X3 Skier
En-Route
What a loon. As the saying goes, A person that represents themself has a fool for an attorney.
Is Dan Gryder the biggest asset to aviation on youtube?
- Thread starter 172andyou
- Start date
- Status
Vance Breese
Cleared for Takeoff
Having watched Dan Gryder's latest video, I understand everything now. Mark Baker makes too much money so of course any lawsuit against Gryder is bogus.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
FWIW, Dan has been trash talking everyone at AOPA since the Catch-a-Cardinal debacle.
Sierra_Hotel
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2019
- Messages
- 982
- Display Name
Display name:
Sierra_Hotel
What's the short version on that? I have never watched any of his videos and know nothing about him besides what's been posted on here.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not a whole lot of details available. What is known is that AOPA contracted Dan to handle the restoration work for their "Catch-A-Cardinal" sweepstakes around 2007 timeframe. Dan basically subcontracted the work out and allegedly delivered an airplane with a lot of problems. AOPA sued him over it.
You won't find much on the internet, but someone here on POA a while back found the court filing where AOPA sued him over the work. I can't find any details on the outcome, but based on the fact that Dan never ever mentioned it back when we were friends and don't believe he ever addressed it on his YouTube channel, I suspect there was an out of court settlement with an NDA.
What I do know is that ever since the lawsuit, he has never missed an opportunity to bad mouth AOPA while never addressing the actual issue.
If you look back at his history, he has had lots of partnerships over the years that all seem to end up with those organizations severing ties with him and he typically bad mouths them.
It may well be that whether he had actual knowledge of the lawsuit is completely irrelevant. Last week, we were able to get a court to set aside a multimillion dollar default judgment where my client had filed a pro se motion to set aside the entry of default. (A judgment by default is a two step process. First, you get an entry of default due to failure to timely answer the complaint, then a default judgment is entered after the damages hearing.) So, the court had evidence that my client was actually aware of the lawsuit due to his pro se motion and then proceeded to a damages hearing, at which my client did not show. It was only after the multi-million dollar judgment was entered that he bothered to get defense counsel involved. We were able to get the default judgment set aside because we showed that service of process did not comply with the trial rules, and therefore service was not proper. It didn't matter whether he had actual knowledge of the suit. Without service of process accomplished in a manner required by the trial rules, the court lacked personal jurisdiction, and therefore the power to proceed against him.
Last edited:
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,094
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
Sounds like DG may be hoping for something along this line.
Just having read this thread and not doing any research, that strikes me as very likely his only real chance. But, admittedly, this is only a semi-educated guess.
The history is that he knew of the lawsuit and if he wants to protest service, that shipped sailed. In fact, every step along the way he missed his opportunity to make a timely case or objection and when you do that, you're going to considered to have surrendered.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,094
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
So you’re saying that, if he wants to protest service, he should’ve done that earlier? When? Is this something he forfeited by failing to appear?
I did watch parts of his last video (at 1.5x) and I’m pretty sure he has something diagnosable upstairs.
I did watch parts of his last video (at 1.5x) and I’m pretty sure he has something diagnosable upstairs.
Yes, even if you claim you weren't properly served you don't get to just sit around and do nothing once you do hear of the lawsuit, or the decision, etc...
He has a bad habit of missing deadlines, the federal courts denied him relief on attorney fees in another action because he didn't complete the filing in a timely manner.
Actually, you do. It's risky, but you absolutely can ignore the suit. If you turn out to be wrong about proper service, then you get stuck with the outcome. So it may not be wise. But you absolutely can do nothing, and then attack any efforts at collection by arguing that the prior judgment is void. Personal jurisdiction is a constitutional requirement. Without adequate service of process, the court does not have the power to adjudicate the matter. Any judgment entered without service of process is void.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 91, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1696, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732–733, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878). Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313–314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S. Ct. 559, 564, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980)
It is a bold move, but an option available to a nonresident to ignore a pending proceeding and take the risk that a subsequent challenge to personal jurisdiction will prevail. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 706, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982) (“A defendant is always free to ignore the judicial proceedings, risk a default judgment, and then challenge that judgment on jurisdictional grounds in a collateral proceeding.”).
Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152, 1156 (Ind. 1998)
Last edited:
In this instance, Texas civil procedure rules do indeed allow for a motion to serve via email or social media if attempts to serve in person have failed and an affidavit as such is filed with the motion.
I have no idea whether service of process was properly accomplished under the court's rules, and I do not mean to suggest that service was not actually proper. (My apologies if I was not clear.) I just wanted to point out that if service was not accomplished, then the door is still cracked open for Gryder.
As far as service by e-mail, while the Texas Supreme Court has approved such service and I think that the 5th Circuit has upheld such service, I am not sure whether the U.S. Supreme Court has held that that email service is acceptable.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Your quoted sources don't say that "proper" service is a prerequisite to personal jurisdiction. And by making a general appearance and moving for a new trial, Gryder likely waived personal jurisdiction.Actually, you do. It's risky, but you absolutely can ignore the suit. If you turn out to be wrong about proper service, then you get stuck with the outcome. So it may not be wise. But you absolutely can do nothing, and then attack any efforts at collection by arguing that the prior judgment is void. Personal jurisdiction is a constitutional requirement. Without adequate service of process, the court does not have the power to adjudicate the matter. Any judgment entered without service of process is void.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 91, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1696, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732–733, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878). Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313–314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S. Ct. 559, 564, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980)
It is a bold move, but an option available to a nonresident to ignore a pending proceeding and take the risk that a subsequent challenge to personal jurisdiction will prevail. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 706, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982) (“A defendant is always free to ignore the judicial proceedings, risk a default judgment, and then challenge that judgment on jurisdictional grounds in a collateral proceeding.”).Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152, 1156 (Ind. 1998)
I for one can't wait to see Gryder arguing pro-se at the USSC
According to the "Taking Off" video on YouTube, the court held that service by email was proper based on testimony from plaintiff's expert. The description appears in the video from 6:27 to about 7:30. Link to the video at 6:27 See also post 324 above. Link to post 324
wanttaja
En-Route
Actually, if the accusations against him are true, I think the outcome is *exactly* what Gryder wanted.
If he had reacted to the suit in the traditional manner, the facts would have been presented in court. Eventually, it would have thus been shown that he did, indeed, perform the acts he was accused of.
Instead...he can still deny any wrongdoing ("nothing was proved!"), claim it was all a miscarriage of justice, declare bankruptcy to shed the judgement, and continue on exactly as before.
Ron Wanttaja
The expert testimony has no bearing on whether it was legally allowable to serve by email, which is the question some of us have brought up.
Not all jurisdictions allow process service by electronic means; only recently has Texas codified rules allowing that means if service.
Lacking the court documents, I think the expert witness testimony only re-inforced the plaintiff’s case that not only was the service done legally, it could also be determined that whoever ‘owned’ email address received it and viewed it.
wanttaja
En-Route
Man....is that EVER Deja Moo. Right down to people continuing to defend the man because they agree with *some* of the things he says.
At least in the Campbell case we had the Federal court case that showed his previous mental issues. He was working in a field with ethical standards (e.g., if the subject of your "investigative reporting" is your ex-fiance, you are expected to mention that)...albeit, as the publisher as well as the editor and author, he didn't have to worry about ethics. And the work he was doing was in print, which makes it much easier than claims of online actions.
There are no ethical standards for "influencers," and the only evidence is electronic ephemera.
Ron Wanttaja
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,094
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
A little rabbit trail: I thought it was pretty funny to hear DG call Jim Campbell “stupid.” If Campbell and Gryder aren’t twins, they’re at least brothers.
And he made a big deal about the AOPA reporter not promising to publish his answers entirely as he wrote them. That isn’t the way it works. Subjects answer questions, reporters write stories, editors edit and publishers publish. A reporter can’t make an editing or publishing promise.
There are a couple of areas where I know better than DG and everything he says in those areas is wrong. I’m just going to assume he’s always wrong.
And he made a big deal about the AOPA reporter not promising to publish his answers entirely as he wrote them. That isn’t the way it works. Subjects answer questions, reporters write stories, editors edit and publishers publish. A reporter can’t make an editing or publishing promise.
There are a couple of areas where I know better than DG and everything he says in those areas is wrong. I’m just going to assume he’s always wrong.
Agree, the only information I could find was that YouTube video. The case filings are available online -- for a fee. Not even free to view.
The trial judge found that service by email was proper (or legally allowable) - based on testimony from plaintiff's expert.
According to the video account (assuming it is accurate), at a September 2022 hearing, counsel for the defendant (DG) entered a motion to vacate the default judgment because of improper service of process by email. The judge was inclined to grant that motion, unless plaintiff could produce an expert who would testify that DG was served. Plaintiff found such an expert, and at a June 2023 hearing, the expert testified that DG opened the email summons. Based on that expert testimony, the judge denied defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment due to improper service. That is, service was proper.
Again, that's what was said in the YouTube video. It's discussed from 5:00 to about 7:30: Link to video at 5:00 Wish we had access to the court orders.
Please excuse me for not giving a case cite for every statement in my prior post. I am not trying to write a Civil Procedure hornbook. But if you really need a citation for this basic concept of civil procedure, here you go:
"Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied. “Service of summons is the procedure by which a court having venue and jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.”
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 3,460
- Display Name
Display name:
Piperonca
Omni Cap. Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 S. Ct. 404, 409, 98 L. Ed. 2d 415 (1987),quoting Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 444–445, 66 S.Ct. 242, 245–246, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946).
It is true that service of process may be waived. Filing an answer that fails to raise the defense of failure of service of process is one way to do so. But merely appearing is not a waiver of service of process. Here, as I understand it, Gryder showed up in person after the entry of default. If true, he took no action that would have been a waiver of the defense, as the issue of his liability was already established by the entry of default.
What ever happened to the 50 or so violations he got for the AOPA Cardinal restoration job.
Daniel Millican
Pre-Flight
Close... at the June 2023 hearing to consider Motion to Vacate, the Plaintiff brought an Expert Witness prepared to testify on how it is clear DG opened the email summons. However, due to DG refusing to argue his former attorney's motion to vacate default judgment, the Judge ruled to keep the Default Judgment in place. No witnesses were called and the Judgment Hearing was set for August.
Eric Pauley
Pre-takeoff checklist
Shame. I would have liked to see what sophistry the “expert” witness was going to produce surrounding this email read tracking.
Daniel Millican
Pre-Flight
I sat next to him in the courtroom. Just from talking with him, he was 100% certain DG opened the summons email.
Eric Pauley
Pre-takeoff checklist
Any sense of what his evidence was for it? Many indicators of email open used in the past are no longer valid.
Daniel Millican
Pre-Flight
No, sorry, I didn't ask him to go through it and Im not familiar with the technically side of those things. I actually do wish DG had argued the motion so we could hear the evidence in court.
You were there. Did the plaintiff’s expert actually testify? Or was he only *prepared* to testify? I wasn’t there - I have only the report from the YouTube video. And the claim in the video is that the expert testified. And the judge based his denial of the motion to vacate on the expert’s testimony. Which was unrefuted because Gryder didn’t contest the expert’s testimony.
Difficult to know whether Gryder *refused* to argue the motion, or was *unable* to argue the motion. All he really had to say was, “I didn’t open the email or read the content.” Hard to believe he didn’t know what was going on. All of us reading this thread are pretty sure we know what was going on. Also difficult to rationalize his decision to proceed without counsel - when the trial judge specifically asked him if he planned to retain new counsel.
Now these are all reduced to issues on appeal. Which of course is bad for Gryder, because he lost that motion to vacate the default judgment when it was litigated at trial.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,094
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
If he couldn’t afford to keep his lawyer for the trial, is he planning to represent himself in the appeal?
And how does the appeals process work? Is the appeals court obligated to hear the case or can it review the ruling and let it stand?
And about that video: if you’re hosting a YT streaming event, can you see the IP addresses or some other identifying information of the viewers? [According to Dan M, it wasn’t really a stream anyway. But if it had been. . . .] And how does he get from IP addresses to human names? And does anyone believe Mark Baker didn’t have anything better to do than watch a Dan Gryder livestream (if there had really been one)?
I think it’s all lies.
And how does the appeals process work? Is the appeals court obligated to hear the case or can it review the ruling and let it stand?
And about that video: if you’re hosting a YT streaming event, can you see the IP addresses or some other identifying information of the viewers? [According to Dan M, it wasn’t really a stream anyway. But if it had been. . . .] And how does he get from IP addresses to human names? And does anyone believe Mark Baker didn’t have anything better to do than watch a Dan Gryder livestream (if there had really been one)?
I think it’s all lies.
- Joined
- May 24, 2016
- Messages
- 849
- Display Name
Display name:
4RNB
Gryder
- I heard an FAA guy talk a bit about the "internet response teams", one of the two I thought of
- The other guy likely suffers in kind
- Did not respond to emails
- Talked way too much in his videos, disrespected my time.
- seemed to be a knee jerk reaction kind of guy, not words of wisdom gleaned over time
- monetized or not, sensational journalism in a bad way
- I stopped watching any of this ilk
-
LOL, he was first on the scene for this one
- I heard an FAA guy talk a bit about the "internet response teams", one of the two I thought of
- The other guy likely suffers in kind
- Did not respond to emails
- Talked way too much in his videos, disrespected my time.
- seemed to be a knee jerk reaction kind of guy, not words of wisdom gleaned over time
- monetized or not, sensational journalism in a bad way
- I stopped watching any of this ilk
-
Daniel Millican
Pre-Flight
Not sure which video you're talking about? Mine? On the June hearing to consider motion to vacate default judgment, the entire hearing was about 3 minutes and consisted of Judge asking DG where his counsel was and DG claiming to not know what any of this was about. Then judge asking G to argue the motion he put forward, and again DG saying he "didn't know what the judge was asking of him." Then judge kept the default judgment in place and scheduled the penalty hearing. Plaintif's experts did not testify at that hearing, though they were prepared.
Daniel Millican
Pre-Flight
No even if it were indeed a livestream on YouTube, you cannot see IP addresses. If anyone actually believed that lie, then they deserve to be fooled.
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,061
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
He wasn't the first pro se litigant that attempted to ignore the relevant motion before the Court and argue settled facts, and he got the same result his predecessors did.
eman1200
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,893
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
I don't know the story (mostly because I don't care) but I wonder if he gave it up or if it was given up for him
172andyou
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2015
- Messages
- 1,450
- Display Name
Display name:
172 Guy
Suspended after being accused of assault with a DC-3. I don't think he was ever allowed back, but I'm not certain.
Delta suspends GA pilot charged with plane assault
Delta Air Lines has suspended a pilot who was charged with trying to strike officers with his plane at a Georgia airport.
www.gainesville.com
- Status