way he could have "helped" the accident aircraft take-off. Witnesses reported going to Cook's home to notify him of the accident and bringing him to the airport. Gryder never questioned Cook or any of the actual witnesses before publishing his videos.

Cook filed a slander and defamation lawsuit against Gryder. The first hearing was March 2022 and Gryder did not show up. The judge gave a default judgment to Cook. A hearing for damages was set for September to award damages and penalties. Gryder hired an attorney. Gryder also did not show up at the September hearing, but his attorney did, and filed a motion to vacate the default judgment due to Gryder not receiving the notice for the March hearing (even though Gryder had texted Cook a year before about the lawfirm Cook had hired). The judge stated he would grant the motion to vacate unless the plaintiff could provide expert testimony that Gryder had opened the email summons. The judge set a new hearing for June 2023 to discuss the motion. Meanwhile, mediation was attempted, but Gryder's attorney asked to be excused from representing Gryder, which was granted. Several months later, the plaintiff's email expert was able to prove Gryder had received the summons.

At the June hearing, Gryder said he didn't understand what was happening or why he was there. The judge asked Gryder if he was going to hire another attorney, and Gryder said no, he would represent himself. The judge asked Gryder to argue for the motion to vacate the judgment and Gryder said he didn't understand. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff and set the hearing to set the damages for August 2023. There were settlement discussions between Gryder and the plaintiff's representation. Gryder offered to settle by making an apology video, and this offer was rejected. Settlement discussions stalled and Gryder said he had no money and refused to settle. Gryder did not show up at the August 2023 hearing. At this hearing plaintiff demonstrated that due to Gryder's videos, the airport had lost revenue and Cook's reputation as an airline pilot had been damaged. The judge awarded Cook slightly over $1 million.
 
Last edited:
Glad to hear the background of the case.

I disagree with what he said about attorneys withdrawing from a case though. I don't know what the reason was here, but, while the reasons can sometimes be salacious, the most common reason is the client's not paying his bills.

And I found DG's burner:

View attachment 119876
Just the same folks who think Jerry W is a great pilot.

(Although I like Jerry much better)
 
Process server. Personally identifies the individual being served, physically serves the notice.
Can be problems there, too. When Jim Campbell sued me (for "conspiracy to defame", in fact), he hired a private detective for process service. I was eventually dismissed, since the server wasn't an "officer of the court" (e.g., a policeman or similar) and thus couldn't legally serve me. Not sure if it was a subtlety of Washington State law or Florida law. Since it was a SLAPP suit, it didn't matter to Campbell.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Gentlemen ... thanks for the summaries. Unbelievable, and yet it is very believable. :eek:
 
Hmmm, I also unsubscribed to Gryder when he asked people to do that. Glad I missed it all. This blackstone thing with Bryan has me curious though, is the video still up? How about a link to the unpublished/depublished version or a short summary.
 
Can be problems there, too. When Jim Campbell sued me (for "conspiracy to defame", in fact), he hired a private detective for process service. I was eventually dismissed, since the server wasn't an "officer of the court" (e.g., a policeman or similar) and thus couldn't legally serve me. Not sure if it was a subtlety of Washington State law or Florida law. Since it was a SLAPP suit, it didn't matter to Campbell.

Ron Wanttaja
Some states designate certain people - like county sheriffs or police. I think Texas is one of those. Others (I think including Washington) follow the Federal rule allowing service by "Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party."
 
Hmmm, I also unsubscribed to Gryder when he asked people to do that. Glad I missed it all. This blackstone thing with Bryan has me curious though, is the video still up? How about a link to the unpublished/depublished version or a short summary.
Its not. I spoke to an attorney and he said what they all say. "You will likely win but it will cost you money" So I pulled it.

I basically made a video talking about oil analysis and how important it is but also we should be doing analysis on more than just oil.
I used Josh Flower's tail number (with his permission) so as not to skew my real oil results and simulated drawing my own blood, getting a urine sample, and a few other odd ones.
"Sent" them to the oil analysis company and read back their analysis responses.

The owner of the company emailed me stating "We are getting phone calls with people asking if you really sent in samples" And "Please remove the video. We don't want people getting bad ideas"
I said "No thank you". Then he said "I notice it is still up. When are you planning on removing it?" I said "I am not. I never mentioned your company." He responded that the reports I mocked up looked very similar to there's and if I didn't take it down, he would send a cease and desist and keep going down this path until something gets it removed. I grew tired of it and didn't want to have to pay money so I just deleted it.
 
....The owner of the company emailed me stating "We are getting phone calls with people asking if you really sent in samples" ...

it never ceases to amaze me how utterly effing stupid people are.

you know, your subscribers and all...... ;)

JK, more like DG and JW's subscribers.
 
In August 2021 a Champ crashed at Flying Oaks Airport in Texas killing two people. The crash was attributed to high density altitude and being 200 pounds overweight. Dan Gryder released three videos discussing the crash, claiming that the owner of Flying Oaks Airport, Charles Cook, was directly responsible for the crash. He stated Cook had handpropped the aircraft at the start of the accident flight, accused Cook of coaching the Champ pilot how to take off overweight, and claimed the airport was full of unlicensed pilots, had been a source of illegal activity and had been reported to the FAA numerous times, that Cook destroyed the aircraft logbooks, and that Cook was having an affair. The source of Gryder's information was two previous airport tenants that had been evicted several weeks earlier. The two men were not present at the airport during the crash and were not witnesses to the crash.

But the owner, Charles Cook, also was not present during the crash. He had been in the hospital for several weeks preceding the crash, and on the day of the crash, was at home asleep hooked up to an oxygen machine. There was no way he could have "helped" the accident aircraft take-off. Witnesses reported going to Cook's home to notify him of the accident and bringing him to the airport. Gryder never questioned Cook or any of the actual witnesses before publishing his videos.

Cook filed a slander and defamation lawsuit against Gryder. The first hearing was March 2022 and Gryder did not show up. The judge gave a default judgment to Cook. A hearing for damages was set for September to award damages and penalties. Gryder hired an attorney. Gryder also did not show up at the September hearing, but his attorney did, and filed a motion to vacate the default judgment due to Gryder not receiving the notice for the March hearing (even though Gryder had texted Cook a year before about the lawfirm Cook had hired). The judge stated he would grant the motion to vacate unless the plaintiff could provide expert testimony that Gryder had opened the email summons. The judge set a new hearing for June 2023 to discuss the motion. Meanwhile, mediation was attempted, but Gryder's attorney asked to be excused from representing Gryder, which was granted. Several months later, the plaintiff's email expert was able to prove Gryder had received the summons.

At the June hearing, Gryder said he didn't understand what was happening or why he was there. The judge asked Gryder if he was going to hire another attorney, and Gryder said no, he would represent himself. The judge asked Gryder to argue for the motion to vacate the judgment and Gryder said he didn't understand. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff and set the hearing to set the damages for August 2023. There were settlement discussions between Gryder and the plaintiff's representation. Gryder offered to settle by making an apology video, and this offer was rejected. Settlement discussions stalled and Gryder said he had no money and refused to settle. Gryder did not show up at the August 2023 hearing. At this hearing plaintiff demonstrated that due to Gryder's videos, the airport had lost revenue and Cook's reputation as an airline pilot had been damaged. The judge awarded Cook slightly over $1 million.

thank you
 
Its not. I spoke to an attorney and he said what they all say. "You will likely win but it will cost you money" So I pulled it.

I basically made a video talking about oil analysis and how important it is but also we should be doing analysis on more than just oil.
I used Josh Flower's tail number (with his permission) so as not to skew my real oil results and simulated drawing my own blood, getting a urine sample, and a few other odd ones.
"Sent" them to the oil analysis company and read back their analysis responses.

The owner of the company emailed me stating "We are getting phone calls with people asking if you really sent in samples" And "Please remove the video. We don't want people getting bad ideas"
I said "No thank you". Then he said "I notice it is still up. When are you planning on removing it?" I said "I am not. I never mentioned your company." He responded that the reports I mocked up looked very similar to there's and if I didn't take it down, he would send a cease and desist and keep going down this path until something gets it removed. I grew tired of it and didn't want to have to pay money so I just deleted it.
Fire.org.

If it's a free speech issue, they'll defend it.

Satire is free speech, as long as there are no copyright issues. I can't believe people would call the company though.
 
Please mention which of the oil analysis companies do NOT accept blood or other bodily fluids, and are so adamant to never receive such that they will threaten legal action. I can spare them the horror of my oil samples as well.
 
Some states designate certain people - like county sheriffs or police. I think Texas is one of those. Others (I think including Washington) follow the Federal rule allowing service by "Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party."
Now you made me look it up... Remember, this was a Florida lawsuit, and I live in Washington State...

2. Specially appearing, Counterdefendant Moves to Quash Process and Service of Process and to Dismiss for lack of Personal Jurisdiction and states:
...​
(b) Plaintiff has failed to comply with Secs. 48.193, 48.194, 48.021, 48.27, and 48.21; more particularly, process was neither served in a manner permissible under Florida law, by an officer empowered thereby to serve same, nor in a manner consistent with the provisions of Florida's "long-arm statute" nor with the required endorsement and return.
This was ~25 years ago, law may have changed.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Please mention which of the oil analysis companies do NOT accept blood or other bodily fluids, and are so adamant to never receive such that they will threaten legal action. I can spare them the horror of my oil samples as well.
There IS a medical risk for blood or other fluids, that an oil-analysis service should not be expected to prepare for.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Some states designate certain people - like county sheriffs or police. I think Texas is one of those. Others (I think including Washington) follow the Federal rule allowing service by "Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party."

TIL Texas Civil Procedure modified Rule 106, Method of Service a couple of years ago. The basic rule was (and still is) notification in person or by certified mail. The change allows a motion to leave notice for the person “in any other manner, including electronically by social media, email, or other technology, that the statement or other evidence shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit.”.

The motion requires a notarized statement that service in person or by certified mail was attempted and failed as a condition to grant the motion.
 
There IS a medical risk for blood or other fluids, that an oil-analysis service should not be expected to prepare for.

Ron Wanttaja

The medical risk for having zero sense of humor is worse IMHO. Using lawyers to impose that disease on others makes me wish to protect MYself from exposure to them. :p
 
In August 2021 a Champ crashed at Flying Oaks Airport in Texas killing two people. The crash was attributed to high density altitude and being 200 pounds overweight. Dan Gryder released three videos discussing the crash, claiming that the owner of Flying Oaks Airport, Charles Cook, was directly responsible for the crash. He stated Cook had handpropped the aircraft at the start of the accident flight, accused Cook of coaching the Champ pilot how to take off overweight, and claimed the airport was full of unlicensed pilots, had been a source of illegal activity and had been reported to the FAA numerous times, that Cook destroyed the aircraft logbooks, and that Cook was having an affair. The source of Gryder's information was two previous airport tenants that had been evicted several weeks earlier. The two men were not present at the airport during the crash and were not witnesses to the crash.

But the owner, Charles Cook, also was not present during the crash. He had been in the hospital for several weeks preceding the crash, and on the day of the crash, was at home asleep hooked up to an oxygen machine. There was no way he could have "helped" the accident aircraft take-off. Witnesses reported going to Cook's home to notify him of the accident and bringing him to the airport. Gryder never questioned Cook or any of the actual witnesses before publishing his videos.

Cook filed a slander and defamation lawsuit against Gryder. The first hearing was March 2022 and Gryder did not show up. The judge gave a default judgment to Cook. A hearing for damages was set for September to award damages and penalties. Gryder hired an attorney. Gryder also did not show up at the September hearing, but his attorney did, and filed a motion to vacate the default judgment due to Gryder not receiving the notice for the March hearing (even though Gryder had texted Cook a year before about the lawfirm Cook had hired). The judge stated he would grant the motion to vacate unless the plaintiff could provide expert testimony that Gryder had opened the email summons. The judge set a new hearing for June 2023 to discuss the motion. Meanwhile, mediation was attempted, but Gryder's attorney asked to be excused from representing Gryder, which was granted. Several months later, the plaintiff's email expert was able to prove Gryder had received the summons.

At the June hearing, Gryder said he didn't understand what was happening or why he was there. The judge asked Gryder if he was going to hire another attorney, and Gryder said no, he would represent himself. The judge asked Gryder to argue for the motion to vacate the judgment and Gryder said he didn't understand. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff and set the hearing to set the damages for August 2023. There were settlement discussions between Gryder and the plaintiff's representation. Gryder offered to settle by making an apology video, and this offer was rejected. Settlement discussions stalled and Gryder said he had no money and refused to settle. Gryder did not show up at the August 2023 hearing. At this hearing plaintiff demonstrated that due to Gryder's videos, the airport had lost revenue and Cook's reputation as an airline pilot had been damaged. The judge awarded Cook slightly over $1 million.

I would venture to say, based on the information at hand, that this thread has now officially been answered?
 
The medical risk for having zero sense of humor is worse IMHO. Using lawyers to impose that disease on others makes me wish to protect MYself from exposure to them. :p
Sometimes a wink and a nod isn't enough. Or they got to quash it HARD right then or there.

It's possible that someone got VERY upset when they opened an oil sample and blood came out. It's not just an "icky" thing; it's possible for diseases in the blood to get transmitted to someone who handles it. That's one reason people working accidents wear protective gear.

Worst-case situation, someone could declare a HAZMAT situation and get the people in the rubber suits involved. THEY DO NOT KNOW THE HISTORY OF THAT BLOOD. You can imagine the upset to the business that would cause.

Don't know the history of 6PC's joke...maybe he let them know in advance. Still, it's likely something the company would want to quash in the bud.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I like Dan. He doesn't monetize his channel, so he's not trying to make money. He's not always right but he makes a lot of sense when it comes to aviation safety.
He's not often right, but he's never in doubt.

Classic narcissist like an abusive spouse who spouts off stuff like it's fact, then when faced with the proof that he's wrong, that's either not what he said, not what he meant, it's your fault, or it doesn't matter if he's wrong on that because he's still right after all.
 
Back
Top