Cash-Landrum Incident -- The $20 Million Lawsuit Against the U.S. Government
Cash-Landrum Incident -- The $20 Million Lawsuit Against the U.S. Government
Background: The Path to Legal Action
Following the Cash-Landrum encounter, the three witnesses were left with serious health problems and no explanation. The U.S. government denied any involvement. Normal channels for obtaining answers -- contacting the Air Force, the Army, local officials -- produced nothing.
In mid-1981, approximately six months after the incident, Betty Cash and Vickie Landrum contacted their U.S. Senators: John Tower (R-Texas) and Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas). Both senators were sympathetic but ultimately directed them toward legal channels. The witnesses filed a complaint with the Judge Advocate Claims office at Bergstrom Air Force Base in Austin, Texas. After several lengthy interviews, the Judge Advocate's office suggested they hire a lawyer.
Filing the Lawsuit
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs | Betty Cash; Vickie Landrum; Colby Landrum |
| Defendant | The United States of America (the federal government) |
| Amount claimed | $20 million |
| Attorney | Peter Gersten; a New York attorney known for pursuing UFO-related Freedom of Information Act cases; one of the few attorneys in the country with experience in this area |
| Filing date | 1981 (approximately) |
| Legal theory | The plaintiffs alleged they had been injured by a U.S. government-operated aircraft; sought compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and long-term health consequences |
| Specific allegation | That the diamond-shaped craft was a secret U.S. government vehicle, and that its operators had negligently or recklessly caused radiation injuries to the three civilians |
The Government's Defense
The U.S. government's defense was straightforward: it denied any knowledge of or involvement in the incident. Specifically:
- No U.S. military aircraft was operating in the FM 1485 area on December 29, 1980
- No U.S. military program operated the described aircraft
- No evidence linked any government craft to the injuries
The government did not attempt to explain what the witnesses had seen -- it simply denied that it was anything the government was responsible for.
Peter Gersten's Strategy
Gersten's legal strategy focused on the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows lawsuits against the federal government for injuries caused by federal employees or equipment. His challenge was that the FTCA requires identification of a specific government employee, agency, or piece of equipment responsible for the injury. Without knowing specifically which military program, which base, or which aircraft was involved, identifying a specific government actor was impossible.
The Dismissal
On August 21, 1986, U.S. District Court Judge Ross N. Sterling dismissed the case. His ruling: the plaintiffs could not identify a specific military aircraft or program as the source of the alleged injuries. Without such identification, the Federal Tort Claims Act claim could not proceed.
Judge Sterling's ruling was not a finding that the witnesses' account was false or that they had not been injured. It was a procedural ruling that the specific legal requirements for a federal tort claim could not be satisfied given the information available.
