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.
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23