Errors in the GeoengineeringWatch/LASG Lawsuit Notice of Intent

skephu

Senior Member.
Dane Wigington's "legal team" has filed a "60-day notice", which can be downloaded as a 33-page PDF file.

It lists a lot of high-ranking officials of various institutions as "violators" and "delinquent regulators". Then it claims:
Based on research, investigation and resulting evidence (both direct and
circumstantial), Proposed Plaintiffs are informed and believe the following:

In the skies over California, including, without limitation, over Shasta, Placer,
Siskiyou and Santa Cruz Counties, Violators are engaging in several
geographically widespread aerosolization programs for various reasons
including, inter alia, military purposes and purportedly to address climate
change. Violators use jet aircraft (primarily governmental and military aircraft,
but also private jets under government contract), to release substances into
the atmosphere at altitude in the effort to create artificial cloud cover and to
conduct experiments, both of which have an impact on the climate, the
temperature and weather patterns.
Content from External Source
I'm curious where they took this from:
Specifically, the climate science
community has stated that a preferred material is aluminum oxide because it
can mix with atmospheric humidity to create artificial cloud cover that stays aloft
for a long time because the particles are so small.
Content from External Source
I don't know of any "climate science" that states this.
It also cites coal fly ash as a likely material and cites Herndon's articles, without mentioning they have been retracted.

It's a long document and also includes the usual contrail photographs.
It easily dismisses contrails as an explanation:
Beyond the fictional defense that “itʼs not happening” and that
the artificial clouds are “just persistent contrails” from commercial aircraft, the actual
Programs are releasing nano-particulates of toxic materials, including, but not limited
to, aluminum oxide, barium, and strontium, into the atmosphere at high levels in the
dubious effort to impact the climate or for other reasons unknown. CIA Director John
Brennan confirmed on June 29, 2016, that SAI Programs are anything but fiction.
Content from External Source
Somehow I don't think this effort will be met with a lot of success.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
Dane Wigington's "legal team" has filed a "60-day notice", which can be downloaded as a 33-page PDF file.

I'm curious where they took this from:
Specifically, the climate science
community has stated that a preferred material is aluminum oxide because it
can mix with atmospheric humidity to create artificial cloud cover that stays aloft
for a long time because the particles are so small.
Content from External Source
I don't know of any "climate science" that states this.
It also cites coal fly ash as a likely material and cites Herndon's articles, without mentioning they have been retracted.

Somehow I don't think this effort will be met with a lot of success.

Agreed.

It also looks like they are going back to their earlier claims about aluminum oxide as opposed the aluminum in "free form" that seemed to dominate most of Dane Wigington's 2015 claims about geoengineering.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Agreed.

It also looks like they are going back to their earlier claims about aluminum oxide as opposed the aluminum in "free form" that seemed to dominate most of Dane Wigington's 2015 claims about geoengineering.

They seem conflicted here. Saying:
The Delta smelt, a small fish on the federal endangered species list, found primarily at
the mouth of the Sacramento River, has been found to have alarmingly elevated
aluminum levels in its gills and tissue. This aluminum does not exist in the natural
environment in free-form. Instead, it is falling into our lakes, rivers and streams from the
Programs.
Content from External Source
So they think Aluminum Oxide is "free form"?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's interesting that they had to put all their "evidence" together, and it's resulting in these contradictions. For example they say:

Specifically, the climate science
community has stated that a preferred material is aluminum oxide because it
can mix with atmospheric humidity to create artificial cloud cover that stays aloft
for a long time because the particles are so small.
Content from External Source
And also:

Lab reports of aluminum in precipitation range from ppb13,100 ppb correlated to
jet spraying.
Content from External Source
The only way it can correlate with jet spraying is if it does NOT stay aloft for a long time.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Courts generally rely on proof....not, "the prosecution believes xxxxx....".
(sans evidence)
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
So they think Aluminum Oxide is "free form"?
Thats something I've heard before. Terry Lawton makes the same mistake in this radio show interview
Terry - "In 2004, the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK, carried out an investigation into cabin air quality in aeroplanes and one of the peak materials found was aluminium. Aluminium oxide, free form aluminium, not bonded like you were talking about in soil, it was a natural element unbonded, floating around up at cruise altitude."
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

MikeG

Senior Member.
They seem conflicted here. Saying:
The Delta smelt, a small fish on the federal endangered species list, found primarily at
the mouth of the Sacramento River, has been found to have alarmingly elevated
aluminum levels in its gills and tissue. This aluminum does not exist in the natural
environment in free-form. Instead, it is falling into our lakes, rivers and streams from the
Programs.
Content from External Source
So they think Aluminum Oxide is "free form"?

True. The same holds true with respect to Wigington's earlier statements conflating weather modification with geoengineering programs about a year ago and more recently this year when he described it as a "red herring."

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-m...lobal-weather-modification.t6916/#post-178930
 

skephu

Senior Member.
It's interesting that they had to put all their "evidence" together, and it's resulting in these contradictions. For example they say:

Specifically, the climate science
community has stated that a preferred material is aluminum oxide because it
can mix with atmospheric humidity to create artificial cloud cover that stays aloft
for a long time because the particles are so small.
Content from External Source
And also:

Lab reports of aluminum in precipitation range from ppb13,100 ppb correlated to
jet spraying.
Content from External Source
The only way it can correlate with jet spraying is if it does NOT stay aloft for a long time.
That depends on what they mean by "long time" and what they mean by "correlated".
They might mean that "long time" = a few hours, and "correlated" = when examining the precipitation the day after the spraying.
So this can be reconciliated.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That depends on what they mean by "long time" and what they mean by "correlated".
They might mean that "long time" = a few hours, and "correlated" = when examining the precipitation the day after the spraying.
So this can be reconciliated.

But nanoparticles will stay aloft for months (which is what you want for geoengineering).
20160727-075123-2o48t.jpg

Now they could say the particles are being rained out, but then they also say the particle are there to prevent rain (over California).

It's just a whole mess of contradictions.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
The more I read this text the more glaring errors I find.
Sugar Pine Canyon Creek (a tributary of Lake Shasta) in Redding, CA, has 4,600,000
ppb of aluminum (normal soil is 15,000 ppb) in the upper and lower stream. The soil in
this area would typically have less than 40,000 ppb in an insoluble form.
Content from External Source
Normal soil on average is 8% aluminum = 80,000,000 ppb.

The people who wrote this are extremely sloppy with facts.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The more I read this text the more glaring errors I find.
Sugar Pine Canyon Creek (a tributary of Lake Shasta) in Redding, CA, has 4,600,000
ppb of aluminum (normal soil is 15,000 ppb) in the upper and lower stream. The soil in
this area would typically have less than 40,000 ppb in an insoluble form.
Content from External Source
Normal soil on average is 8% aluminum = 80,000,000 ppb.

The people who wrote this are extremely sloppy with facts.

That error seems to go back to Francis Mangels and his "Geoengineering: What we know" document, in 2011 the text was just:
Sugar Pine Canyon Cr. near Redding, CA has over 4,600,000 ug/l of aluminum in two tests, upper and lower areas of the watershed
Content from External Source
https://web.archive.org/web/2011081...ch.org/documents/GeoEngineeringWhatWeKnow.doc
 

Inti

Senior Member.

Peter

Active Member
I can't imagine this lawsuit going anywhere. It'll probably be kicked out for being frivolous.

But somehow I hope that it will be a proper lawsuit, if only to see how a couple of experts are going to demolish this whole thing to tiny little bits.

Not that that's going to stop the chemtrail movement. They'll just interpret is as more 'evidence' that the justice system is in cahoots with the perpetrators of the 'chemtrail program'.. or something along those lines.

Then again, maybe it'll become obvious that they don't have a shred of credible evidence for their chemtrail fantasy other than not understanding what a contrail is and/or what it can look like.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
But somehow I hope that it will be a proper lawsuit, if only to see how a couple of experts are going to demolish this whole thing to tiny little bits.

When/if that DOES happen. It'll be a case of "them" setting everyone up to fail so that "they" can keep the sheeple in control. No matter what happens, the case will be a victory of some kind. Some of these conspiracy types really need to look at getting into Political PR Companies, because the spin that gets put on some of these beliefs puts political spinning to shame.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
because the spin that gets put on some of these beliefs puts political spinning to shame.

This can't be over-emphasized. It is quite simply impossible to prove something to someone who is hell-bent on believing otherwise and willing to perpetually 'spin' everything they see to support their beliefs. Ever debate a Jehovah's Witness? Don't even try. With CT types, it will eventually get down to them demanding that YOU "prove chemtrails don't exist", and claiming that YOU are "copping out" when you don't do that to their satisfaction.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Interesting exchange between Dane Wigington and Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...esponse-to-geoengineering-watch-legal-notice/
From her first email:
Thanks for giving me a laugh. Taking money from people to stop an activity that isn’t happening. Talk about easy money.
Content from External Source
From her last email:
I was not aware of any credible scientific evidence of such activity. Certainly none was brought forward when I chaired the academy report on climate engineering. That was more than 18 months ago. Perhaps new evidence has materialized.
Content from External Source
Of course the chemtrail believers now inundate her mailbox...
 

Auldy

Senior Member.
We are even communicating directly with some FED EPA employees that are in the process of being fired for trying to disclose the climate engineering contamination, they will soon tell all.
Content from External Source
Because, yeah, they can't tell us right now for some reason...

Of course the chemtrail believers now inundate her mailbox...


Much respect to Marcia in her restrained correspondence after the initial email...


..but that won't last :( Would not want to be her right now dealing with this crap.
 
Last edited:

derwoodii

Senior Member.
Hey is Joseph Marman still one of the lawyers on the law suit? Because http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/129517 tells me right now that he is "Current Status: Not eligible to practice law (Not Entitled)"

As of 16 May this year it seems he was on team but from 25/3/16 he was Discipline w/actual suspension 10-C-08329 Not Eligible To Practice Law.... tho unsure how this may slow their work as he likely to be able to contribute behind scenes..



upload_2016-8-7_20-41-34.png

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status
Overview of the attorney discipline system.

3/25/2016 Discipline w/actual suspension 10-C-08329 Not Eligible To Practice Law
9/3/2015 Ordered inactive 10-C-08329 Not Eligible To Practice Law
1/20/2015 Ordered inactive 10-C-08329 Not Eligible To Practice Law
9/7/2000 Discipline w/actual suspension 98-O-01683 Not Eligible To Practice Law
4/25/1998 Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 95-O-15064
7/14/1995 Discipline w/actual suspension 92-O-13001 Not Eligible To Practice Law


http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...oduces-the-us-anti-geoengineering-legal-team/

GeoengineeringWatch.org Introduces The US Anti-Geoengineering Legal Team
May 16, 2016 129 Comments
upload_2016-8-7_20-38-50.png
 

MikeC

Closed Account
William Willis Blackwell also has a bit of a chequered history with the Ca Bar as below.

James T. Grant was ineligible to practice in ca a couple of times (99 and 06) due non-payment of fees...the others seem to have clean bar records.:


upload_2016-8-8_13-26-1.png
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Some commenters on geoengineeringwatch think this notice is already having an effect. But don't worry, Dane is there to reassure them that they are still being sprayed like bugs:

upload_2016-8-16_11-5-29.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Dane seems to be admitting that changes in the atmosphere affect trail formation.

But he also says it's not condensation, although maybe he's only referring to the on/off trails?

I wonder if he's read the expert study yet, as that explains gaps in contrails.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
But he also says it's not condensation, although maybe he's only referring to the on/off trails?

I wonder if he's read the expert study yet, as that explains gaps in contrails.

It's not as if that explanation hasn't been given many times before, or that contradictions in Dane's position are something new.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
We can predict what he's going to say. These scientists are the epitome of tyrannical cowards, are paid by the power structure and/or are in criminal denial. And they didn't address his film footage of spraying from nozzles, and his mountain of evidence including hundreds of lab reports showing extremely high concentrations of aluminum, barium, and strontium, and the drought, the tree die-offs, ecocide, omnicide, etc.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
the tree die-offs, ecocide, omnicide, etc.
It's funny, Dane keeps on going on about the tree die-offs, and yet his wife posted a family photo on Facebook from their "backyard" and I don't see any trees looking unhealthy. (Image pixelated to preserve children's privacy.)

wigingtons.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's funny, Dane keeps on going on about the tree die-offs, and yet his wife posted a family photo on Facebook from their "backyard" and I don't see any trees looking unhealthy.

Tree die-offs are a real thing though, but it's entirely attributable to the drought and the bark beetle (drought makes trees more vulnerable to the beetle).

It varies with terrain. I drove up to Oregon, and around the Lake Shasta area there were some very nasty looking pockets of dead trees. But then there were other areas nearby that looked fine.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Some commenters on geoengineeringwatch think this notice is already having an effect. But don't worry, Dane is there to reassure them that they are still being sprayed like bug
Every year as summer's heat and high pressure systems dominate contrails become less frequent. The annual contrail lull presents itself and they say this sort of thing. When the moist cold fronts return they will again think they are being "slaughtered".

The mean hourly, monthly, and annual frequencies of daytime contrail occurrence are estimated using 2 yr of observations from surface observers at military installations scattered over the continental United States. During both years, persistent contrails are most prevalent in the winter and early spring and are seen least often during the summer.
Content from External Source

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<3447:CFOTUS>2.0.CO;2
 
Top