FORUM contact LINKS
UPDATES Legal Case Analysis
Introduction

nav



nav
nav
nav

 

 

 
 


DATELINE
— Aug 30, 2005 Edmonton, Alberta


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  Those documents, valid only in the proceeding in which they were brought, were then superceded by a General Affidavit, which repeated verbatim the information contained in the first documents, and signed on April 13th.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.