Reply With Quote
I've tried to skim the thread, but it's too much youtubing and jabbing.
Please do me a favor. Be the prosecutor and explain how Kucinich's testimony makes for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
if you want to equate this example to this thread, the cops ask the guy what he was doing, he said "nothing" and the cops said "ok, move along or we'll cite you for loitering." Case closed.
great example.
I've tried to skim the thread, but it's too much youtubing and jabbing.
Please do me a favor. Be the prosecutor and explain how Kucinich's testimony makes for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
you misunderstand. prima facie standard only requires a question of fact. In other words, presenting anough info to establish a possibility that it happened as the state says.
From that point, defense pokes their holes, then it goes to a jury to make the determination.
In this case we arent talking trial anyway. We are talking grand jury, to which the standard is even lower.
I'm going to quote the Kucinich reference for you.
no comparison. The cops cant effectively question DoD. try again.if you want to equate this example to this thread, the cops ask the guy what he was doing, he said "nothing" and the cops said "ok, move along or we'll cite you for loitering." Case closed.
great example.
The cops I refer to in my metaphor would be DoD officials in real life, and likely not investigators but whistleblowers.
http://www.willthomas.net/chemtrails...Chemtrails.htmKucinich recently told the Columbus Alive newspaper (Jan. 24, 2002) that despite official denials, as head of the Armed Services oversight committee he is well acquainted with chemtrail projects. “The truth is there’s an entire program in the Department of Defense, ‘Vision for 2020,’ that’s developing these weapons,” Kucinich told reporter Bob Fitrakis.
I cant find the actual interview, and I did look to the Columbus Alive website's search feature. I know that Kucinich is not the head of the armed services oversight committee at present, he is chair of another subcommittee I think, on domestic government oversight. So I cant vouch for this with 100% certainty, but it definitely needs to be dealt with before the contention reaches laughable status
simple testimony from Kucinich is not prima facie.
One person's testimony is enough to convict for life or better. The key is the witnesses credibility. You already know this.
Here we aren't trying to convict, we are simply trying to get to the jury. Lower standard even.
Blake youre on wheels when it comes to internet research. If you poke holes in this interview's actual existence I will buy you a six pack.
In jurisdictions in which there is a grand jury, such as some parts of the United States, a prima facie case must be made to a grand jury in order for the prosecution to secure an indictment. A prima facie case is a lesser burden of proof than is required to secure a conviction during a trial, when guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because a grand jury is not convened to find guilt or innocence, but only to discover whether there is justification for a trial to take place.
k, let me know when the whistle has been blown by someone with actual evidence.
kucinich is chopped liver? he would make such a claim in the press without first-hand knowledge? You really think?
and if there are offcials that deny such testimony, then it's not any kind of proof in any form.
I don't deny the existence of the interview; I don't buy that such an interview is prima facie.Here we aren't trying to convict, we are simply trying to get to the jury. Lower standard even.
Blake youre on wheels when it comes to internet research. If you poke holes in this interview's actual existence I will buy you a six pack.
Do you have a legit legal source that says it is prima facie, or is it your own dedecutive reasoning that leads to that conclusion?
many people have claimed may things for many different reasons.
What did the press do when Kucinich came to them with this knowledge?
incorrect. it boils down to credibility. Havent you ever watched Matlock?
Jury decides who to believe, based on credibility.
Both sides present their case and jury decides who is lying.
Prima facie only comes in at the early stages. If a congressman testifies, you can bet your ass the jury will get to decide the case.
STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTPursuant toRule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper
only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is en led to
judgment as a matter of law." "[T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only
disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will
not be counted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 2510,
91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that no genuine issue
of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53,
91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In determining whether the moving party has met its burden, the court
must consider all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in a light most favorable to the party
opposing the motion and must resolve all reasonable doubt against the moving party. Anderson,
477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513-14; See Matsu a Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1358-57, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
"[T]he court must consider all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in a light most favorable
to the party opposing the motion . . . . " Anderson. v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.The court may grant summary judgment only "if there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact."Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2502, 2511, 91
L.Ed2d. 202 (1986). The burden rests on the moving party to demonstrate the lack of a genuine
issue of fact. A es v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U,.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26
L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). The record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the moving party
opposing the motion. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8
L.Ed.2d 176 (1962).
"The court may grant summary judgment only "if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact."
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.It is well settled that a plaintiff may survive summary judgment by "presenting evidencesufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact
A genuine issue of material fact is a legal term often used as the basis for a motion for summary judgment. A summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is en led to a judgment as a matter of law. Such a motion will be granted if the party making the motion proves there is no genuine issue of material fact to be decided. When the moving party makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to rebut the showing by presenting substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to eliminate its risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery, by demonstrating to the judge, by sworn statements and do entary evidence, that there are no material issues of fact remaining to be tried. If there's nothing for the jury to decide, then, the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial? The moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in favor of the moving party. In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party who is en led to judgment as a matter of law.
Summary judgment is awarded if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for one party to prevail if the matter were to proceed to trial. The court must consider all materials in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.
If a trial could result in the jury (or judge in a bench trial) deciding in favor of the party opposing the motion, then summary judgment is inappropriate.
in other words, the court assumes that Kucinich is telling the truth (light most favorable to me) and then decides if that would be sufficient to find for me.
in other words, Chump was full of .The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that no genuine issue
of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
this small media outlet reported it. There are several other reports by small local press in this thread, but you dismissed them as youtubes.
please cite a similar example where it has boiled down to simple credibility of one witness.incorrect. it boils down to credibility. Havent you ever watched Matlock?
I think you watch too much Matlock.Jury decides who to believe, based on credibility.
Both sides present their case and jury decides who is lying.
Prima facie only comes in at the early stages. If a congressman testifies, you can bet your ass the jury will get to decide the case.
again, Kucinich testimony on it's own is not prima facie of any kind.
does Kucinich have do entary evidence to back up his testimony?
I dismissed them because they are youtubes.
What's the name(s) of the outlet(s) and how did they handle this important information?
havent you heard of the "star witness?" thats the one which the case revolves around, and the one without which the case falls apart
as i said they reported it.Kucinich recently told the Columbus Alive newspaper (Jan. 24, 2002) that despite official denials, as head of the Armed Services oversight committee he is well acquainted with chemtrail projects. “The truth is there’s an entire program in the Department of Defense, ‘Vision for 2020,’ that’s developing these weapons,” Kucinich told reporter Bob Fitrakis.
this is not youtube:
CHEMTRAILS CONFIRMED
by
William Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a resurgence of unusual aerial trails crisscross Canadian skies, official confirmation of chemtrails has come from the U.S. Congress.
“Chemtrails” is the term widely used to describe the brilliant white plumes laid down by U.S. Air Force tanker planes photo-identified over North America and a dozen other allied nations. Unlike normal condensation trails – which form when hot engine exhaust momentarily condenses in the frigid stratosphere like exhaled breath on a cold day - chemical trails linger for hours, turning clear skies into milky haze in a process the U.S. Air Force calls “aerial obscuration”
Chemtrail Ban Sought In Congress
“Chemtrails” also appear in House Resolution 2977. Introduced last October by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, this bill called for the peaceful uses of space, and a ban on “exotic weapons”. Section 7 of the “Space Preservation Act of 2001” sought specifically to prohibit “chemtrails”.
Kucinich recently told the Columbus Alive newspaper (Jan. 24, 2002) that despite official denials, as head of the Armed Services oversight committee he is well acquainted with chemtrail projects. “The truth is there’s an entire program in the Department of Defense, ‘Vision for 2020,’ that’s developing these weapons,” Kucinich told reporter Bob Fitrakis. The U.S. Space Command’s 2020 vision calls for “dominance” of space, land, sea and air.
The unusual white plumes reported by Air Canada pilots, police officers and former military personnel over Canada and the U.S. during the past three years are often contrasted by brief, pencil-thin contrails left by commercial jets flying above them.
Contrails form when water vapor clumps around dirt particles acting as nuclei. According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, contrails can only form at temperatures below minus 76 degrees, and humidity levels of 70 percent or more. Even in ideal conditions, contrails rarely last more than 20 minutes.
But atmospheric studies by NASA and NOAA - including TARFOX, ACE-Asia, ACE-I and II, INDOEX and Project SUCCESS - confirm that artificial clouds and contrails can be manufactured under conditions of low humidity by dispensing particles from aircraft. The smaller the size of the nuclei introduced into the atmosphere, the greater the rate of artificial cloud formation.
Canadians Pe ion Parliament
Canadians were the first to complain about chemtrails to their federal government. On Nov. 18, 1999, NDP Defense critic Gordon Earl pe ioned Parliament on behalf of 550 residents of Espanola, Ontario to “repeal any law that would permit the dispersal of military chaff or of any cloud-seeding substance whatsoever by domestic or foreign military aircraft without the informed consent of the citizens of Canada thus affected.”
According to CBC Newsworld (Aug 29, 1999), “Many in the community have reported respiratory problems and strange aches and pains. Town council heard that some believe military jets are dropping material over the town as part of a weather experiment” - after laboratory tests confirmed the presence of aluminum in rainwater falling through chemtrails over Espanola five-times higher than provincial health safety limits.
The Ministry of Defense eventually replied, “It’s not us.”
Studies Prove Chemtrails Cannot Be Contrails
The “airliner” argument collapsed along with the Twin Towers, when heavy chemtrails were reported over Vancouver Island and widely separated U.S. cities despite the grounding of all commercial flights last Sept. 11, 12 and 13.
Photographs of heavy aerial gridding over Santa Fe, New Mexico and B.C.’s Sunshine Coast also contradict official weather data showing high al ude humidity at the same times and locations to be less than one third the moisture needed for contrails to form.
In Houston, Texas, Mark Steadham conducted a 62 day survey of jet traffic over that busy hub. Using a computer program called Flight Explorer, Steadham identified commercial and military aircraft sharing the same sky. The contrails from commercial jets dissipated within 22 seconds. The plumes left behind at the same time by big military jets persisted for four to eight hours.
Canadian and U.S. Aviation Officials Confirm Chemtrails
The first break in an investigation begun by the Environment News Service in Jan. 1999, came 11 months later when Victoria airport authority Terry Stewart returned a call to a Victoria resident concerned about the X’s and grid patterns being laid over the B.C. capitol. “It’s a military exercise, a U.S. and Canada air force exercise that’s going on,” Stewart reported on Dec. 8, 2000. “They wouldn’t give me any specifics on it.”
The “specifics” came in March the following year, when Maine radio reporter S. T. Brendt called a senior Air Traffic Control manager after she, her news director and staff counted 370 plumes filling skies normally devoid of commercial aircraft. During his hitch in U.S. Navy Intelligence, Brendt’s husband had never seen an aerial armada this big. “It looked like an invasion,” Lou Aubuchont said.
The FAA manager told Brendt he had been ordered to redirect incoming commercial flights around “military exercises” on several occasions that month. In follow-up interviews at the WMWV studios, the government official confirmed widespread chemtrail activity. As they flew north into Canada, he said, the planes were spraying a substance that showed up as a “haze” on Air Traffic Control radar screens.
This characteristic signature of radar beams reflecting off fine aluminum particles confirmed the Espanola lab tests. It also matched a patent issued to Hughes Aircraft Corp. in 1994. This practical blueprint described spraying reflective aluminum particles into Earth’s greenhouse atmosphere, “For the Reduction of Global Warming”.
Computer simulations at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory showed that spraying 10 million tons of aluminum oxide into the upper atmosphere would reflect between one and two percent of incoming sunlight. The predictions promised no net warming over 85 percent of the earth surface, despite a predicted doubling of CO2 within the next 50 years.
The biggest lobby pushing for a reduction in global warming are insurance companies bigger than Big Oil and the international trade in arms. Multinationals such as the Swiss Reinsurance Company and Lloyd’s of London report unsustainable losses incurred by Extreme Weather Events caused by a rapidly warming planet. It is feared that if they go bankrupt, so will the money markets and banks that back them.
Andrew Dlugolecki - director of one of the world’s six biggest insurance groups, CGNU - warned the Hague two years ago that unless action is taken to curb global warming, the resulting damage will exceed the dollar value of all the world’s resources by 2065. “Already we’re beginning to run out of money in the insurance industry,” Dlugolecki declared.
It was Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, who called for spraying a chemical “sunscreen” at a 1998 International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies. Besides disturbing regional weather patterns, Teller’s chief climate modeler, Ken Caldeira worries about negative health effects. The atmospheric scientist who crunched the numbers on Teller’s “sky shield” further warns such a project could, “destroy the ozone layer”. Caldeira believes the U.S. government will publicly admit to chemtrails this spring.
Health Hazard
Scientists say aluminum oxide as inert as sand poses no toxic threat. But after examining more than 3,000 health studies published since 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confirmed a strong link between tiny particulates and thousands of premature deaths each year.
According to a New York Times feature, “Tiny Bits of Soot Tied to Illnesses” (April 21, 2001), numerous health studies show that “microscopic motes - composed of metals, carbon and other ingredients - are able to infiltrate the tiniest compartments in the lungs and pass readily into the bloodstream and have been most strongly tied to illness and early death, particularly in people who are already susceptible to respiratory problems.”
In a report headlined, “Tiny particles can kill” New Scientist (Aug. 5, 2000) reported a Harvard “Six Cities” study, which “identified particles with a diameter of less than 10 microns as threat to public health.”
Barium Chemtrails
A scientist working at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base told Columbus Alive (Dec. 6, 2001) that two different chemtrails projects are currently being conducted by the U.S. military. One involves creating clouds to cool global warming.
Chemtrails are also being deployed by the Pentagon to suspend a mixture of barium stearate and fine iron particles as a temporary atmospheric antenna for conducting radio and radar waves over the horizon. The soapy stearate used to carry the airborne iron particles appears in the sky as prismatic bands of color.
Barium-iron chemtrails were reportedly used to create long range radio-and-radar “ducting” during sustained air strikes on Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. The scientist interviewed by Fitzrakis also stated that barium chemtrails are being used in conjunction with an “atmospheric heater” called HAARP in Gakon, Alaska.
HAARP’s inventor Bernard Eastland told this reporter that the principal purpose of this multi-million watt weapon is to “steer the jet stream” and change the weather. His patent calls for spraying barium in the atmosphere to enhance the effects of HAARP. “Wright-Pat has long been deeply engaged in HAARP’s electromagnetic warfare program,” Eastlund told Columbus Alive.
Electromagnetic Hazards
If some of the chemtrails being sprayed overhead contain compounds for conducting electromagnetic energy, residents of all affected communities could be in even graver danger from the intense electromagnetic radiation emitted by cellphone and microwave transmitter towers, radar installations at military bases, high-voltage power lines, high-power military relay towers and myriad other well-do ented sources of "electronic smog" - 15 million times more intense than natural background levels.
Barium chemtrails could accidentally amplify these already hazardous electromagnetic emanations
Canadian military officers at Canadian Forces Base Comox spokesmen have heatedly denied the existence of this joint military operation. But Terry Stewart told the Vancouver Courier (Aug. 15, 2001) that his information confirming the Canada-U.S. military exercise came directly from CFB Comox.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
