$100 billion dollar lawsuit for chemtrail damages...

Chat.AI as legal assistant.

clif high

Oct 31, 2024

1,217

326

129

https://x.com/clif_high/status/1851365685575999781

The complete chat.AI session so far in order for my multiple billion dollar law suit for damages from CHEMTRAILS.

We're still in the strategy development stage here.

As part of the suit, legal reasons later, i will be asking the Federal judge to issue order to the FAA & other federal agencies to deny re-certification for all pilots, and other aviation specialists involved in flying, or servicing chemtrail planes. Further, a part of the injunctive relief sought, i will request that the judge issue orders to federal agencies to remove all certifications for all facilities, federal, but especially private, where such chemtrail planes are serviced, or their chemical payloads prepared. The idea is to go after the employees ability to work, as well as to remove ability of facilities to do the work. State and local gov't will shit themselves over the loss of tax revenue. As a start. Imagine getting a commercial airport decertified on safety reasons due to chemtrail planes. Those planes would be gone damn quick.

Why not a class action lawsuit.

No. That defeats the purpose. Obtaining standing is a bitch under all circumstances, but once personal presence under the chemtrails is established, then everyone can sue on the same basis AND that is the point. They DO NOT CARE about 'class action' as that is all in the hands of the attorneys & they make out like bandits & pay off the judge. Class action is ONE SUIT holding all plaintiffs. In class action it is up to the judge to parcel out the pennies to the plaintiffs. In Pro Se, you don't have lawyer costs, and they do. In Pro Se, you get a jury & they will award you as all of them see as fitting. Not a single, corrupt judge easily swayed by money & death threats. i want PRO SE. i want ten million suits. Flood the system to drown all the rats! Difficult job to intimidate 10,000,000 plaintiffs.

Pasted AI chat below:

stratospheric atmosphere injection is being carried on now by commercial operations. i want to sue them for polluting my air & causing my weather to change. i want to sue pro se in federal court in Washington State. Start me off. What are the legal reasons to sue & how to structure the suit.

ChatGPT said:

If you want to pursue a pro se lawsuit against commercial operations carrying out stratospheric atmospheric injection, you’ll need to structure your case carefully. Below are some key legal grounds and an outline of how you can approach this.

1. Potential Legal Grounds for Your Lawsuit

In your lawsuit, you'll need to articulate how the activities you are challenging harm you personally or violate specific laws. Below are several legal theories that could apply:

A. Environmental Protection and Pollution

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.):
- If the injection activities involve the release of pollutants into the air, this act may offer a way to argue that such operations are unlawful without appropriate permits.
- The Clean Air Act allows for citizen suits (42 U.S.C. § 7604) against parties violating air pollution standards.

B. Public Nuisance

Public nuisance occurs when an action unreasonably interferes with a public right (e.g., clean air or predictable weather patterns).
- If the injection alters weather patterns or causes environmental harm, you could argue it constitutes a nuisance affecting the general public and your ability to live safely.

C. Private Nuisance

If the air pollution or weather change directly interferes with your personal use or enjoyment of your property, you might claim private nuisance under state law.

D. Administrative Law (APA Challenge)

If a federal agency (like the EPA or FAA) is involved by issuing permits or not regulating these activities, you could challenge the agency's action or inaction under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.).

E. Negligence or Trespass

Negligence: You could argue the operators were negligent in performing activities that foreseeably harmed you or your property (e.g., increased weather variability or air quality issues).
Trespass: If substances from the injection settle on your property, this could be an unauthorized intrusion (trespass).

F. Constitutional Claims (State and Federal)

Due Process or Property Rights (Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments): If you believe your rights to clean air and property use are violated without proper due process, you could raise constitutional arguments.

2. Standing to Sue

Before filing, ensure you have standing—the legal right to bring a lawsuit. You’ll need to demonstrate:

Injury in fact: A specific and concrete harm (e.g., weather instability or air quality issues affecting you).
Causation: A connection between the stratospheric injections and the harm you experience.
Redressability: A favorable court decision will remedy or prevent further harm.

3. Jurisdiction and Venue

You mentioned suing in federal court in Washington State. Here’s how to structure jurisdiction and venue:

Federal Question Jurisdiction: If your claim involves federal laws (e.g., Clean Air Act, APA), you can invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332): If suing companies located outside of Washington State and seeking more than $75,000 in damages.
Venue: Federal venue statutes (28 U.S.C. § 1391) allow cases to be brought in the district where the harm occurred or where the defendant resides.

4. How to Structure Your Complaint

A complaint is the legal document that initiates your lawsuit. Below is a basic outline:

[Your Name] v. [Defendant(s)]

United States District Court for the [Western or Eastern] District of Washington

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. Introduction

Briefly describe the stratospheric injection activities.
State how these actions harm you (air pollution, weather changes).

2. Jurisdiction and Venue

Federal question jurisdiction under [relevant federal statutes].
State that the harm occurred in Washington, making venue appropriate.

3. Parties

Identify yourself as the plaintiff.
List the defendants (companies or agencies) by name and address.

4. Statement of Facts

Describe the injection activities and your evidence.
Explain the specific harm you experienced (e.g., health issues, property damage).

5. Legal Claims

First Cause of Action: Violation of the Clean Air Act (or another statute).
Second Cause of Action: Public/Private Nuisance.
Third Cause of Action: Negligence and/or Trespass.
(Include any other relevant claims.)

6. Prayer for Relief
State what you want the court to do:

Injunctive relief to stop further injection activities.
Monetary damages for harm caused.
Attorneys' fees and costs (even though you are filing pro se).

7. Signature and Certification

Sign and date the complaint.
Include your contact information (address, email, phone).
Certify that the information is true to the best of your knowledge.

5. Evidence Collection

Gather evidence showing:
- The connection between the injection activities and your harm (scientific reports, news articles, weather data).
- Any personal health or property impact (doctor reports, air quality measurements).
- Information about the companies involved.

6. Filing the Case

You will need to file your complaint in the appropriate district court in Washington State.
Pay the filing fee (or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis if you can’t afford it).
Serve the complaint on the defendant(s) following Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

7. Additional Considerations

Class Action Suit: You may consider if others are similarly affected and explore filing a class action.
Alternative Dispute Resolution: Some courts require mediation before trial.
Legal Advice: Although you intend to proceed pro se, consulting an environmental attorney for guidance could improve your chances of success.

This structure provides a starting framework. From here, you'll need to refine your complaint with specific facts and legal theories based on the precise activities and their impacts.

You said:

Who would have standing in washington state to sue these atmospheric stratosphere injection companies?

ChatGPT said:

In Washington State, potential plaintiffs who might have standing to sue companies engaged in stratospheric atmospheric injection would typically need to demonstrate specific, personal harm caused by these activities. Below are some parties who might establish standing:

1. Individuals Directly Harmed by Environmental or Health Impacts

Property Owners: If injection activities lead to pollutants settling on private property or contribute to adverse weather patterns affecting the use or value of the property, owners may have standing.
Residents Experiencing Health Impacts: Residents who experience respiratory or other health issues that can reasonably be linked to pollution from stratospheric injection may establish standing. Medical evidence connecting health conditions to these injections would strengthen such claims.
Farmers and Agricultural Stakeholders: Farmers affected by altered precipitation, increased temperatures, or other weather changes impacting crop production might have a basis to sue, especially if these weather impacts coincide with stratospheric injection activities.

2. Environmental Organizations or Advocacy Groups

Washington-based environmental groups can file lawsuits on behalf of their members under the principle of associational standing, provided that:
- Members of the organization have standing themselves (e.g., members experiencing direct harm from pollution or climate impacts).
- The organization can demonstrate that stratospheric injections harm their members or the ecosystems they are dedicated to protect.
Citizen Suit Provisions: Under the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws, these groups may have standing if they can show how their members are affected by pollution or how the activities harm natural areas the organization protects.

3. State Government Agencies or the Attorney General

The Washington State Attorney General or relevant state environmental agencies might sue on behalf of Washingtonians if stratospheric injections harm public health, property, or natural resources.
Parens Patriae Standing: The state may act as a “guardian” for residents, suing to protect natural resources, air quality, or the general public’s health.

4. Municipalities and Local Governments

Cities or counties experiencing local environmental or economic impacts (e.g., increased infrastructure costs due to weather changes or health burdens on public services) may claim harm to their interests.
Increased Costs: If a local government incurs costs to address air quality issues or mitigate weather impacts directly linked to these activities, they may have standing to sue.

5. Businesses Adversely Affected by Weather Changes or Pollution

Companies in sectors like agriculture, tourism, or outdoor recreation that rely on stable weather conditions may have standing if they can demonstrate a financial loss due to activities that alter weather patterns.
For example, a ski resort could claim lost revenue if reduced snowfall, linked to the atmospheric interventions, decreases visitor numbers.

Establishing Causation and Standing

The key for any plaintiff is to clearly link the stratospheric injection activities to a specific harm they experience. Courts generally require that the connection between the plaintiff's injury and the defendant’s actions is traceable and not overly speculative. In this case, scientific or environmental expert testimony and supporting studies could be crucial in establishing standing by showing causation.

In summary, standing could be established by any individual or organization in Washington State with a concrete, particularized injury related to health, property, economic loss, or environmental degradation resulting from these injection activities.

You said:

i also intend to sue on the novel approach that one of the purposes of the stratospheric injection is the reduction of sunlight, and that, i, as a human, and as mammal, have an inherent right to such sunlight as Nature may provide as it is a vital part of my process for the creation of vitamin D, as well as production of mood leveling chemicals, and setting my sleep cycle. How would that best be phrased as the science is sound on each specific item as they apply to all mammals as biologists will attest.

ChatGPT said:

Memory updated

To phrase this unique legal claim effectively, you can emphasize a fundamental right to natural sunlight by connecting it to well-established biological needs and benefits. Here’s how you might structure this part of the complaint:

Claim: Infringement of the Inherent Right to Natural Sunlight

Introduction to the Claim

Essential Biological Need: State that, as a human being and a mammal, you require direct exposure to natural sunlight to maintain your health and well-being. Describe sunlight as an inherent, essential natural resource that is fundamental to mammalian biology, and that interference with this resource constitutes a deprivation of a basic biological necessity.

Scientific Basis and Evidence 2. Vitamin D Production: Argue that sunlight exposure on the skin is critical for the body’s synthesis of vitamin D, which is crucial for maintaining bone density, immune function, and overall physical health. Deprivation of sunlight due to stratospheric injections, which intentionally reduce sunlight reaching the Earth, interferes with this process, effectively denying a biological right to health.

Mood Regulation: Emphasize that exposure to sunlight stimulates the production of mood-regulating neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, which are essential to maintaining mental health. Reduced sunlight, as a consequence of these injections, increases the risk of mood disorders, including depression and seasonal affective disorder (SAD), thus impacting psychological well-being.
Circadian Rhythm and Sleep Cycle Regulation: Explain that sunlight exposure regulates the body’s circadian rhythm, which controls sleep cycles through light-sensitive receptors that signal the brain’s production of melatonin. By reducing sunlight, the injections disrupt natural sleep patterns and physiological rhythms, which are critical for overall health.

Legal Framing 5. Argument for a Right to Unobstructed Sunlight: Position this right to sunlight as part of a broader right to health and a balanced natural environment. Consider asserting a fundamental right to biological integrity or a right to the benefits of natural environmental conditions, rooted in existing environmental and personal rights doctrines.

Supporting Evidence and Expert Testimony 6. Scientific Support: Reference expert biologists or medical evidence to support each claim, particularly regarding the impact of sunlight reduction on vitamin D, serotonin production, and circadian rhythm. Include studies and expert declarations that link sunlight exposure with health outcomes.

Relief Sought 7. Request for Injunctive Relief: Due to the direct interference with these essential health processes, seek an injunction to prevent further injection activities that reduce natural sunlight.

This phrasing would allow the court to see the unique perspective of sunlight as a biological need directly tied to your well-being, framing it as an essential right that should be protected from intentional interference.