This is the first of a series of reports on the ongoing
legal case in Canada having to do with the story of Dr. Dan
Burisch and the role it has in Disclosure to the human race
about the reality of extraterrestrial involvement in earthly
affairs.
The last the reader heard was that
the historic Form 255 Request To Admit and Form 256 Response
To Request To Admit, signed under oath by Dr. Dan Burisch
on April 9th, 2005, was refused admittance into the public
record by Judge Campbell at a special sitting of the
Federal Court in Edmonton, Alberta, on April 11th, 2005. Those
documents, valid only in the proceeding in which they
were brought, were then superceded by a General Affidavit,
which repeated verbatim the information contained in
the first documents, and signed on April 13th.
That
Affidavit is
now the subject of a second Application for Leave and
Judicial Review in Federal Court, as it had been included
as the primary evidence in what is known as a PRRA application
by the principal applicants – Don
Deppeller and Toni Jannelli – in
their attempts to remain in Canada until at least the
Affidavit was entered into
the public record and they were enabled to leave the country
without leaving their investments behind. Because
of prior and widespread abuses of the immigration system
in Canada, the normal system of appeals was restricted
to appeals of whether the tribunals of the Ministry of
Citizenship & Immigration
had acted within the law and withouts error. This
meant that Judge Campbell, despite having been given
the authority by Justice Beaudry when the first instance
of Judicial Review was granted in January, 2005, felt
his hands to be tied in the matter and he could only
rule on whether the original IRB panel (Immigration & Refugee
Board) had acted without error in its August 2004 hearing
and subsequent ruling. In reviewing
that decision, he determined that based on what was
before the tribunal, the panel had not acted in error. He
indicated that any new evidence would have to go before
the PRRA tribunal following the special sitting.
The PRRA Unit issued its findings
and analysis on Aug. 4th, 2005, and
found that there was no substantive basis for Applicants° allegations. In
its ruling, under ¯Analysis", it stated that
the allegations were so fantastic as to be the ¥product
of a delusional mind°. No
mention was made of the Affidavit,
and so upon receiving the ruling a protest was lodged
and formal request made to have the Affidavit addressed. A
week went by, with no reply. A second request, including
yet another copy of the Affidavit, was submitted. No
reply. Whereupon
the principal Applicant filed once again for Judicial
Review, it being a question of fundamental fairness that
any citizen – whether
Applicant, Defendant, Appellant, etc. – have their
evidence admitted into the record and ruled upon by whatever
tribunal, judge, court, or administrator has the power
to deprive that citizen of liberty, investment, residence
or livelihood.
Upon submission of this second Application
for Leave and for Judicial Review, the solicitor who
represents the Respondent – in
this case the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration – indicated
to the Applicants that they could file a second PRRA application,
this time to limit the evidence to the Affidavit of Dr. Dan Burisch. This
the Applicants have done, which brings the reader to the present
state of affairs. Because of the high strangeness and utter
uniqueness of this case, the principal Applicant agreed with
an initial assessment that a cross-examination of the Affidavit
would be in order. Fantastic claims require an even stricter
testing of the evidence, which in this case would call out for
a cross-examination of the principal affiant – Dr. Burisch. However,
in a striking about-face, the solicitor for the Respondent has
indicated he will be advising his client (the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration)
NOT to consent to the cross-examination of the affiant/deponent;
no reasons given. However, from the perspective of this
writer, who happens to be the ¥principal Applicant°,
it would appear that the Respondent is prepared to accept
the validity of the Affidavit, which is what the applicants
have asked for all along, which if accepted in its implications,
should allow applicants to remain in Canada until such
time as their standard immigration applications are allowed
to be heard.
Time will tell, and experience shows
that solicitors for government Respondents rarely if
ever enter into agreements with Applicants willingly
to the satisfaction of Applicants as well as Respondents. It
is but one more example of how governments and their civil servant
employees continue to attempt suppression of evidence. And
why is this? Is it because they take it upon themselves
to prevent the public from learning something that might disturb
them? Because higher-ups in the government are instructing
them to do so, for a variety of reasons? A fear that they
may incite the displeasure of a neighboring country, relations
with which are already in a tenuous situation? Or perhaps
an instinctive reaction against providing a backdrop of authority
to enter otherwise fantastical allegations into a public, government
record that is uncompromised by any taint of profiteering? Admitting
to a reality that would admit to prior government duplicity?
These are some of the questions the parties will be struggling
with in the days and weeks ahead, and the reader is advised
to post their opinions at the forum where the ¯Golden Thread" resides;
see the forum link button at the top of this page.
