Reports from the Chatham Courthouse

by Harvey Wrightman, WCO Reporter

  1. Both the MOE and Suncor emphasized the purpose of the GEA was to foster renewable energy projects and remove barriers to development. In addition, Suncor’s lawyer, Albert Engel, insisted that by complying with the process of Reg. 359/09 (Renewable Energy Approvals) and receiving a REA, this provides a “guarantee” that there will be no harm to the health of residents – no need for Suncor to worry, the govt. picks up the tab  –  haven’t yet heard such soothing words from the AG’s lawyer, Frederika (Freddy) Rotter.Indeed, Freddy was the most argumentative of the lot in addition to being rather disorganized, causing confusion and frustration with her spur of the moment additions to her file of evidence – no discovery and not really appreciated by any of the other counsel.
  2. In the afternoon she wasted over an hour on an attempt to “globally dismiss” all of the appellant’s witnesses for being “advocates” by way of speaking out against wind turbines – the proof? 9 of 10 belong to the Society for Wind Vigilance and  by golly, there’s a link to the website on WCO!She characterized the 10 experts as “advocates” whose testimony would be “hearsay” and that they were collectively engaged in “rabble-rousing”. Taking up from there, the Mr.Engel, suncor’s lawyer, didn’t really pursue this at all, perhaps anticipating that Mr.Gillespie would point out the strong association of the MOE & Suncor witnesses to CanWEA, which of course he did. So, the question becomes, “Do we make a global adjustment and dismiss all the witnesses on the grounds of advocacy?” Sensibly, Mr.Gillespie suggested that credentials of each witness will be examined as they present testimony to the panel. Mr. Gillespie also noted (gracefully but with emphasis) that 8 days previous, the Judicial Review Panel had thrown out the same dismissal argument. Ms.Rotter did not have a satisfactory reply to this fact.

    …And then she mentions, “property values” and how this is talked about so much on WCO and other websites – and, wait for it, this all binds the “expert advocates” into one commonality – oh course – it’s all about money !! How could we not know? 

    McMurtry, Nissenbaum and Hanning according to Freddy, all got involved because of threats to property they own  – and Dr.Aramini too! Well pardon me, but it seems that any rural resident in Ontario would be guilty of the same infraction – Look at the proposal maps and there’s no place to hide – not even Toronto. I guess we’re all advocates – we’ve come up from being called terrorists.

  3. What really lifted my behind was the persistent demand by Mr.Engel and Ms.Rotter for “address confirmation” of the participant/subjects in Dr. Nissenbaum’s recent cohort study in Mars Hill, ME – both Mr. Engel and Ms. Rotter pressing to access that personal information and being able to convey it (somehow?) to their “experts who will examine the study critically.The possibility of improper use of the information bothers me – but not the wonderful gimps hired to protect or harass us. Of course, if you wanted the names of the lease signees for a wind proposal, that would be “confidential.”

5 thoughts on “Reports from the Chatham Courthouse

  1. They’re desparate and disorganized–destined to defeat.

  2. Absolutely agree Grant. I appreciate the dignity and intelligence behind our team of experts in the courtroom. Lorrie

  3. Seems we are back to ‘ what is an expert ? ‘ It comes down to we have been given the green light and a lawyer will deflect anything that may be an obstacle.Reasoning is not part of that equation.If only they could be forced to live under those conditions.Sounds like these court cases could continue for some time to come with the reasoning used .

    It seems if there’s money to be made these company’s will use our tax dollars against us .And Health is but one of the issues why this was not a good idea to begin with .

  4. Desperate pleas for the continuation of making money from taxpayers by the Wind Industry!

    Greed and Corruption make good partnerships!

  5. Do we really need “EXPERTS” for this prove this criminal action?
    All you have to do is live within 1km of these monsters (IWTS) for a while and conduct an unbiased survey of people who actually live there.

Comments are closed.