Kathryn Anna Slye, who also goes by nom de plumes like Kathryn Slye Allen and Kathryn Slye-Allen, is one of the most impressive people I have ever encountered online. I'm not referring to her being a lawyer who got her education from the Stetson University School of Law with its coveted 91st in the nation ranking, nor am I meaning the fact that she is employed by the Friedman Sklar law firm (but even at her ripe age is not yet a partner). I'm not even alluding to her private pilot's license and love of flying bug smashers. When I say she is one of the most impressive people I've ever encountered online, I'm not even talking about her serving as vice president of the East Hampton Aviation Association.
No, what makes her so impressive is her incredible stupidity fused with insecurity that she tries to pawn off as confidence online and her amazing ability to combine the topic of aviation and the law and prove herself to be a complete moron in both realms.
She goes by Skye Hawk over on Facebook (edit: which she has now made non-public) and she entered my world by responding to my comment on a podcast page about the unlawful actions of military pilots conducting unlawful actions in Iran. Rather than discuss Article 1 of the Constitution or section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution, however, she responded to me with this gem that would no doubt make her law partners and fellow board members proud:
Notice the attempt to go Alpha with the response to somebody out of the blue, bringing up "low T" and "princess." Ms. Slye should probably talk to a shrink about what prompts that kind of pseudo-tough-guy talk. But what I find more fascinating is that this lawyer from a law school I had to Google, completely skips an opportunity to discuss the law, and then demonstrates the trait of the most accomplished lawyers.....failing to do simple research and then just wrongly asserting a fact. With one simple click on my profile to, you know, harness information about the subject right at your fingertips, she could have easily seen that her false claim (that I "never saw a single [a] combat mission") was false. But that was far too much work for the ever-so-accomplished, Kathryn A. Slye, esquire. Photos of me in combat, photos of me wearing medals for valor in combat, or my 1000 combat hour patch would have proved more useful than Westlaw to this private pilot, but alas, such an investigation was too high a bar. She is the kind of lawyer and pilot who simply conjures and asserts facts from thin air which, as we all know, is a highly sought skill if you wish to lose in court or crash into a tree.
So I responded to the Stetson-Something-Or-Other alum who wanted absolutely no part in discussing the law, to see if she wanted to continue her discussion of my lack of combat time:
And then Ms. Slye decided to respond and block me so that I could not see nor respond. Her fake-confidence and "low T" insults evaporated into a chicken shit maneuver where she completely avoided the false combat assertion she made, and instead just added more false claims easily refuted.
If you want to lose in court, or lose your life, hire this lawyer pilot now!
So since she made it so I couldn't effectively respond to her defamation in that discussion, I'll take the opportunity to respond here.
Yes, I retired as a Major. I assume that was supposed to be an insult. If so, I will try to recover. But I did not retire at 22 years, I retired at 20 years as public information online demonstrates.
Yes, I did have multiple formal reprimands and my security clearances were suspended after I refused an unlawful order to murder an American citizen outside a war zone who was no imminent threat and tendered my resignation. My clearances were suspended, not revoked, pending an investigation by the Air Force Central Adjudication Facility (AFCAF) which makes the decision to revoke clearances or not. They issued their decision on 09/27/2012 on the order I refused, my formal reprimands, and ruled in my favor and restored all my clearances. Ms. Slye would have seen my favorite part of this ruling, and the part most relevant to her accusation here, had she simply looked at my Facebook profile picture. It's literally my profile picture:
But again, such right-at-your-fingers research is far too much to ask of the impressive Kathryn A. Slye, esquire! Likewise, her false claim that I was "forced" to resign my commission or face a court-martial (a legal proceeding so therefore something she struggles to understand) is a novel conjuring on her part. Especially given that the military did not accept my resignation. Perhaps in her world, it's a 4D chess move to force somebody to resign, not accept it, and also not court-martial them. As a side note, I am frightened for any of her unsuspecting passengers with her at the controls, but I digress.
Which brings us to my favorite false allegation. That I was never in the squadron that flies the AC-130U Gunship and that I do not have 1000 combat hours in that aircraft. Her passengers must be excited to know that if her airplane runs out of fuel, she can just imagine avgas into existence! Like God himself, Ms. Slye need merely breathe reality into existence with her words. A skill that must make her legal writings a real pleasure for judges (and especially the other party) to read I'm sure.
But it turns out, I did in fact fly the AC-130U and was a member of that squadron (they tend to not let people outside the squadron fly that aircraft) and I do have 1000 combat hours. Below is video of my retirement ceremony (you have to watch on YouTube, it doesn't play in an embed) literally in that squadron, officiated by my wife who I met in that very squadron many years prior. The same video on the intro to this blog, which is listed on my Facebook profile, much too hidden for even the most erudite lawyers.
As to my frivolous lawsuits, the State of Washington didn't think my lawsuit was frivolous since I won in federal court and had their unconstitutional law struck down. Nor did the CMSgt of the Air Force think my lawsuit was frivolous when she settled, reversed her unconstitutional action, and the Air Force changed its policy as a result. The Stars and Stripes wrote about that court win and mentioned I flew the "C-130U" aircraft. Given that Slye repeated that typo referencing a mythical C-130U, instead of the AC-130U, I imagine she read that article and still managed to make her false claim which is truly impressive. Pull up, Ms. Slye, pull up!
So to close, it was a remarkable experience being introduced to this lawyer and pilot who so masterfully shows that she lacks any ability to do the most basic research and yet doesn't let that stop her from asserting idiotically false claims. Kathryn Slye is truly a basket of damaged goods and one of the dumbest individuals I have ever encountered. Her passengers and clients are treading in dangerous waters with that mental defective.
And so it goes.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment