Dan Pelletier, Anti-Chemtrail Warrior, Sues Canada

[Burnaby49]

This discussion is going to be long, convoluted, repetitive and confusing. It's not because the topic is complicated but because of the way I've addressed it. It started with my discovery of a very recent Federal Court of Canada decision tossing out a conspiracy-theory lawsuit which I'll call Pelletier 2020. So I wrote it up and was almost done when I belatedly realized there was a prior decision in the same case, a 2016 judgment. So I decided to write that one up too as Pelletier 2016. Then I found Pelletier 2018 and, after that, an appeal of that decision I'll call Pelletier 2019. These are all in respect to the same legal proceedings. Each time I found a new case I had to re-write whatever I'd done to date and ended up with what I'm about to post. I'm not going through it again to try and completely, cleanly separate the four decisions and cut out inevitable repetition. I've had enough of it.

So I'm going to post each of the decisions as separate entries with one additional posting. I’m going to tell the story of a flamboyant aggressive businessman, heavily involved in real estate, who became a right-wing populist politician. He took complete control of a major political party and was swept into office by his adoring acolytes but, because of his myriad personal flaws and his overwhelming hubris, crashed in humiliating defeat after only a single term.

What’s the relevance of a modern Greek tragedy to a Canadian lawsuit on aircraft contrails (or chemtrails as the plaintiff called them)? You'll have to wait until Pelletier 2020 to find out!

So, on to Pelletier 2016.

Dan Pelletier was a man with a dream, a dream of a pure crystal sky with no aircraft contrails spraying vile poisons over innocent unsuspecting Canadians. However, in stark contrast to the multitudes of keyboard warriors who got detoured into FaceBook rabbit-holes and never re-surfaced, he took action! He sued the government at the Federal court of Canada on behalf of all Canadians, a class-action lawsuit that included even that unsuspecting victim of governmental chemical warfare against it's own populace, Burnaby49!

The hearing started well with this Statement of Claim firing the opening gun;

[2] The Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim was filed on March 11, 2016 as a “Proposed Class Proceeding” within the meaning of part 5.1 of the Rules. The Plaintiff is seeking various declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages against the Federal Crown in relation to the discharge of allegedly “trails of white particulate like matter” comprised of toxic “minute particles” (Arial Discharges) into Canadian airspace which, by dissipating in lower altitudes, affect the environment, including the air he and his family, as well as potential members of the Proposed Class, breathe.

[3] The Plaintiff alleges that Aerial Discharges can easily be absorbed by the human body and the environment and are therefore dangerous to both. He blames the Federal Crown and/or its agents or instrumentalities for performing Aerial Discharges over Canadian air space while knowing - or supposed to be knowing - that they are dangerous. The Plaintiff claims that the liability of the Federal Crown is engaged as its actions – or inactions – with respect to Arial Discharges contravene the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, SC 1999, c 33 [CEPA] as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [the Charter], amount to negligence and trespass and impede on the quiet enjoyment of his property and that of the potential members of the Proposed Class.

Pelletier v. Canada
2016 FC 1356
http://canlii.ca/t/gw1g9

In Canada a Statement of Claim is the document presented to the court and the defendant by the plaintiff to give the legal and factual basis for a civil lawsuit. Statements of claim start the legal proceedings and set out the basis on which the plaintiff is taking legal action by providing details of the dispute including the ‘pleadings', the facts the plaintiff will be relying on to his case. The details that Pelletier is relying on to support the pleadings are called particulars. Together the pleadings and particulars lay out what facts are going to be tested in court and confine the scope of the case to just those facts included in the Statement of Claim. Essentially the Statement of Claim is the blueprint for the lawsuit, giving details why the plaintiff has started proceedings, the law supporting his position and showing the defendant the extent of the claimed case against him. The Statement of Claim also specifies the remedy the plaintiff is requesting. Pelletier's requested remedy was approval of a class action to obtain "various declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages against the Federal Crown".

However the defense was less than impressed by Pelletier's Statement of Claim and moved that it be struck out, in other words tossed out by the court without allowing the case to proceed.

[4] As indicated previously, the Defendant moves to strike out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim . It contends that the causes of action alleged by the Plaintiff either do not exist at law or are unaccompanied by the necessary material facts to disclose a cause of action. It further contends that the Applicant’s claim is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious as it is so replete with vague assertions and conclusions and is so devoid of factual material that it remains impossible to meaningfully plead a defence.

In his review of the motion to strike the trial judge first pointed out the minimum requirements that a Statement of Claim must meet to be accepted by the court. I'll give short quotes parsed of legal citations;

The test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action is well known: a claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action or, put it another way, that it has no reasonable prospect of success

As is well-settled too, no evidence outside the pleadings may be considered on such motions and although allegations that are capable of being proven must be taken as true, the same does not apply to pleadings which are based on assumptions and speculation and to those that are incapable of proof

In this regard, while the Statement of Claim must be read as generously as possible with a view to accommodating any inadequacies due to drafting deficiencies . . . . ), it is incumbent on the claimant to clearly plead the facts at the basis of its claim

Recently, in dismissing the appeal of a Judgment of this Court granting a motion to strike, the Federal Court of Appeal stressed the fundamental importance to the trial process that a claimant “plead material facts in sufficient detail to support the claim and relief sought”

The latter part of this requirement – sufficient material facts – is the foundation of a proper pleading. If a court allowed parties to plead bald allegations of fact, or mere conclusory statements of law, the pleadings would fail to perform their role in identifying the issues. The proper pleading of a Statement of Claim is necessary for a defendant to prepare a statement of defence. Material facts frame the discovery process and allow counsel to advise their clients, to prepare their case and to map a trial strategy. Importantly, the pleadings establish the parameters of relevancy of evidence at discovery and trial.

Essentially the plaintiff has to clear two hurdles. He must make the Statement of Claim legally precise enough that the defendant knows, as a matter of law, the case brought against him and he must provide facts (evidence) to prove this case or at least support the accusations. The judge decided that Pelletier fell abysmally short of even the minimum allowable standards to meet these requirements;

[15] I agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim only consists of bald allegations and mere conclusory statements of law and falls well short, as a result, of pleading with sufficient detail the constituent elements of each cause of action raised. In particular, it fails to tell the Defendant “who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability” and to define the issues with sufficient precision to make the trial process both manageable and fair (Mancuso at paras 18-19).

[16] The allegations of statute and Charter infringement are as bald, general and vague as they can be: they (i) do not specify which Charter rights or which provision(s) of the CEPA have been infringed; (ii) do not tell the Defendant who, how and what gave rise to the alleged infringement; (iii) remain vague as to where and when exactly the alleged infringement took place; (iv) do not tell the Defendant in what way the Federal Crown or its agents and/or instrumentalities “perform” Arial Discharges in Canadian airspace so as to trigger the application of the CEPA and the Charter; and (v) are silent on the identity of the Federal Crown’s agents and/or instrumentalities which are allegedly infringing the CEPA and the Charter.

[17] As indicated previously, there are no separate rules of pleadings for Charter cases. The requirement of material facts applies in the same way it does for other causes of actions (Mancuso, at para 21). In Mancuso, in what was otherwise found to be inadequate pleadings, there was at least reference to the Charter provisions that had been allegedly infringed. Again, here, there is no such reference. With respect to the alleged breach of the CEPA not only is the Plaintiff’s pleading devoid of any supporting material facts but that particular claim is bound to fail as it is now firmly established that no action lies against a public authority for negligent breach of statute (Holland v Saskatchewan, 2008 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 551, at para 8-9).

[18] The same pleading deficiencies affect the common law causes of action raised by the Plaintiff, which are based on the exact same bald allegations and conclusory statements of law. As stated in Mancuso, a properly pleaded tort claim “identifies the particular nominate tort alleged and sets out the material facts needed to satisfy the elements of that tort” (Mancuso, at para 26). The essential elements of the tort of negligence include a duty of care, a specific breach of that duty, a causal connection between the breach of the duty and the injury, and an actual loss. A Statement of Claim need therefore to include sufficient facts providing details about each of these elements (Sivak, at para 26).

In other words, like the current Republican attacks on the integrity of American voting system, Pelletier made myriad wild accusations against the government without providing any evidence to back them up. As the court wrote;

[20] As the Defendant correctly points out, the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim merely recites the steps in a generic negligence analysis: it does not identify the individuals, group of individuals or organizational branch involved in the alleged negligent conduct, let alone, as indicated previously, the Crown agents and/or instrumentalities allegedly responsible for such conduct; it does not provide either any type of details of the alleged negligent conduct itself - the “performance of Arial Discharges” - as it does not tell anything about the who, how and what gave rise to the Defendant’s liability in this regard or about the link between the Federal Crown, its agents and/or instrumentalities and the aircrafts that are actually discharging the Arial Discharges; also, it is vague as to when and where such conduct may have occurred to a point where it does not give fair notice to the Defendant of the case to be met.

[21] All of this equally applies to the Plaintiff’s claim for nuisance and trespass. There are no supporting material facts to establish a non-trivial, substantial and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of the Plaintiff’s land due to the alleged performance of Arial Discharges (Antrim Truck Center Ltd v Ontario (Transportation), 2013 SCC 13 (CanLII), [2013] 1 SCR 594 at para 19). There are no such facts either capable of establishing a claim for trespass, that is a direct and physical intrusion onto land in possession of the Plaintiff resulting from the alleged misconduct. In particular, the Plaintiff has failed in both instances to plead material facts capable of establishing the nature of the interference or intrusion.

With that background the judge dropped the hammer on Pelletier's sad, sad excuse for a lawsuit;

[22] For these reasons, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts in sufficient details to support the claim and relief sought. Both the Defendant and the Court are left to speculate as to what might support, from a material factual standpoint, the causes of action raised by the Plaintiff (Mancuso at para 16). As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Imperial Tobacco, at paragraph 22, “[t]he facts pleaded are the firm basis upon which the possibility of success of the claim must be evaluated. If they are not pleaded, the exercise cannot be properly conducted”. That is the case here.

[23] The Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim simply does not meet the minimum threshold of an adequate pleading. In other words, in its current configuration, it fails to disclose the constituent elements of each cause of action and to define the issues with sufficient precision to make the pre-trial and trial proceedings both manageable and fair. In sum, it does not provide the essential facts grounding the causes of action. As we have seen, this is sufficient basis to strike the Plaintiff’s claim as not disclosing a reasonable cause of action. It is also sufficient basis to strike the Plaintiff’s claim as being “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious” within the meaning of Rule 221(1)(c) of the Rules since a pleading replete with bare allegations and mere conclusory statements of law, as is the case here, will normally also amount to a scandalous, frivolous or vexatious pleading (Kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 at para 9; Ceminchuk v Canada, [1995] FCJ No 914 at para 10).

As an aside I'll note that Kisikawpimootewin v Canada was a particular favorite of our long gone but not forgotten Quatloos member and frequent contributor, The Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce, Hilfskreuzer Möwe. Perhaps he was just taken by the name. He wrote about it here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 6&p=275965

But, back in the contrail world, all was not lost! The judge, being an old softie at heart, didn't totally slam the door on Pelletier. While he struck the Statement of Claim he allowed Pelletier the opportunity to revise the Statement of Claim and bring it back to court for another review to see if it could meet the bare minimum standard needed for the case to continue.

[29] Is the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim in the present case “beyond redemption” as was the case in Baird FC? I do not believe so. Since the power to strike must be used with care (Imperial Tobacco, at para21), I would allow the Plaintiff the opportunity to attempt to salvage his pleading by amending it within 40 days of the date of this Order, the Christmas Recess within the meaning of rule 2 of the Rules, being included in the computation of that delay

And Dan Pelletier took him up on it and tried again in 2018, so on to round 2!

[Burnaby49]

Pelletier apparently concluded from his 2016 loss that he wasn't going to get anywhere in his lawsuit unless he provided some actual evidence to support his claims. A bit late in the day but as my mother used to say, better late than never. So he got serious and had an American contrail expert testify on his behalf in Pelletier 2018. Well, expert in the sense that he was obsessed by the topic and testify in the sense he was willing to cough up an affidavit saying that Pelletier was right on target with his contrail theories but he wasn't willing to actually trudge up to Canada from San Diego and say it personally at trial. This is his expert;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marvin_Herndon

And this is Hendon's view of contrails;

While the public perception of the recent attempts to unseat duly-elected U.S. President Donald J. Trump is thought to be solely of national origin, there is strong evidence of a more pernicious, United Nations’ sanctioned environmental assault on America and on American citizens. The United States and other sovereign nations are in the midst of a highly organized, covert environmental warfare assault, underlain by deception and deceit, orchestrated by a foreign entity, and perpetrated in America by the U.S. Air Force and its contractors, and facilitated by intelligence-agency operatives. The intent, to slowly and insidiously sicken, weaken, and debilitate citizenry, cause weather and climate chaos, cripple agriculture, and devastate the environment, is so cleverly underwritten and camouflaged as to have gone unnoticed in the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America and, presumably, is unknown to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But it is described here. American military officers have the responsibility to protect their own citizens, especially as they possess the means to destroy human and environmental health. Systematically poisoning the air Americans breathe, harming human and environmental health, causing weather and climate chaos, damaging agriculture, and deceiving the public as to the adverse human and environmental health consequences – all under secret orders originating from a foreign entity – we allege, violates not only their Oath of Office, but is tantamount to treason. The United States Air Force co-optation, deceit, and unquestioning capitulation to a foreign entity should be of grave concern to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With due humility we must emphasize that no military asset is worth damaging human and environmental health, especially on a national or planetary-scale, and especially due to a deceptively-worded, Trojan horse, United Nations international treaty whose signatories presumably were duped into signing in the false belief that they were preventing hostile environmental warfare.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... s_of_Staff

He was even published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. He wrote an article with this thesis;

The author presents evidence that toxic coal combustion fly ash is the most likely aerosolized particulate sprayed by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes and describes some of the multifold consequences on public health.

Well he was published until the article was retracted after an outcry about how it was just garbage.

There are multiple problems with these papers: figures are incorrect, values given are off by several orders of magnitude, masses are calculated incorrectly, data sets appear to have been chosen arbitrarily.

Herndon’s “evidence” of the aerial spraying includes a few pictures of clouds and contrails he shot in the skies above San Diego, where he lives.

The value for average leachate concentration of Aluminum mentioned in Table 1 and used by the author to normalize the data presented in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 is incorrect. The author uses 70,000 µg/kg, while the correct value resulting from the un-leached European coal fly ash samples measurements published by Moreno et al. [2]) is 140,000,000 µg/kg. This error invalidates the conclusions of the article.

https://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/03/ ... retracted/

Leading to;

A scientific journal has retracted a paper by a San Diego researcher who claimed that jets have been flying over the county and secretly emitting toxic chemicals that pose a public health hazard.

The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health said that it discovered that a paper by independent geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon contained mistakes and lacked scientific rigor.

The journal performed the review after critics challenged Herndon's widely-stated belief that tanker-jets have been spraying coal fly ash into the troposphere "for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes."

The paper was published in August and was supplemented by a news release in which Herndon claimed that "the consequences on public health are profound, including exposure to a variety of toxic heavy metals, radioactive elements, and neurologically-implicated chemically mobile aluminum released by body moisture in situ after inhalation or through transdermal induction."

The news release included numerous photos purporting to show toxic coal fly ash chemtrails in the skies above San Diego. The Federal Aviation Administration refers to such streaks as "contrails," or the condensation from aircraft engine exhaust.

Paul B. Tchounwou, the journal's editor, issued a retraction on Sept. 2 that details Herndon's mistakes. The retraction also says, "The language of the paper is often not sufficiently scientifically objective for a research article."

Tchounwou did not explain why the journal failed to notice the paper's lack of objectivity when it was first submitted for publication.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/sdut-journ ... story.html

Not an expert that I'd be comfortable relying on at court but I guess if you're a contrail fanatic you take what you get. This is what he got;

[7] The Plaintiff seeks leave to admit the Herndon Affidavit as expert evidence. The facts that the Herndon Affidavit seeks to establish are that aerial discharges (a) constitute an act of deliberate air pollution, and (b) that the discharges captured in the Plaintiff’s photographs are comprised of toxic and poisonous materials (Plaintiff’s Written Arguments, para 4). If granted, the motion will also make journal articles authored or co-authored by Dr. Herndon part of the Plaintiff’s motion record on the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgement.

[8] The Plaintiff recalls that he was not extended an affidavit by Dr. Herndon when it was requested in June 2016, but that Dr. Herndon agreed to do so in April 2018. He stipulates that Dr. Herndon is not from Canada and has significant professional demands on his time, and reminds the Court of the time sensitive and urgent nature of the claim in question. The Plaintiff further notes that the commissioned affidavit was forwarded to the Defendant immediately upon receipt on May 4, 2018. The Plaintiff relies on this Court’s decision in Ab Hassle v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), 2000 CanLII 15409 [Ab Hassle] for the authority that, in such circumstances, leave can be granted to permit the filing of additional expert evidence.

[9] Finally, the Plaintiff notes that the Defendant should not be prejudiced by the inclusion of the Herndon Affidavit because it is familiar with it and it has the opportunity to assess and cross-examine on it should it wish to do so.

Pelletier v. Canada
2018 FC 805
http://canlii.ca/t/htkn5

The defendant shared my opinion and moved to have Herndon disqualified as an expert and his affidavit not entered into evidence.

[10] The Defendant submits that the Herndon Affidavit contains an opinion that does not meet the requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence. Relying upon the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23 [White Burgess] at para 19, it submits that late inclusion of expert evidence into the Plaintiff’s motion record should only be permitted where that evidence is reliable, necessary, and sufficiently beneficial to the trial process. It also submits that, in the context of a motion to submit further evidence, the moving party must further establish the exceptional circumstances that warrant the inclusion of the evidence contrary to the Court’s order on timelines: Ab Hassle at para 15.

[11] The Defendant argues that the Herndon Affidavit is not relevant. It points out that the amended statement of claim deals with claims of pollution in Canadian airspace, affecting the Canadian public and Canadian environment. The Herndon Affidavit, on the other hand, speaks to a hypothesis based on data which have been collected in places outside of Canada. For this reason, the Defendant posits that there is no nexus to Canada.

[12] The Defendant further argues that the Herndon Affidavit is not necessary. It submits that the document contains no evidence or opinion to support the Plaintiff’s allegations against the Canadian military.

[13] The Defendant also argues that the affidavit contains impermissible hearsay. Citing s. 81(1) of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106 [the “Rules”], the Defendant states that affidavits on a motion for summary judgment must be confined to the personal knowledge of the affiant, and where it is based on belief the affiant should identify the source of the information and explain for the basis for relying upon that information. It takes issue with the fact that Dr. Herndon avers to a belief (i.e. that the spraying discharge he has observed is the same or similar to those documented by him or his co-authors) without any relevant facts that are within his personal knowledge.

Unfortunately for Pelletier the court had the same opinion of Herndon as the defendant and Burnaby49;

[16] The Plaintiff has provided scant argument that would justify the admission of the Herndon Affidavit. His argument is essentially two-fold: 1) the Herndon Affidavit was not previously extended to him, and 2) admission of the Herndon Affidavit is not prejudicial to the Defendant. True as those positions may be, that is not the legal test. Instead, as the Supreme Court of Canada described in White Burgess at para. 23, I am to begin by analyzing the four threshold requirements set out in R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9: relevance, necessity, absence of an exclusionary rule and a properly qualified expert. If those requirements are met, the test requires that I balance the potential risks and benefits of admitting the evidence: White Burgess at para. 24.

[17] The Plaintiff’s request for leave quite obviously fails at the first stage of the inquiry. As noted above, one requirement is that an expert be properly qualified, which plainly has not been done in the case at bar. In oral argument, the Plaintiff’s counsel urged that precluding the admission of the Herndon Affidavit on the absence of Form 52.2 is to prefer form over substance. I disagree. Form 52.2 plays an important role in ensuring that an expert witness understands and will comply with his or her duty to the Court. In the absence of such a form, there is no basis for me to conclude that Dr. Herndon understands and swears to comply with that duty. On this basis alone, the threshold requirements have not been met and the evidence is inadmissible.

[18] I am particularly driven by this concern in light of the categorical opinion presented in the Herndon Affidavit. It stipulates that the similarities of the aerial discharges in the Plaintiff’s photographs are “so striking and are so unambiguous that in [his] view, the only reasonable explanation for the unmistakable and striking similarities is to conclude that the geoengineering trails are the same form and type of poisonous geoengineering trails observed by [him] above [his] home in San Diego [emphasis added]” (Herndon Affidavit, para 17). If this Court is to accept scientific opinion evidence expressed in such unqualified terms – which effectively draws conclusions about the chemical makeup of contrails based on a simple review of photographs – it ought to be convinced that the expert providing that opinion fully understands his or her obligations to the Court.

Leading to;

[20] The Plaintiff’s motion is dismissed. Leave to admit the Herndon Affidavit is denied. The Herndon Affidavit shall not form part of the Plaintiff’s record on the Defendant’s motion for summary judgement and motion to strike.

[21] The Defendant has asked for its costs for the instant motion. Having succeeded, it shall have them.

One would think that that was the end of Herndon’s involvement in the case. If so one would be wrong as both Pelletier 2019 and Pelletier 2020 will show.

[Burnaby49]

Pelletier wasn't willing to just meekly accept the Federal court's rejection of the rock-solid proof of chemtrails clearly laid out in a vague opinion affidavit from a discredited American contrail conspiracy obsessive. How could the court brutally dismiss his theory of a world-wide conspiracy to destroy humanity just because it was totally unsupported by anything that could be considered actual evidence? If that was allowed to stand the court could throw out the entire factual basis of all wild internet conspiracies as if they were just nonsense rather than legitimate alternate truths! So he appealed Pelletier 2018 to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Pelletier v. Canada
2019 FCA 165
http://canlii.ca/t/j0pkv

One point I either missed from Pelletier 2018 or it wasn't included in the decision was this;

[4] . . . The appellant blames the “Canadian military” for being involved in the release of these aerial discharges into Canadian air space as part of a joint U.S.-Canadian military project called Project Cloverleaf.

So fine, I did my due diligence and Googled Project Cloverleaf. And immediately ran head-first into a massive shitload of crazy. I'm not going down that rabbit-hole so anyone interested is on their own. This very brief excerpt from a much larger pdf I downloaded gives you an idea;

Project Cloverleaf:
Timeline, 1994 to the Present
This flyer is devoted to a short summary of the history, technology, and health effects of Project Cloverleaf, particularly in how it interfaces with multiplying the effects of HAARP technology. Project Cloverleaf is a joint US-Canadian military operation involving distributing chemicals into the atmosphere above Canada and the United States. Both US military refueling tankers and thousands of planes in private corporate aviation are used. Military & civilian aspects of Project Cloverleaf are covert operations. The purpose is to seed into the atmosphere multiple weather/climate modification chemicals for purposes of proactive environmental warfare, originally motivated by a climate change concern; & to introduce highly humanly toxic metallic salts and aerosol fibers that facilitate atmospheric operations of HAARP technology (which is involved in climate manipulation). Piggybacking on this, the covert distribution framework of the toxic metals & chemicals has been used in other covert military/civilian operations like massive biological experiments on whole cities and countrysides of people/ecologies— tests which are unauthorized & without consent or even public knowledge. The purpose is nothing less than the actual physical transformation of the earth's atmosphere in order to provide a platform for the latest chemical & electromagnetic technologies of warfare, communication, weather control, low-yield biological warfare, and control of populations through "non-lethal" chemical/electromagnetic means. Project Cloverleaf is a global phenomenon. This is its short, documented history.

May 2000: ‘Project Cloverleaf’ name revealed as the covert commercial airline aspect of the chemtrail spraying. An anonymous United States commercial aviation mechanic and airline corporate executive separately admit that commercial planes were rigged with special equipment to distribute unknown chemicals into the air, using thousands of commercial planes in the United States. The chemicals are discharged through disguised, hollowed-out static wicks on the planes’ wings. Chemical solution tanks are covertly hidden on the planes. Covert operation is administered by the tiny number of outsourced private personnel who empty whole airports’ multiple airline lavatory tanks—while they fill up the chem-tanks at the same time— the cover for Project Cloverleaf. Airline executives are told by unidentified government agents that if they tell public that they are spraying the atmosphere with illegal unmonitored compounds, they could be imprisoned. Project Cloverleaf documents are kept in locked safes at the companies involved. All commercial airliners in the United States have accepted payment from federal government to conduct aerial spraying as early as 1998. Mechanic was threatened with firing, he was framed, & his internet usage was monitored after he analyzed several rigged chem-planes.

With, as the quotes above show, the usual high-quality evidence we've come to expect from these people;

An anonymous United States commercial aviation mechanic and airline corporate executive separately admit that commercial planes were rigged with special equipment to distribute unknown chemicals into the air, using thousands of commercial planes in the United States. The chemicals are discharged through disguised, hollowed-out static wicks on the planes’ wings

It's just beyond me why the Federal Court of Canada barred that evidence from being entered. What better source can you get than "An anonymous United States commercial aviation mechanic"?

Pelletier obviously had no clue what he was doing at the court of appeal, as this paragraph relates;

[7] At the outset of this appeal, the appellant brought an oral motion under Rule 351 requesting leave to adduce an additional article written by Dr. Herndon in 2018. The article was referenced in footnotes 12 and 15 of the appellant’s memorandum of fact and law, but was not included in the appeal book. In addition, no affidavit was provided in support of the motion. The motion was dismissed at the hearing.

You can't introduce new evidence on appeal, you're stuck with whatever you entered at trial. All that you can do is argue that the trial judge incorrectly interpreted the law as Pelletier proceeded to do;

[8] The appellant’s main argument is that the Judge erred in law and that the expert evidence should be admitted as proof of the factual allegations set out in the amended statement of claim. Any concerns regarding the absence of a certificate in Form 52.2 represent an oversight which has now been remedied. He relies on this Court’s decision in Saint Honore Cake Shop Limited v. Cheung’s Bakery Products Ltd., 2015 FCA 12, 132 CPR (4th) 258) [Saint Honore].

Here's the hurdle Pelletier had to overcome;

[10] In this appeal, this Court must apply the standards of review set out in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235. Questions of law are reviewable for correctness, whereas findings of fact or mixed fact and law from which a legal issue cannot be extricated are reviewable only if they disclose a palpable and overriding error. The applicable standard of review on discretionary procedural matters is set out in Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497, at paras. 28, 71-72. The Judge’s decision can only be reversed for palpable and overriding error, absent an extricable error of law.

And here's how he fared;

[11] The appellant has not demonstrated such an error in this case

.

The court didn't waste much time or effort dumping on Pelletier;

[14] In the present case, unlike in Saint Honore, the Judge’s concerns are not limited to the absence of a signed certificate. The comments made by the Judge are not obiter but rather part of his overall analysis and conclusions. When reviewing the entire affidavit and noting its tenor and categorical opinions, the Judge was concerned that Dr. Herndon did not understand his obligations under the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses. The Judge was not prepared to accept in such unqualified terms the scientific opinions expressed by Dr. Herndon where he drew conclusions about the chemical make-up of the aerial discharges based on a simple review of photographs (Order and Reasons, at para. 18). As a whole, the Judge found that Dr. Herndon’s affidavit failed the test for admissibility set out the by the Supreme Court of Canada in White Burgess.

[16] After finding that Dr. Herndon was not a properly qualified expert, the Judge turned to the relevance factor. He found that Dr. Herndon’s experience and research did not focus on aerial spraying in Canada and were therefore not relevant to the allegations made in the amended statement of claim. The Judge did not err when he found that Dr. Herndon’s affidavit failed to meet the threshold requirements of admissibility.

And that was it. Pelletier had to rustle up another witness, this time one who could qualify as an expert to the court's satisfaction. The results of that effort are related in Pelletier 2020. But, before reviewing that decision, it's time for something completely different!

[Burnaby49]

In this post I'm going to provide some deep background to the critical issue in the case, the lack of any credible evidence to back up Pelletier's claims and his failed half-assed attempts to find some.

To do this I'm going to recount a political legend, the tale of a much publicized businessman who became a very controversial political leader. It's the story of a real estate magnate who took control of a major political party after defeating a multitude of contending candidates at a hard-fought leadership convention. He was swept into high office through the overwhelming enthusiasm of his right-wing followers only to crash and burn in ignominious defeat after a single tumultuous term. His personal failures were multitude but included intermingling his business interests with his political activities oblivious to the concept of conflict of interest, a lack of any boundaries between his duties as an elected official and his personal agenda, an unshakable certitude that he was never wrong, was indeed incapable of being wrong, and an overwhelming self-regard that blinded him to the potential consequences of his actions.

Damn, I've given the game away with that description. You politically astute Quatloos readers will have easily realized that I'm referring to William Vander Zalm, the 28th premier of British Columbia, in office from October 22nd, 1986 until his resignation on April 2, 1991.

Vander Zalm resigned in disgrace in 1991 when a provincial conflict of interest report, by Ted Hughes, found that he had mixed private business with his public office in the sale of the gardens. He was charged with criminal breach of trust, but was found not guilty in BC Supreme Court in 1992. The judge ruled that Vander Zalm had acted a manner that was "foolish, ill-advised and in apparent or real conflict of interest or breach of ethics", but that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was revealed that during the sale of Fantasy Gardens, Vander Zalm had accepted $20,000 payment in cash from Tan Yu, the buyer of Fantasy Gardens, to which Vander Zalm said he took "for innocent reasons." He never really explained why he had taken the money and did not take the stand in his breach of trust trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Vander_Zalm

Vander Zalm was born in Holland and his parents emigrated to British Columbia in 1947 when he was thirteen. After completing high school he sold tulip bulbs and ultimately established himself in the nursery and gardening business. In 1984 he purchased a failing amusement park in Richmond, a municipality immediately adjacent to Vancouver, and constructed Fantasy Gardens, a Dutch-themed amusement park (tulips, windmills, wooden shoes) which he operated and where he resided. The American president lives in the White House, the President of Russia lives in the Kremlin and, during the Vander Zalm years, our provincial premier lived in a windmill in a theme park.

Fantasy Gardens, also known as Fantasy Garden World, was a former amusement park in Richmond, British Columbia that was located at the corner of Steveston Highway and No. 5 Road. The park was called Fantasy Gardens because it was surrounded by a series of stone buildings that were designed to resemble structures built during the Middle Ages. The buildings had been used as a backdrop in numerous music videos, television productions, and movies (it stood in for Halloweentown in Halloweentown II: Kalabar's Revenge).

Behind the stone buildings were the Biblical Gardens. These gardens were filled with numerous religious icons, including a hedge that had been carved into the shape of a Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_Gardens

He had a long slow climb up the political ladder on his way to becoming premier. He started right at the bottom as an alderman in the Surrey municipal government (another Vancouver suburb) in 1965 subsequently becoming the mayor of Surrey from 1969 to 1975. He became an MLA representing the Social Credit Party (An MLA is a member of the British Columbia legislature) in 1975 and, critically for his career, he was appointed a cabinet seat as Minister of Human Resources from 1975 until 1978. He was then appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs and Transit from 1978 to 1981 and as Minister of Education from 1981 to 1983. In 1984, the year he bought Fantasy Gardens, he ran for mayor of Vancouver and lost but in 1986 prevailed at the Social Credit leadership convention and became party leader.

His most notable achievement, and a truly remarkable one, was his single-handed destruction of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, the party he'd led to electoral victory in 1986. The Social Credit Party had been an extremely successful political organization. It was a right-of-center free enterprise party that governed British Columbia for almost four decades from 1952 to 1991. During that time it was only out of office for a single three year term in the early 1970's. Prior to Vander Zalm's ascension the Social Credit Party had been, like North Korea, essentially a hereditary fiefdom. Bill Bennett, the first Social Credit premier, held the office for 20 unbroken years from 1952 to 1972. After the party lost the 1972 election loss he resigned and was replaced by his son, also called Bill Bennett, who was premier for the next thirteen years until he retired undefeated in October 1986. Since Bennett had resigned while still in power as premier Vander Zalm, as the new party leader, automatically became the provincial premier in his place. In late 1986 he became premier in his own right when the Social Credit Party was voted in yet again;

He was sworn in as premier just a month before the 1986 election. During the subsequent provincial election campaign, "Vandermania" swept BC, and the Socreds easily won another term over the opposition New Democratic Party (NDP). He and his wife, Lillian, attracted public adoration with their high-voltage smiles, positivity and charisma.

However the electorate soon had a major case of buyer's remorse. As Wikipedia notes;

Although it was not apparent at the time, the downfall of the party began almost as soon as Vander Zalm took the premiership. Many moderate Socreds were dissatisfied at the party's social conservative turn. They began drifting to the Liberals, a trend that would come back to haunt the party later. This process was exacerbated by Vander Zalm's eccentricity, and the constant scandals that plagued his government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_C ... r_Zalm_era

The "social conservative turn" referred to Vander Zalm's attempts to impose his fundamentalist Christian beliefs on the voters of British Columbia. It didn't go down well with the electorate. He resigned before the end of his term because of a conflict of interest scandal resulting from using his official position to facilitate the sale of Fantasy Gardens (one of the scandals mentioned above) and because of a bag of cash (literally a paper bag full of cash) he was given by a Taiwanese businessman for reasons Vander Zalm never really explained to anyone's satisfaction. The Socreds replaced him with Rita Johnson, a political nobody with nothing to commend her except for her fanatical loyalty to Vander Zalm. This was an attribute considered a virtue by the Vandermania fanatics who still controlled the Social Credit Party but which was political poison at the next election in 1991 when the party went down in overwhelming defeat. After the shambles of the Vander Zalm years the Social Credit Party needed to engage in reflection and constructive self-criticism to try and find a way to re-connect with an electorate that had decisively rejected them. Instead the party destroyed itself in feral infighting and collapsed.

So what does any of this ancient political history have to do with Dan and his battle against contrails? It's all explained in the next posting. Keep this comment from a prior quote in mind;

This process was exacerbated by Vander Zalm's eccentricity

Prophetic words indeed.

[Burnaby49]

A few weeks ago, four years after Pelletier 2016 and the start of the lawsuit, Dan made his final attempt to submit an acceptable Statement of Claim. He pulled out all the stops by submitting yet more affidavits, this time from a pair of ancient geezers that make Burnaby49 look like a callow youth! One was from a Darwin Marquardt, an 81 years old in Ontario.

[22] In his affidavit, Mr. Marquardt states that he is 81 years old and a resident of the Bonnechere Valley in Ontario. Most of the content describes his life and work experience, personal opinions about the alleged Aerial Discharges and statements allegedly made to him by other persons, likely now deceased, during his working life. The affidavit concludes with his account of statements allegedly made to him by a former American agent, he believes to be now deceased, at a 1998 financial event in Mexico. Mr. Marquardt says the statements caused him “significant psychological and emotional trauma for several years.”

Neither the court nor I could work up any enthusiasm for the startling revelations in that purported bombshell, in fact the court implied that Pelletier's attempt to get it admitted as evidence seemed little more than an act of desperation;

[23] The Court convened a case management conference by telephone with counsel on September 1, 2020, during which oral submissions were received. At the conclusion of the conference, I refused leave to file the affidavit as it was out of time and because most of it consisted of inadmissible hearsay evidence and statements of Mr. Marquardt’s personal beliefs contrary to Rule 81. Such evidence was neither reliable nor necessary to arrive at a just determination of the issues on the motion. Nor was it capable of being tested on cross-examination. Those portions of the affidavit that did not contain such hearsay evidence, such as Mr. Marquardt’s account of his personal history, were not relevant.

[24] The form of the affidavit also gave rise to concern. Mr. Marquardt had altered the style of cause to identify the Defendant, Canada, by reference to what appears to be a number issued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He described himself as “a private man and a Friend of the Court”. These are indications that Mr. Marquardt subscribes to what have been aptly described as “pseudo-legal” theories: see Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 and AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489. The content of the affidavit further indicates a belief in conspiracy theories circulating on the Internet. Aside from these concerns, there was no reasonable explanation for why it had been submitted late even taking into account Mr. Marquardt’s claim that he had learned about the action only in April 2020. Proffering such dubious evidence on the eve of the hearing was an indication of the weakness of the Plaintiff’s case.

Pelletier v. Canada
2020 FC 1019
http://canlii.ca/t/jbf8q

I'll note that both of the cases cited in paragraph 24 are decisions released by Alberta's Queen's Bench, Quatloos member Donald Netolitzky's bailiwick, where he is retained as a lawyer working for the court.

The second affidavit was from an even more ancient relic of the past, the 86 year old ex-premier of British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm! He'd provided Pelletier with some dynamite revelations, a batch of old documents from the federal government he'd acquired in 2013 as part of a Freedom of Information request that he'd filed on government climate-controlling engineering!

This is hardly out of the blue for those of us who lived through the Vander Zalm era. He's been known locally for years as a contrail conspiracy believer. Another quote from his Wikipedia entry;

Conspiracy theories

In 2013, Vander Zalm filed a freedom of information request for government disclosure on chemtrails.[21] The former premier further appeared in an online video by Press for Truth elaborating on his belief in the conspiracy theory, stating "we don't know who's doing it, we don't know what it is they're putting into the sky, we think it's aluminium, barium, and strontium, but we don't know for sure. No one talks. Governments don't tell us and they have to know. They can't do that in the sky above us without the provincial and the federal government being aware."[22] Vander Zalm has furthermore expressed concerns over smart meters, stating that he believes they are intended as a secret means for governments to spy on people.

Here is a contemporaneous news article on his 2013 Freedom of Information quest for a smoking gun. It gives a great shot of his perennially beaming countenance, the "high-voltage smiles" quoted in the prior posting.

https://www.straight.com/news/412071/en ... ail-theory

Admit it, you'd buy a used car from that guy in an instant! I only saw him once for a fleeting moment, we passed each other on a downtown Vancouver sidewalk. He was dressed just as impeccably as he is in the photo and he gave me the same multi-megawatt smile.

Pelletier had previously tried to file the Vander Zalm affidavit in a 2018 case management hearing but had been refused permission;

[13] On April 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion to allow the late filing of an affidavit of Mr. William Vander Zalm, dated December 29, 2017, with an attached fifty-page exhibit. The three-paragraph affidavit served solely to identify the exhibit which consisted of a letter from Environment Canada dated March 13, 2014, with enclosures released under the Access to Information Act, RSC 1985, c A-1.

[14] Following a hearing on April 24, 2018, Justice Manson held that the exhibit contained hearsay that was not within the personal knowledge of the affiant. The affidavit was thus an attempt to submit evidence through an affiant who had no ability to speak to the reliability of the material other than stating the source. The documents within the exhibit spoke to potential methods of moderating global warming, as opposed to actual operational activities being conducted by Environment Canada. Moreover, as the exhibit consisted of documents referencing the state of scientific research being conducted, in part, by scientists in Environment Canada and not to the activities of the Canadian military, or the alleged aerial spraying program, it was of marginal relevance. The affidavit was therefore inadmissible as an exception to the hearsay rule and the motion for leave was dismissed with costs.

I didn't include this as part of part of my review of Pelletier 2018 because it wasn't included in the published decision. However Pelletier, not daunted by his 2018 failure, tried yet again to get Vander Zalm's Freedom of Information documents accepted as evidence in the current hearing;

[16] A few days prior to the scheduled hearing of this motion, counsel for the Plaintiff asked the Registry to include a Request to Admit in Form 255 and the Defendant’s response in Form 256 in the Court record. The Request concerned the March 13, 2014 Access to Information response to Mr. Vander Zalm. I directed that the documents could be received and used for the purpose of oral argument at the hearing and instructed that the parties were to provide me with post-hearing written submissions on admissibility of the Access to Information documents through this means. I will deal with that issue below.

The judge summed up the issues at trial as;

III. Issues

[25] The issues may be summarized as follows:

A. Is the Vander Zalm Access to Information document admissible as admitted fact?

Should the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out?

If the Amended Statement of Claim is struck out, should the Plaintiff be granted leave to amend his pleadings?

D. If the Amended Statement of Claim is not struck out, should the Defendant be granted summary judgment?

Should costs be awarded?

i. Does the Amended Statement of Claim disclose a reasonable cause of action?

ii. Is the Amended Statement of Claim scandalous, frivolous or vexatious?

A quick answer to the above is no, yes, no, yes, yes, no, yes. However, the court, being a court, had to go through it all chapter and verse. I'll go through it too but since I've had enough of this case I'll give you the Coles Notes version of the court's analysis.


A. Is the Vander Zalm Access to Information document admissible as admitted fact?

The judge wrote 15 paragraphs on this. The last three are all that's needed;

[41] The Plaintiff has argued that this Court is not bound by Justice Manson’s ruling. I disagree. In my view, I am bound by the principles of judicial comity and economy. It is not open to a party dissatisfied with the outcome of a motion in a proceeding to seek a different ruling on the same issue from another judge of the same court.

[42] While it is not necessary for the disposition of this issue, having read the document and having questioned counsel about its content during the hearing, I see no reason to disagree with Justice Manson’s conclusions. Nor is there anything in the cross-examination of Colonel Lew that could have persuaded Justice Manson, in my view, to arrive at a different conclusion. Notwithstanding the efforts of counsel to get him to agree with the propositions put to him, Colonel Lew held firmly to his evidence that he had found nothing in his search of records and his inquiries among branches of the Department of National Defence that it or the Canadian military are working with other nations or branches of government on the activities alleged to be occurring in these proceedings.

[43] For these reasons, I will not allow the document attached to the Vander Zalm affidavit to be admitted into evidence on this motion to strike and, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

B. Should the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out?

The new Statement got immediately torpedoed;

[48] The Plaintiff has failed to put forth material facts to support his claim that the individuals responsible for the alleged Aerial Discharges, an alleged phenomenon which is totally unsubstantiated in the pleadings, are members of the Canadian Military or parties authorized or contracted by it as the Amended Claim alleges. The Plaintiff speculates, without any foundation, that the types of aircraft he has observed from the ground are military aircraft, on the existence of the so-called “Project Cloverleaf” and on the basis for which Canada allegedly engaged in the discharge of substances from the air.

[49] There is no evidence on the record to support the Plaintiff’s speculation. The photographs, which the Plaintiff has included in his Record, prove nothing in my view other than that, on many days, there are condensation trails (contrails) following aircraft high in the sky over Canada. To jump from that observation to the supposition offered by the Plaintiff requires a leap of faith in the existence of facts which remain entirely in the realm of speculation.

leading to some harsh words about the new, improved, corrected Statement of Claim that Pelletier has had four years to revise from his original unacceptable rubbish;

[54] The Plaintiff has failed to remedy the deficiencies of the original claim with respect to the allegations of negligence. The Amended Claim continues to fail to substantiate the essential elements of negligence. The allegations remain a recitation of the generic steps in a negligence analysis, supplemented by a vague narrative. The claim for trespass has been reworded but is identical in substance to the one struck by Justice LeBlanc in Pelletier I. The claim for trespass in the Amended Claim remains speculative and unsupported by material facts.

[56] The Plaintiff has tried to answer the deficiencies in the original claim by disregarding prior court orders and referring to inadmissible evidence in its Fresh as Amended Memorandum of Fact and Law:

The court noted that, notwithstanding that the Herndon affidavit had been previously declared inadmissible, a decision supported by the Federal Court of Appeal, Pelletier was still relentlessly trying to somehow make the court accept it. The same with the garbage Vander Zalm collected from his Freedom of Information request which had already been deemed inadmissible by this same court. As for the new 'evidence' Pelletier had tried to enter at this hearing;

3) In an attempt to improperly introduce new evidence, the Plaintiff relies, in footnotes, on a series of news articles, unpublished articles available online and documentary films.

And, to answer his own question the judge concluded;

[58] I also agree with the Defendant that the claim is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious as it has no factual basis and cannot reasonably succeed. It is so speculative and lacking material facts that it would be impossible for the Defendant to respond with anything more than a wholesale denial.

[59] In the result, I am satisfied that the Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out in its entirety.

C. Should the Plaintiff be granted leave to amend his pleadings?

Judge was pretty blunt about this one. He was as sick of this case as I am;

[62] I agree with the Defendant that the Amended Statement of Claim is beyond redemption and has no chance of success. Where an amendment would merely result in another successful motion to strike for lack of legal foundation, the amendment should be refused: Carom v Bre-X Minerals Ltd, 1998 CanLII 14705 (ON SC), [1998] OJ No 4496 (QL) (Ont Gen Div).

[63] The Plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to provide this Court with material facts to support his allegations. Instead, he has chosen to rely on inadmissible evidence and unreliable sources.

[64] At the heart of the claim is a conspiracy theory fed by social media. The theory is incapable of proof by the evidence upon which the Plaintiff seeks to rely. He is unable to connect the theory to any action by the Canadian military or any other government body through anything other than bald allegations and unfounded speculation based on online materials and personal observations of contrails. Those efforts are doomed to fail, and the courts have expended too much time and effort on them over the past four years to allow the Plaintiff another attempt to do so.

D. If the Amended Statement of Claim is not struck out, should the Defendant be granted summary judgment?

This means, had the judge not tossed the Statement of Claim, should he render an immediate judgment in favour of the defendant without bothering with a trial since there is clearly no legal merit whatever to the lawsuit?

The judge said that he didn't need to answer this question since he'd already struck the Statement of Claim without leave to amend but, if you put his feet to the fire, this is what he'd tell you;

[70] If I had not found that the claim should be struck, I would conclude that the Defendant has met its burden for summary judgment. There is no genuine issue for trial, as the allegations in the Amended Statement of Claim are not based on material facts but inadmissible evidence and unreliable sources.

[72] I agree with the Defendant that the allegations put forward by the Plaintiff in his Amended Statement of Claim are based on online conspiracy theories and lack any foundation in verifiable fact or reality. Given that this action discloses no genuine issue for trial and is likely to fail, absent the striking of the claim, summary judgment in favour of the Defendant would be the most just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of this case on the merits.

And, lastly, costs;

[81] In my view, the conduct of the Plaintiff has unnecessarily lengthened the duration of the motion to strike and that the efforts to introduce inadmissible evidence were unnecessary. Accordingly, I am satisfied that an award of costs against the Plaintiff is justified as an exception to the general principle in Rule 334.39. Having reviewed the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs, I will award the lump sum of $3,500.00.

so, in the profound words of a revered philosopher;

[wserra]

The intent, to slowly and insidiously sicken, weaken, and debilitate citizenry

Not to mention sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

ETA: Thanks, Burnaby. Now that's a writeup.

[DNetolitzky]

Quite!

This is a lovely summary. I had been eyeballing Pelletier's litigation as a type example for a paper I've been planning, tentatively titled "Litigation from the Borderlands", but nothing I write in dry academic prose could match Burnaby49's eloquent recounting of the Tale of Premier Bill.

The only thing I would add to Burnaby49's summary is that this litigation is not the product of a self-represented litigant. Instead, Mr. Pelletier appears to have been represented by a lawyer throughout this litigation.

Donald Netolitzky

[Burnaby49]

Thanks for the plaudits, I felt that if I was going to do a mini-biography of British Columbia’s most flamboyant premier (with the possible exception of Amor de Cosmos, who was actually declared insane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_De_Cosmos) that Vander Zalm deserved my best efforts.

I was aware that Pelletier had legal representation, Henry Juroviesky is listed in all of the decisions as being Pelletier’s legal counsel.

It was a deliberate decision on my part not to include this as part of my write-up. I was sorely tempted, I can’t recall ever seeing a more botched job of work from claimed qualified lawyers. But I knew that this posting was already going to be massive and I concluded that if I started addressing what was really a digression from the main topic I might end up going down a rabbit-hole of my own and end up with an unmanageably long series of posts. I’d already done an essay on British Columbian political history so I decided to avoid going off the direct topic yet again. However, now that my case posting is done, I’ll do one addressing Mr. Juroviesky and his trial representation including some information on his background I found on the internet. But I’m a bit busy at the moment so it will have to wait a short while.

I will conclude with a quote, a comment in a very recent CNN article on Donald Trump’s futile barrage of lawsuits, that I feel perfectly encapsulates the approach that Pelletier and his lawyer took in their fight to save us from the horrors of water vapour;

The Trump campaign keeps hoping it will find a judge that treats lawsuits like tweets," said Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor and elections law expert, on Friday. "Repeatedly, every person with a robe they've encountered has said, 'I'm sorry, we do law here.

[Hercule Parrot]

Thank you, Burnaby49. We enjoy a lot of casual snarking in the UK section, but it's nice to pop over and read these detailed and very amusing case studies.

[Burnaby49]

Thank you, Burnaby49. We enjoy a lot of casual snarking in the UK section, but it's nice to pop over and read these detailed and very amusing case studies.

Very amusing? Then I've failed utterly! I thought I was writing a pair of tragedies of Shakespearean proportions. The brilliant triumph then calamitous fall of a headstrong politician and, of far more note, the now inevitable annihilation of humanity, doomed to choke on the noxious effluvients disseminated by our rogue governments as a result of Pelletier's inexplicable court defeat.

I suppose I should try and keep a sense of proportion. Settle back, pop open a beer or two, and watch the end of the world as we know it.

[grixit]

similarities of the aerial discharges in the Plaintiff’s photographs are “so striking and are so unambiguous

They're white, wispy lines in the air that gradually dissipate. Wow!