MOE lawyer says people can be concerned until the cows come home

Harvey Wrightman

by Daniel Punch, London Free Press
WYOMING – The appeal of a new wind farm project in Brooke-Alvinston township is “abusive” and “laughable,” says counsel for the Ontario Ministry of Environment. “All they have done is raised concerns,” said lawyer Frederika Rotter during a preliminary hearing on Thursday. “People can be concerned until the cows come home.”

Representatives for the ministry, the Zephyr wind project and the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group (WAG) met in Lambton County council chambers in Wyoming to discuss the $22 million, four-turbine wind farm under construction near Watford.  Read article

32 thoughts on “MOE lawyer says people can be concerned until the cows come home

    • Think Ms. Rotter is right the way the tribunals are set up as they lead to the same outcomes.

  1. Last year Rotter said that we all know wind farms reduce property values and that’s why people are getting sick, they’re worried about their property values. How does any one that dimwited get to be a lawyer for the gov’t?

    • Worry can lead to sever stress which then leads to health problems. So people who may not have direct health problems from IWTs can become ill. Just dealing with losing the value of property that one has spent years investing in would make most people ill.
      Our old family doctor always used to say that worry kills people.

  2. Why does the MOE even need to protect the corporations of big wind when they should be protecting us from harm or lets say from a precautionary principle. This is just like the police at the TO summit were the police were protecting the big money corporations when they should be protecting us from the corporations scamming us of our money. And then this is laughable living near these Turbines. Someone needs some good advise.

  3. Does anyone have an email address for this person???.. I got a few things to say to this poor excuse for a human being…The MOE seems to be about as corrupt as the government…

    • [excerpt] The appeal of a new wind farm project in Brooke-Alvinston township is “abusive” and “laughable,” says counsel for the Ontario Ministry of Environment. “All they have done is raised concerns,” said lawyer Frederika Rotter during a preliminary hearing on Thursday. “People can be concerned until the cows come home.”

      An aside:
      I’m reminded of my son’s high school law teacher.
      On the first day of class – her opening remark was:
      “The law is an a$$” –
      My son did ‘really well’ in her class!

      Ms. Rotter is the MOE’s lawyer. They rely on her to do her job.
      Clue: “All they have done is raised concerns” said lawyer Frederika Rotter…..

      The law is the law!
      [please read ‘an aside’ above]

      moving forward –
      recent cases may provide some useful information:
      http://www.canadianenergylaw.com/tags/recent-cases/

      • ERT/Environmental Review Tribunal
        “noted that the science behind the health effects of wind farms is in its infancy and is neither exhaustive nor conclusive” “The ERT observed that continued research will resolve some of these concerns”
        Don’t think that the science is yet conclusive nor exaused as far as another new tribunal would view the situation.
        The recommendation is to continue the research.
        Without victims input the same results will be had.
        Tribunal didn’t want to rule for or against arguments among “experts”.
        All should look at this website as it has good information on IWTs and court decisions.

  4. If there will be no Ontario witnesses who have suffered health problems due to IWTs testify at these hearings then all these proceedings will be about is arguments among experts on both sides of the issue. So the outcome will be the same as before. Tribunals and courts are no longer allowed to make decisions as to which experts are right as the members of the tribunal are not experts themselves. Recommendations can be made.
    It’s a good bet that no people who have suffered health problems from IWTs will be allowed to testify.

  5. So barbara their game is fixed ? So the controllers keep controlling the sheepies and no way out? So why bother with costly court cases that continue to suck up our slave money and amount to nothing? it is all a dog and pony show to make fun out of the people that live next to turbines? So much for us being the boss as we allow the servants to be captain of our ship we deserve what we get then..Sorry but not me.

    • The game is fixed by laws that have been enacted to protect people from becoming the victims of Galileo kinds of decisions being made by judges who don’t know which “experts’ to believe. In the past Galileo type decisions have been disasterous for victims caught in these types of court cases.

  6. Living in the Shadow of the Industrial Wind Turbines is no laughing matter!
    If I wanted to get a good laugh,feel Dizzy & Vomit then i would take a roller coaster ride at Canada’s Wonderland! Instead i get to feel this way right here in the comfort of my home.
    We have been complaining about the Adverse Health Affects we have been forced to live with since the Kent Breeze Wind Farm went online, rather loudly I might add, to whom ever will listen. Not one Government official has come to our home to run a test or to see how we are doing, they don’t have the time and i believe they just don’t care.
    It is all wrong, we should be allotted our 5 minutes, don’t our tax dollars pay their salaries?
    All i want is for them to listen, before more famillies are forced to suffer!

    • Victims of IWTs need to have jury trial lawsuit where a jury can hear what they have been through. You can just bet the outcome would be in the victims favour.
      At present everything will be done to prevent this from happening.
      A sorry state of affairs!

      • The key used every time when countering the health argument is the word “direct”. Opponents must prove a direct negative impact to human health. Watch how the words are used to spin the proponents message into their favour.

  7. All of the comments posted above are exactly why I stood up on the stage at a recent so called information meeting put on by Skyway in Creemore and made a fool of myself. I went public with my “Declaration of War.” A reporter asked if my declaration meant that I would hurt farmers that have signed up for wind turbines. I made it crystal clear that I believe that the sign ups were seduced by the wind industry and a false ideology promoted by our provincial government and that my fight is with the wind developers and my provincial government. Not my neighbours.

    • Melodie – read your declaration on ‘thebiggreenlie’. More
      people than you would think, have the exact same feelings.

      • Thanks Mad as a Bat…will do. BTW I met your friends at the Creemore meeting. Very nice people. They witnessed my “Declaration” .

      • You had the courage to stand up for what is right! More need to stand up!

      • Hey Madasabat, we met Melodie at Creemore and heard The Declaration … it was music to our ears. Thanks Melodie.
        BTW, she asked us to say hello to you the next time we were up in The Valley.

        And Lynne, you should have made your presence known … we’ve enjoyed your posts and would have liked to chat.

  8. PS. I received a hardy applause from the people in the room, many of whom I had never met before. That tells me that people are at the end of their rope dealing with a government and an industry that will not listen to them about the dangers of industrial scale wind turbine machines that have been placed too close to family homes, thereby in fact, industrializing them in their own home.
    I can only imagine that these feelings of betrayal are what led to the famous Boston Tea Party when the people where indignant that they where going to be taxed on tea shipped from Britain. The refused the tea and dumped it in the sea at the port in Boston…this made the water turn to tea…thus this act of rebellion was called the Boston Tea party.

    If only we could do the same here.

  9. Melodie I wish I’d known who you were – we could have had a wonderful chat! We dropped in to the open house – just to see how it was set out / who was holding it etc. I was curious to see if it was the same slime-ball people who are going to devastate us, and our lives, up here on 124 !! I’m sure you did not make a fool of yourself – it is the non-believers who are the fools! As for the companies behind these scams, they are just in it for the dirty money!

  10. Knowing these parasites are looking at these comments and thinking we are the ones that are nut cases or the same old same old NIMYBY’s that are rural nobodies.I say to them your game in all of this will come in the end and the truth will come out (most of Toronto does not know yet).I hope you all will pay dearly,and hopefully some of the leaders in all this scam will serve some time to think about the destruction you created here in rural Ontario. although you may need some help in the psychiatry ward to reprogram your twisted minds that you thought you were being a helpful greenie. Hopefully public servants,the judges will finally do what they are suppose to do and stop looking the other way and start protecting what is really right and honest. I say a lot of hope is needed as these parasites have cling on and attached themselves to a lot of our public employees and other pretend green organizations with gifts and money for rewards wrapped in the green flag or the BIG GREEN LIE. Good-bye parasites and shut and lock the door and leave the key behind you as your not welcome here in OUR rural Ontario.

    • Well said. Rural Ontario has never been so keenly aware of how insignificant their inhabitants are to both government and urban dwellers. Rural areas are to be used for resources and to assuage guilt associated with any other electrical sources other than Industrial Wind. This has been a cold calculated plan to reap money from taxpayers, to gain access and lands while developing prime farm lands throughout Ontario.
      Rural Ontario is our backbone, especially as our manufacturing has been forced out.

    • Listen carefully to what Ms Rotter has to say. She has provided some truths that some have failed to pickup on.
      Preliminary meetings set up what the parameters of the coming tribunal will be.
      So at this stage Ms Rotter does not know what the appeal is about could be true in a legal sense as the parameters of tribunal are not yet set.

  11. I understood that the purpose of this appeal is to put forward that this facility “will cause serious harm to human health.” If one believes that will happen, there is, in a way, a moral obligation to execute this avenue for appeal of the REA. Personally, I don’t think there is anything ‘wrong’ with putting forward exactly the same evidence that was presented at the Kent Breeze Hearing, but, if nothing was changed, it’s hard to imagine how the decision would be any different. Fortunately, there are 223 pages in the KB Decision to dissect, elaborate on, and use to show the contradictions made by the Defendants.

    Barbara, I agree with you that when it comes to adverse health effects, the only people who really would know if it’s happening are the victims, and that their voices should carry more weight. But if someone attended the hearing and said that a different wind facility was causing serious harm to their health, wouldn’t the defendants beat to death that each facility needs to be evaluated on its own merits and that even if these victims were telling the truth, it shouldn’t be considered in THIS case?

    In my opinion, the suggestion in the Kent Breeze Decision that the appelants ought to have “used” real people in order for them to have been able to meet the burden of proof, suggests that in this hearing, people who are going to be living near these wind turbines need to come forward, explain their current health status and any “preexisting conditions” or sensitivities they have, and then explain how any added “stress, annoyance and sleep disturbance” will aggravate any of these conditions, which WILL lead to “serious harm to human health”. For example, if you were pregnant, or had cancer, or were sick for any reason, then any added (and unnecessary) stress, annoyance, and sleep disturbance could be fatal.

    If Rotter doesn’t understand that, then she wasn’t paying attention during the Kent Breeze ERT hearing. And we’re paying her $180,000 a year???

    • This all depends on how the parameters of this tribunal are set. Lawyers have to work within the set parameters of a tribunal or court. But even if you proved that one particular IWT project causes adverse health affects then a legal precedent is set.
      Just the prolonged annoyance itself can lead to worry and then to serious health problems and then to death due to stress. The old expression “worried to death” has real meaning and can be proven today.
      If only “experts” will be allowed to testify at this upcoming tribunal this will exclude the victims and lead to the same results as the previous two cases.
      The governmnet and the developers need to exclude the victims. Soon it will be known what the parameters of this upcoming tribunal will be.
      The previous two tribunal transcripts need to be carefully examined for the remarks the lawyers have made.
      But it likely would take a jury trial for the victims testimony to be heard and where arguments among experts would not be allowed in making a decision. The victims could then present testimony and medical evidence to a jury.
      Seems to me that the legal venue of a tribunal is not the place for victims to present their cases unless a separate tribunal is set up for this purpose.

      • There has only been one previous appeal- Thamesville.

    • “Annoyed to death” is another old expression similar to “worried to death” as both have real meaning.
      Parameters and scope of the tribunal are the same. This is set before the tribunal begins and the lawyers must work within the scope that is set. Lawyers can’t just present witnesses outside of the set scope of the tribunal.The rules of the tribunal must be obeyed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *