Chemtrail Lawsuit

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/08...eoengineering-chemtrails-lawsuit-update.html?


That legal process allows the plaintiffs to ‘dig’ for information from the 36 defendants plus get legal access to emails, letters, and all sorts of information the lawyers may want to find regarding weather geoengineering, formulations, etc.
Content from External Source

Interesting. So, they are planning on spending a significant amount of money looking for something that's not there. They can misinterpret whatever they might find online, but very different rules will apply for their lawyers.

What a colossal waste of time and energy.
 
Interesting. So, they are planning on spending a significant amount of money looking for something that's not there. They can misinterpret whatever they might find online, but very different rules will apply for their lawyers.

What a colossal waste of time and energy.
For decades the lottery has been characterized as "a tax on the [ ]."

I truly don't aim to brush up against the politeness policy, but the lottery thing came to mind
as I asked myself where in the world would these guys find that kind of money...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd love to be there when the depose the first witness and when they don't get the answers they want, they keep saying: "Do you understand that you're under oath?"
 
I truly don't aim to brush up against the politeness policy
For someone who's not aiming you have an uncanny knack for hitting your target :p

where in the world would these guys find that kind of money...?
Halbig says he raised 84K. (and spent 78K, and he hasnt gotten past the FOIA phase yet). There are ALOT more chemmies than SHHoaxers. But I'm not sure why they havent done FOIA requests BEFORE filing the lawsuit. I guess theyll need 2 rounds of depositions for everyone since they arent prepared properly.
 
I think I've said this before, but I think they expect court to work like a Phoenix Wright game. Go in with no admissible evidence, bluff your *** off, and badger every witness mercilessly until one of them breaks down and confesses everything.
 
Update on the Canadian lawsuit:
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca...info_e.php?court_no=T-431-16&select_court=All
2016-12-08 Ottawa Order and Reasons dated 08-DEC-2016 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice LeBlanc Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 4 Result: granted in part "The motion is granted in part; The Statement of Claim is struck out, with leave to amend within 40 days of the date of the present Order, the Christmas Recess being included in the computation of that delay; and costs of the motion to the Defendant. Filed on 08-DEC-2016 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1321 page(s) 164 - 177 Interlocutory Decision
Content from External Source
Court documents are posted on http://www.aerialdischargeclassaction.ca/?page=3
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Update on the Canadian lawsuit:
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca...info_e.php?court_no=T-431-16&select_court=All
2016-12-08 Ottawa Order and Reasons dated 08-DEC-2016 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice LeBlanc Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 4 Result: granted in part "The motion is granted in part; The Statement of Claim is struck out, with leave to amend within 40 days of the date of the present Order, the Christmas Recess being included in the computation of that delay; and costs of the motion to the Defendant. Filed on 08-DEC-2016 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1321 page(s) 164 - 177 Interlocutory Decision
Content from External Source
Court documents are posted on http://www.aerialdischargeclassaction.ca/?page=3

Sounds like we'll find out in 40 days if the lawsuit is continued. My money is that they don't bother. Seems like these lawsuits might just be ways for the chemtrail promoters to make some money and/or draw attention to themselves. When it gets to the point that actual evidence is asked for, the cases get dropped.
 
Right on the 40 day deadline (Jan 17th) Mr Juroviesky has filed a new statement of claim! The document hasn't yet been posted online so we can't see whether it contains any actual evidence, but on recent performance I am not too hopeful.

What happens next, I wonder? I can't imagine the process will repeat a third time, so I expect the judge will have to make a decision on whether to grant the motion to strike.
 
The amended claim is now online at http://www.aerialdischargeclassaction.ca/uploads/files/Amended Statement of Claim Jan 17 2017.pdf (and attached to this post).

Still no actual evidence that I can see. A list of times (no photographs, registration numbers, airlines or even aircraft types) when planes were seen leaving trails. They even include mind control as one of the possible motives!

possibly to control or influence the viewpoint and reasoning capacity of a domestic or foreign population, through chemical and/or electromagnetic means
Content from External Source
and again:

Section 2 to the Charter guarantees, inter alia, the following fundamental freedoms, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice:
a. freedom of conscience and religion;
b. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication [emphasis added];

19. Plaintiff respectfully submits that to the extent Defendant engages in the release of Arial Discharges, to influence the viewpoint and reasoning capacity of the population, through chemical and/or electromagnetic means, that such conduct constitutes a breach of Plaintiff’s fundamental rights to freedom of conscience, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, and as such, a breach of those fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Section 2 to the Charter.
Content from External Source

They also mention "Project Cloverleaf", which as far as I can ascertain is an ancient internet hoax? That was the story that originated with AC Griffith, right? https://cloverleafsky.wordpress.com/category/ac-griffith/
 

Attachments

  • Amended Statement of Claim Jan 17 2017.pdf
    369.6 KB · Views: 830
Last edited:
Finally another update. I think this means another chemtrail lawsuit is dead in the water.

2017-05-04: Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 04-MAY-2017 re: Sending the file for Direction to the Case Management Judge, as no further action has been taken by the parties.
Content from External Source
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca...E_info_e.php?court_no=T-431-16&select_court=T
Why do you think that? The defendant didn't reply to the amended claim. Doesn't that mean the lawsuit should continue?
 
Why do you think that? The defendant didn't reply to the amended claim. Doesn't that mean the lawsuit should continue?
I'm not too sure how these things work, but I took it to mean that it is being referred back to the judge for a final decision, and he will probably decide that the amended claim doesn't answer the criticisms made in the motion to strike, and that therefore the motion to strike should be upheld. Or at least that's what I would do!

A reminder of what the judge said when upholding the original motion to strike (with leave to appeal)

upload_2017-5-5_10-46-54.png
http://www.aerialdischargeclassaction.ca/uploads/files/Federal Court Decision Dec 8 2016).pdf


It is clear that the amended claim does not comply with the rules as stated.


Edit: as far as I can tell, no further response from the defendant was required, in that decision quoted above. The judge made his decision, and offered the plaintiff an appeal to "salvage" his claim. I believe (though I am certainly not a Canadian law expert!) that the final decision on whether the amended claim is good enough is purely down to the judge now. I suppose it's possible that he could allow the claim to proceed, but from reading his criticisms of the original claim, alongside the amended one, I find it very hard to see that happening.
 
Last edited:
Edit: as far as I can tell, no further response from the defendant was required, in that decision quoted above.
But apparently they were waiting for something, as nothing happened for more than 3 months, and now they say "Sending the file for Direction to the Case Management Judge, as no further action has been taken by the parties."
 
But apparently they were waiting for something, as nothing happened for more than 3 months, and now they say "Sending the file for Direction to the Case Management Judge, as no further action has been taken by the parties."
Yes, the delay does seem a bit puzzling. The decision made in December doesn't say that the defendant had to file another motion to strike in response to the amended claim. Perhaps they had the option to do so, and the deadline has now elapsed. Hopefully all will become clear before long with a final judgement.
 
Looks like the judge himself doesn't know what to do next:
Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice LeBlanc dated 09-MAY-2017 directing that "As there has been no entry into this file since the filing of the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim on January 17, 2017, counsel for both parties are to inform the Court, in writing, by May 19, 2017, of the status of, an the next steps in this proceeding. To that end, counsel are to submit by that same date a proposed timetable for these next steps. If counsel cannot agree on a timetable or if such timetable causes concerns to the court, a case management conference call will be set up by the Registy." placed on file on 09-MAY-2017 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
Content from External Source
 
Conference call scheduled for next Tuesday:

2017-06-01 Ottawa
Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice LeBlanc dated 01-JUN-2017 directing that "A case management conference call will be held on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, at 10:00 a.m." placed on file on 01-JUN-2017 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
Content from External Source
 
And still it goes on:


- 2017-07-10 Ottawa
Acknowledgment of Receipt received from all parties with respect to the Direction of the Court rendered on July 6, 2017. (via email) placed on file on 10-JUL-2017

- 2017-07-05 Ottawa
Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice LeBlanc dated 05-JUL-2017 directing that 1. The Defendant's motion materials to strike and dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim filed on January 17, 2017, shall be served and filed no later than September 22, 2017; 2. Cross-examinations on any affidavits shall be completed - and the Plaintiff's responding materials shall be served and filed, no later than November 17, 2017; 3. The hearing date of the Defendant's motion to strike and dismiss shall be determined once the Plaintiff's responding materials has been served and filed." placed on file on 05-JUL-2017
Content from External Source
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca...E_info_e.php?court_no=T-431-16&select_court=T
 
So my brain went cross eyed reading all that, am I correct in reading that this is basically treading water in the arcane procedural esoterica that TV shows always have happen during commercial breaks?
 
So my brain went cross eyed reading all that, am I correct in reading that this is basically treading water in the arcane procedural esoterica that TV shows always have happen during commercial breaks?
Yes it just seems to be endless back and forth. Plaintiff files suit. Defendant files motion to strike. Plaintiff flies amended suit. Defendant files amended motion to strike...

It seems as though the plaintiff knew they were going to miss the November deadline so they have agreed an extension until December 8, then any further discussions need to be wrapped up by February, at which point a hearing date can be set.

If a frivolous chemtrail lawsuit can drag on for this long, you have to feel sorry for people with serious grievances going through the courts.
 
Yes it just seems to be endless back and forth. Plaintiff files suit. Defendant files motion to strike. Plaintiff flies amended suit. Defendant files amended motion to strike...

It seems as though the plaintiff knew they were going to miss the November deadline so they have agreed an extension until December 8, then any further discussions need to be wrapped up by February, at which point a hearing date can be set.

If a frivolous chemtrail lawsuit can drag on for this long, you have to feel sorry for people with serious grievances going through the courts.

There's a nuance that's missed here. The judge _accepted_ the rationale of the first motion to strike ("vague, unanswerable, frivolous, vexatious ...etc"), and has given the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to something acceptable. The wise thing at this point would have been for the plaintiff lawyer to move to withdraw the complaint or come to an agreement with the defendant. The defendant would have probably accepted it and it would have ended without too much damage. But the plaintiff didn't, and the amended version isn't going to be any better, so unless the defendant can convince the judge to allow him a third try (probably unlikely), he's done.

Next: Canada (and the UK) is "loser pays", unlike the US. This means in a civil case, when the outcome is finalized, the lawyers get to submit proposals to the judge on final settlement. On a reasonable case that went the full distance, the judge decides whether to make to the loser pay the winner's court costs. On a "normal" case that has reasonable grounds, and no undue hardship to either side, the judge will usually not award costs.

Here comes the bad part: it's a motion to strike. As frivolous. "Strike" and "frivolous" together pretty much guarantees that the plaintiff will pay court costs - likely not all, but it's gonna hurt - HMQ lawyers get a salary, but the system is still not cheap. Secondly, and much more important is the word "vexatious" - the WMD of the civil court system. If the judge _uses_ that word in the strike, it will not only make sure that the court costs the plaintiff will have to pay will be higher, the lawyer _himself_ may be fined for wasting the court's time, and/or reported to the appropriate law society for disciplinary action. Not to mention that the plaintiff may simply NOT be allowed to file any civil case even remotely like this for the rest of his life.

Let this be a lesson: if you're going to sue someone in this country, MAKE DAMN SURE your case is solid and properly presented, otherwise, the consequences can be, er, unpleasant. if the case is proper and reasonable, it's not too bad even if you lose. If it ain't, you're screwed. If the judge doesn't use the word "vexatious", the plaintiff lawyer waltzes off free with money in his pocket, meanwhile the plaintiff has had to pay some portion of the defendant's legal bills _too_.

I've worked for and with high and very high level judges here. I've always been impressed with them. They're smart, very well educated, and their decisions always make sense. This will not go well for the plaintiff. Especially if the plaintiff acts badly when he loses.
 
I'm not sure if a paper can just be entered as evidence like that without expert witness.

Regardless, every piece of evidence and every expert is subject to litigation and examination and the papers won't stand up on their own, and any expert brought to present them would wither under the scrutiny applied just to establish expertise, let alone any discussion of the paper if they make it that far.
 
I also find it amusing that he seems to have acknowledged that the DND has never participated, that "all our evidence is w.r.t. the DND" (which is thereby toast), "what about outside of DND"? If they had any evidence...

This is going to get nuked.
 
The summary is a bit too cryptic for me to follow, but the April 26th entry (Doc. #51) says "The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 37", and it also says that it's an interlocutory decision. So it looks to me like it's not over yet.
 
The summary is a bit too cryptic for me to follow, but the April 26th entry (Doc. #51) says "The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 37", and it also says that it's an interlocutory decision. So it looks to me like it's not over yet.
Yes there are a number of documents that have been filed and it seems as if they are being dealt with one by one. Amazing how these things drag on so long - I wonder if serious grievances take this amount of time to go through the courts!
 
They can go even longer if both sides have aruments of some merit. It's a big part of why companies settle lawsuits of even marginal merit - a judgement of a fraction as much still puts them much farther in the hole.

And when one side isn't participating in good faith you can basically add weeks to each step. Look at how long this one dragged on just getting the plaintiffs to properly establish what they were suing over. That whole process can be applied to every document in the file, up to the end of the judge's patience with shenanigans - the best grease for the wheels of justice is convincing the judge you're making a mockery of their courtroom.
 
I wonder if the courts would be so patient if they they didn't get paid so well. Most people would just tell them to **** ***. for free.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top