1. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    According to Al, I am one of the defendants. Can't wait to have him as my deponent.:rolleyes:
  2. Danny55

    Danny55 Member

    Had a search further down the group and found this
    "[​IMG]Wis Chemtrails Who do we sue?11 June at 21:56

    [​IMG]Al DiCicco not aliens or ET's haha. Most likely federal Government and related agencies that are involved and contracted and those that are supposed to "protect" but fail; EPA, State environmental agencies, ...that is why that question is to be asked to the attorney. If you like call our attorney if you have evidence.11 June at 22:00 · 2"
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  3. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Not true. I have registered and haven't sent in any samples. It's incredible the amount of disinfo you guys spew. But then, we know what your agenda truly is.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sounds more like post you were responding to was accurate, and the Chemtrail Lawsuit web site description was inaccurate.

    That's just trivia though. What about the key issues? The persistence of contrails? The normal levels of barium in blood? What's the truth there?
  5. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

    I would PAY to witness this deposition!!!!!! Do you take VISA?
  6. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    I think that Robert Forgette is actually advocating participation of skeptics in the FB groups, provided they show willingness to help with the lawsuit (and be careful with "attacks" like trying to actually debunk chemtrails ...). Input about toxic limits and flight identification was welcome so far.

    He showed exasperation on several occations because fellow chemmies would keep posting chemtrail videos, pictures and links, but failed to contribute solid data, including better shots of airplanes or flight IDs.

    He may show a slight paranoia and mood changes from time to time, but he is really trying get this thing flying.

    Speaking of that, right now he is looking for a pilot to conduct a contrail sampling flight. They know now about the bleed air process and how easy it is to take a sample from the cabin air.
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    He stopped talking to me after I tried to explain the Arizona air test results (where they tested dirt, but used the levels for air). I'm not sure why - he did seem quite nice when I showed him some references for levels of barium in blood. But now:


    Robert, I'm not debunking things with my qualifications. I'm debunking them with facts and reasoning that you can check for yourself. By all means don't trust me. In fact don't trust anyone on the internet. Check to see if what they say is correct.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  8. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Yes, and these people don't understand Cointelpro at all. That program used people inside the group to disinform, disrupt, and discredit the group.

    For instance, they would place an agent who acted in all respects like one of the group, even as one of their best assets.

    For example, the agent would seem like a trusted active member, even a leader, but would proceed to spread disruptive rumors,
    give the members inaccurate information, and eventally act to discredit the group.

    Or, the agent would spread rumors of disruption to increase the paranoia of the group inducing fear and inaction, delete their messages and claim someone else did it, or spread inaccurate information to discredit the group.

    Come to think of it, direct refutatation wasn't the Modus Operandi of Cointelpro at all, but the above listed actions are.
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    He seems eminently reasonable and scientific in this video:

  10. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I see one problem with his scientism. He doesn't speak of obtaining a 'control' sample outside of the chemtrail. If they only sample a "chemtrail", and pick up ordinary mineral dust containing crustal material such as aluminum, they will say it was from the chemtrail. They need to also sample during a "chemtrail"-free period for a control. However, when they do that, they will also see the crustal material, and then switch their claim to say that the atmosphere is so saturated with "chemtrail" pollution that they cannot distinguish between ordinary air and the output from a "chemtrail".

    How many times have we seen the goalposts 'shifted' so that they can make it seem like they scored?

    Even so, just learning that the "chemtrail" they are sampling comes from an ordinary commercial airliner will be a step in the right direction....maybe..... if they are willing to admit it like G. Edward Griffin has.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  11. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

  12. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    To be fair that of course applies to everyone - including the believers themselves if they attempt to do anything to witnesses they do not like!

    Here's the link for those who woudl liek to read the provision - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

    However it is part of 18 USC Part 1, which is labelled "Crimes", and that seems to be mainly about crimes agaisnt the "state" - eg assault, theft, etc (which are against people, but the state has the tright to prosecute or somethign like that), so I am not sure it would be applicable to this one, which is a civil suit isn't it??
  13. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Here's the only section that might apply to an overzealous debunker if you twisted the intent of the law into something unrecognizable:

    However the next section describes a valid recognized defense which would apply directly to 99.999% of debunkers:

    Isn't that at the heart of what debunkers are doing, simply encouraging the other people (chemtrail conspiracists) to be truthful in presenting facts and scientific evidence as well as spoon feeding them said facts and scientific evidence? No judge or jury would ever convict a debunker of "tampering with a witness".

    On the other hand, a good case could be made for a charge of witness tampering against some of the leaders of the chemtrail lawsuit, to wit:

  14. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

    This is an affirmative defense. In other words, you don't have the right to remain silent (seems to run afoul of the 5th amendment, no?). You must prove you are innocent. Either way, "preponderance of the evidence" is a very low burden of proof. It means "more likely than not." I used to deal with this burden of proof on my last job. When used against you (civil cases) it's scary as hell, as it only requires a being 51% persuasive. But as a defendant, it's the best case scenario.

    Here is a link discussing the seeming conflict between an affirmative defense versus the 5th amendment: Protection of Government Processes -- Constitutionality -- 18 U.S.C. § 1512(d)

    I think these dingbats are referring to this language in the law (18 USC § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant):

    Corruptly Persuades is generally interpreted to mean, “knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the integrity or truth-seeking ability of an investigation by a federal law enforcement officer”, "motivated by an improper purpose.” “It does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech, even if such conduct has the effect of hindering an investigation.” (source: Supreme Court of the United States (PDF))

    You basically must have some ulterior, nefarious, illegal motive or you're encouraging the witness to do something illegal, like lying under oath.

    Misleading Conduct is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1515:
    (A) knowingly making a false statement;
    (B) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portionof such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement;
    (C) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false, forged, altered, or otherwise lacking in authenticity;
    (D) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a sample, specimen, map, photograph, boundary mark, or other object that is misleading in a material respect; or
    (E) knowingly using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead;

    • Like Like x 2
  15. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

  16. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Which faction of the military-industrial complex pays you? What facts do you have? What say you?!
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  17. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I don't work for any military, I am a merchant marine Chief Engineer who works on ships in the Gulf Of Mexico. Ask Al, he knows all about it.

    As for the facts of the matter, I linked to them on page 1 of this thread, right here.

    Don't bother to confront Al about those facts, he will silence you and ban you from his group if you question him about those facts.

    However, those facts will eventually get aired if he ever files a lawsuit, and will be the reason he fails.

    Rather strange he doesn't want to speak about it now, don't you think, when he knows it will all come out sooner or later?

    Maybe he is fooling himself.

    Or maybe he is fooling you, too.

    Either way, you are being played for a fool if you follow his path.

    If you disagree with anything here, feel free to discuss it.

    What say you?
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They have apparently submitted a FOIA request to the NOAA:


    I wonder how they will handle what they actually get.
  19. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

  20. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

    They won't get much back - which they'll use to scream "coverup!" As any good conspiracy monger will tell you, no evidence IS evidence of a conspiracy!

    If i was NOAA, i'd respond to requests like "All documents which discuss or refer to the use of Aluminum being sprayed into the atmosphere to aid in weather modification" by sending them screen shots of their own web page. Just for laughs. :D
  21. Danny55

    Danny55 Member

    Another one,further down the GEO I page
    " Here is a template i copied and sent myself! A Letter Requesting Action from the Congress of the
    United States and The Governor:
    I, as a concerned citizen of The United States, demand
    immediate action from you and Congress as follows:

    1. Full public disclosure explaining the truth behind
    the ongoing chemical, biological or other toxic aerial
    sprayings occurring over the United States and other
    2. Cessation of aerial spraying upon U.S. citizens.
    3. Enforcement of existing Federal law which prohibits
    experimentation upon U.S. citizens without informed
    consent and permission.

    I attest to one or more of the following: I have directly
    witnessed these sprayings. I have experienced adverse
    health effects from these sprayings. I have reviewed
    the latest material from responsible and knowledgeable
    researchers, journalists and Internet sources on the
    subject. Furthermore, any so-called "official" responses
    to date, claiming that these aerial sprayings are "normal"
    contrails, are not satisfactory."
    I wonder who the " responsible and knowledgeable
    researchers, journalists and Internet sources" are?
  22. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Despite claims that our government has "stonewalled" against releasing any information regarding what people see in the sky coming out of airplanes (contrails) twelve years ago the NOAA, EPA, NASA, and FAA did release a full accounting. I have yet to see any chemtrail website dispute the information in a rational way. I challenge this lawsuit group and Joe Marman to take it on and try to disprove any of it.

    They won't address the issue at all, in any way.
    They are the ones stonewalling.

    "Contrails Fact Sheet(2000)"
  23. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

    I'm trying to figure their true motive. They can't go to court, they know this. So what is the motive? It must be money. Somewhere, somehow they are making (or will make) money off this hoax. It's like the guy who keeps putting out videos ("Why are they spraying?") -

    From “Why in the World are They Spraying?”:
    View attachment 597
    He asks his duped followers for money to make his next video. In his fine print he clearly says he can't (or won't) share any of the profits from the movie. So he collects (possibly) tens of thousands of dollars from his dupes, makes his little movie on his laptop and pockets the rest. With the kind of money he's collecting, if he was serious about his "cause", he would put that money towards seeking real, tangible, direct evidence and proving his case once and for all rather than regurgitating the same, useless information for profit. :confused:
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think this group is trying to make money. I think they actually believe they are being sprayed and poisoned, and they want it to stop. But I think they allow lapses in science and reason because "the end justifies the means".

    MJM on the other hand is getting financially entrenched in chemtrail promotion - much like Richard Gage from the 9/11 truth movement. Perhaps not setting out to make a living from it, but that's the way it ended up, so now they can't back down, as they have nothing else they can do.
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And now they are writing to the DOD:


  26. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I don't worry much about typos in my message board postings, and even have some on my website, but for an attorney to make those sorts of typos in a legal document and put it out over the web is a sign of very poor work.
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, he's a bit of an odd one. Seems like a regular lawyer, but then his web site has a page of YouTube links about chemtrails and scary bike rides:
  28. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    Not hyperlinkied descriptions mind you, just the raw youtube addresses. He hasn't even taken off the extraneous '&abc' from his links, just slapped them on his site copied straight from the address bar.

    The act of placing these video links at the very top of one of his main pages demonstrates and advertises this fellow's poor judgement to any other less credulous clients, and unfortunately also his professional piers.

    After seeing those priorities, I certainly wouldn't hire him, would you?
  29. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    "Birds of a feather flock together", just as the old proverb states, succinctly describes the chemtrails crowd.

    The odd bunch. Looking deeply into most of them you find some indications of inadequacies, incompetencies and petty personal motives behind what they do.
  30. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

  31. Des O

    Des O New Member

    Some more news from this lawsuit. Al is now asking all members to send an additional $25 each (there are over 2000 members). $50,000 does not seem very "pro bono". I think either Al or more likely the lawyer is taking everyone for a ride.
    This is happening after Al has accused Michael J Murphy, Roxy, Rosalind of being in it for the ego and money.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  32. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Sounds like this Joseph Marman is just a typical Ambulance Chaser sort of personal injury lawyer. According to the website Avvo, 50% of Marman's cases are auto accident related.

    He even has one of those cheesy, low budget commercials.


    Here are the details of those suspensions (bold emphasis mine):

    Would you trust a lawyer like that enough to send them even a dime? Is this joker the best lawyer the chemtrail crowd can come up with?

    I second that motion on the lawyer taking them for a ride.
  33. Danny55

    Danny55 Member

    Apparently Al DiCicco has left the Lawsuit Group..... again

    "[h=6]Robert M Forgette
    [/h][h=6]Apparently, Al DiCicco's left the group... Means I'm left holding the bag. :-/ I just discovered he's removed himself from both groups. I dunno if I can handle this without his help... Being honest. This was never my intent to be left in charge of this groups fate. Please tell me what you all would like to see happen here. Anything you have to say is welcomed. Please respond and give your opinions. Thanks"[/h]
  34. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

    I'm deeply saddened by this news.
  35. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Active Member

    I'm saddened as well. It means he'll have more time to spend writing letters to our local papers and appearing at the County Supervisors meetings.
  36. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    My impression is that Al DiCicco is seriously troubled. He seems to be convinced that "people are dying" from the toxic stuff sprayed by planes (as he urgently stated in the Roxy Lopez Show recording).

    I wonder how someone in that state can be reached by reason.

    I also think it is possible that he did not approve of Robert Forgette's group admission policy which made it possible for some skeptics to participate with carefully worded posts.
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The "people are dying" from chemtrails idea goes back to the original hoax with William Thomas, see this 7-26-2000 article:

    So it's not too unusual in chemtrail circles to believe things like this. I'm sure Michael J. Murphy and Roxy Lopez also think the same thing.

    Of course there's no evidence to back it up. People are doing just fine.
  38. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But how to get them to read it :)

    I'm sure their lawyer would find it useful though, so he could eliminate test results that just show normal levels of aluminum.
  40. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member