Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Danny55, Apr 21, 2012.
Hope he lets the US taxman know about all his profit from the sales.
That's how they got Al Capone, in the end.....
This was sent in July. There would have been a response in 30 days. The Lawsuit group isn't being honest to their members.
Every item on the request mentioned aluminum, barium, and strontium, so they will be told that NOAA has nothing.
Her is the abbreviated response Jay. I posted it up here, somewhere, at the time. 25/08/2012.
Bit of a change on the lawsuit group. Robert Forgette is stepping aside, and Amie Lou and Kathryn O'Shannahan will be stepping in to administer the group. All the other admins removed.
Seems like Katherine has got no idea whatsoever about the chemistry and physics she tutored.
"contrails are a mix of jet fuel exhaust and water...mostly water. That's why they're called Con trails...as in condensation trails. This is why they evaporated so quickly and are short...ALWAYS directly behind the craft they came from. ONLY jets make a contrail, only at high altitude and only in specific weather conditions."
"Understand that a prop plane cannot form a contrail because it is NOT a jet."
"My ex husband is a 727 captain (of 16 years) and we know more commercial airline pilots who ask the same question. "WTF are they spraying us with?" Don't come here making shit up and calling it science. Either step up or step aside."
Followed by various Chemtrail videos, including the Supertanker and the research aircraft ones.
More soap opera. I see Al Dicicco is filing a complaint against Joe Marman because he had no update. The new admin is just going for FOIA requests. I've seen this kind of romper room before. The power sometimes goes to extremists who ban like crazy, all memory of advances in knowledge is lost, and after awhile the place falls apart. Chemtrailcentral.com is an example. For about 4 years it was the go-to place with thousands of members and good discussion. Dead-enders got in power and restricted things to groupthink and used a heavy hand. It got a whole less interesting, and old timers left in droves.
These folks have no memory of the promises made by Michael J. Murphy in MAY OF 2011 that Joe Marman was beginning a lawsuit.
One year, four months later............................nada, except that Michael J. Murphy mentioned it at the conference, and nobody asked him what happened over the past year+??
Think you're correct Jay. Already seeing one of the new admins bear a resemblance to a certain character from the film "Porky's".
It looks like there are significant problems with this lawsuit.
1. They have no evidence.
2. Lacking evidence, the attorney is unable to develop a strategy for pursuing the case.
3. Even if the above two hurdles were crossed, six people will be needed to be responsible for legal costs incurred by the State of California when the case is found frivolous.
Bottom line seems to be that despite claims of a lawsuit in progress, nothing has been done at all, and likely nothing ever will be done, just as in all previous claims of lawsuits.
Law Offices of
Joseph H. Marman, Esq.
8421 Auburn Blvd., Suite 145
Attorney at Law Citrus Heights, CA 95610-0394 (916) 721-3324
E-mail: email@example.com Fax (916) 721-3633
Member: California Consumer Attorneys, Capitol City Trial Lawyers Association, Sacramento County Bar Assn., Placer County Bar Assn..
December 18, 2012
Hello fellow Chem Trial activists and potential plaintiffs in my lawsuit
Re: Chem Trail Lawsuit
I wanted to give an idea of what we are facing.
To clarify what I plan on doing. I have been an attorney for 25 years and I have my own law office. I have two staff people, and I am very busy with my regular paying clients, so the Chem Trail lawsuit has to take a backseat to when I have time to present it since I am not charging anything for my time in doing this. If we win the case and attorneys fees are awarded at the end of the suit, I will seek my hourly rate from the government.
I am not going to file a class action suit, since that is expensive to notify all potential members of the class. I intend to have 4-10 named plaintiffs, which will be easier for me to notify of the litigation events and processes. I intend to file a California state lawsuit against the government agencies responsible for protecting our health, which I believe so far are the California Air Resources Board and the California EPA. I will periodically notify the Facebook page once we get our case going. I am required to file a Government Claim first as an administrative requirement, and then the Claim is rejected and then we proceed to a lawsuit.
We cannot just file a suit without any direct evidence, and then hope to win because we are upset that the government is spraying us. We have no direct evidence so far, that I have seen to prove exactly who is spraying us, until we catch them with the chemicals dripping out of the tail pipes.
At this point all we do have for evidence is that the main 3 elements of barium, strontium and aluminum are being found in extreme amounts in our water, snow and perhaps blood. In my mind, we can only sue the government for failure to take the proper steps that they are mandated to do of investigating contaminants that may affect our health. Be aware also that there is a California Government Code § 818.2 that specifies that “A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce any law” This may be a big problem for us, and I need to research how to get around that law prior to filing any lawsuit.
Be advised that the losing party in lawsuits may have a judgment entered against them for the costs put forth in defending the case, which in this case would be the California government, so be advised that if we lose, you may be hit with being responsible to pay the State of California’s costs of defending the lawsuit. Be further advised that I need to get about 6 Claimants to list as claimants in the Government claim first, then those claims are typically automatically rejected by the government agencies, and then we have 6 months from that date to file our lawsuit.
Joseph H. Marman
"no direct evidence....". The hallmark of chemtrail theory.
So, another effort at legitimizing chemtrails has failed.
They claim that they cannot get people onboard because chemtrails are "just too big"?
Doesn't quite make sense, the bigger a thing gets the broader the opposition......
The facts of the matter are that from the beginning running through to the end, Al Dicicco has been less than fully honest about his claims that anyone has out-of-ordinary barium blood levels. If that had been true, doctors worldwide (and greedy lawyers) would have worked up a lawsuit within days.
Dicicco's problem could not be covered up forever. As soon as people got in deep enough, they checked out his 'evidence' and found that he had been covering up, that his claims of abnormal barium blood levels were bogus, and eventually the house of cards had to fall.
It's very simple.
You lie, you lose.
Dishonest to the last. The self pity many of these people wallow in when their sham show-pieces fail makes me angry.
There has already been a class action lawsuit filed in the Mayflower spill.
Call me stupid, and maybe I'm not the only one, but I don't understand this simile:
As far as I know this is the first usage of "target a fly on an iceberg". Is is the oppossite of "fish in a barrel"?
Is it geoengineering or the lawsuit that is represented by the fly?
I don't get it. Could someone explain?
So it wasn't just that people who spend all day in their parents basement (except when they pop their head out to photograph a "chemtrail" sunset) posting on a computer don't have any money to donate to "the cause"?
First I thought it meant "really easy", cause the fly is black and the iceberg is white.
Then I though, "really hard", cause the fly it tiny and the iceberg is really big.
I think it means: like contrails, a fly is completely harmless on an iceberg. So there is no reason to kill it.
I think they meant the fly is too small yet it is steering the iceberg so well that they simply could not stop it. They seem such helpless victims, even against a fly.
This might as well be from the mouth of god. this is so exacting and would absolutely be the case if ti were real. EVERY Saul Goodman attorney at law would be clambering for blood tests and social security numbers to represent.
right? we are all zionist pigs after that dollar according to many CT pushers...
Looks like they are giving up.
I can remember if I donated or not. dang
Interesting read, I'd question even if they had evidence of elevated levels of Ba, Sr or Al, even though that question would be based on a small sampling of reviewed articles on the subject. It would seem their claims of these findings are based of citizen science that is often flawed unless directed by a trained professional.
(emphasis is mine)
Doesn't that very neatly summarise the whole chemtrail meme.
Here's a recent example of someone gathering a sample, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG4izbL74oM , I'm no scientist, but doesn't printers ink most likely contain some aluminum and/or barium...? I hope he publishes his results, it was part of a Global Skywatch thread, I'd like to see his results.
Here are the results of an unrelated test, no details given in how the sample was collected,
Al DiCiccio rationalising in a Youtube post. Those damn neutralising agents!
No mention of the fact there is no evidence, at all, that anything is being sprayed. All that's needed to get evidence of that would be either monitoring of the air, or the kind of thing presented by others in a different thread to that geezer offering 25 grand to a whistle blower.
At some point the reasonable people who have become mired in this bullshit are going to 'wake up', and see the whole thing for the nonsense it is. Until then we'll have to hope nobody does something stupid like taking a shot at an aircraft full of passengers.
How do post a screen shot on here?
"The lawyer will tell you different"? What?? Now their own attorney is part of the conspiracy against them?
PS: The lack of support for the lawsuit might lead one to conclude that there aren't that many people who actually believe what they rant about on the internet.
under the reply screen is a button for "upload a file". click it and browse to the file you want, choose that one, then click "full image" or "thumbnail" as you wish.
For more details on image posting or using other forum features, go to the top of any metabunk page and click "How To" where you will find a plethora of instructional postings.
Did anyone notice that attorney Marman is now on Dane Wigington's legal team? According to a reply from Dane to one of the comments they But there has been no update that I could find since Dane's original May 16th article.
Dane's site also mentions a Canadian lawsuit. This one was actually filed and progress can be monitored here:
by typing T-431-16 for the case # (brings up Dan Pelletier v. HMQ) and then clicking the "RE" link (nothing exciting has happened yet).
Reading through some of the comments, it looks like the announcement of some lawsuits motivated a few of the followers to click on the Donate button. I wonder if they are aware of the earlier failed attempts?
So, Her Royal Majesty the Queen of England is responsible for the spraying over Redding California that has affected Dane Wigington's solar panels and responsible for the endangerment of the Delta Smelt that all environmentalists I've read state the decline of Delta Smelt is due to redirecting the San Joaquin River Delta water? Mick, I'm trying to find an emoji choice that fits.
Shaking head double face palm would do it if there was one. He better not be costing us Canadian taxpayers any $$$ for this ridiculous lawsuit.
Discussion of the 60-Day Notice of Intent from GeoengineeringWatch and LASG moved here:
So they want $100,000 to proceed. That does not seem like it's going to happen.
Because the lawyers decided this was not an appropriate case to do pro bono?
They are just now figuring out how much this will cost? Or, is this the easy way out, shrug their shoulders and say, well, we tried?
What a delightfully round, silly number.
Part of me thinks it's comically high for certain unreachability.
Part of me thinks they're thinking:
"Surely with $100,000 and God on our side, we'll finally find that elusive proof that will make people take us seriously."
But most of me thinks: What a great time for defendants and judges to be able to access papers like
Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program.
Separate names with a comma.