Uncompensated Victims of Montreal Experiments Hung Out to Dry
Don't Look Over Here
I think we can all see where this is headed. The AG (Attorney General) makes the same motion to dismiss, at the same time, both law suits concerning victims and their families, of the Allan Memorial Institute (MK Ultra covertly practised on hospital patients at McGill University in Montreal Quebec, Canada) for the same reason.
The motions are based on the glaringly obvious oversight that all the leads in both cases signed off on the ex gratia payment of $100,000.00 in '92.
Timing is of course, suspicious, as CLG, Jeff Orenstein's firm representing The Montreal Experiments Class Action, has finally filed an application for certification after 7 years, coming up in June this year, 2025.
Certification is usually done in less than a year. The AG filed the motions to dismiss both cases in February this year. We are waiting for the decision now.
Not a Conspiracy Theorist?
Believe in Santa?
Why did Jeff wait so long to file for the most basic prerequisite for entering a lawsuit, certification?
Why did Jeff put 3 years into fighting the US AG before certification only to lose?
Why were all the leads in both suits recipients of the payment in '92, when there were dozens of others who didn't get the payment who could have lead?
Why were no co plaintiffs added to the Montreal Experiments suit in 2020 like we were told?
Why was this glaringly obvious legal kill shot oversight not seen by Alan Stein (lawyer for one suit) or Jeff Orenstein and not hedged against?
Are the deaths of many victims who could have been helped, instead of treated like worthless mentally ill people, in the 7 years on the hands of the AG, the law firms, the plaintiffs, the members or all of the above?
TEAM CANADA! YEAH!
5 years have gone by and we are just now, coming upon certification. maybe. Finally, Jeff Orenstein has added 2 other plaintiffs who did not get the ex gratia payment. One of them in Lana Ponting. That is such a relief. It should have happened 5 years ago. Instead Jeff let the case slide, let the slander libel and defamation from Julie towards myself and Lana Ponting slide. I wonder how the crown will view all this now that they are rightfully seeking to remove Julie Tanny Gold from the law suit. I sent these notices out 5 years ago.
An Open Letter to Julie Tanny Gold
who seeks to represent Victims and Victims families of the
Montreal Experiments
July 6, 2021
Dear Julie:
We need to have this discussion. The members and the lawsuit can not bear any
more co option from a unpleasant and threatening potential lead plaintiff. We
must dissolve this action if you can not correct your misconduct.
Since no apology, correction or retraction has been offered since my first public
legal notice (see attached) sent June 14th within the 2 week time period, I am to
assume you will continue with your misconduct.
Perhaps you think being sued for libel, defamation, conspiracy and slander as a
lead plaintiff by another member of the class is a good way to get support and
attention, but I and many others don't.
I, Ellen Atkin, do hereby charge you with failing in the duties presented in the
application for certification. Please see the items below for clarification. Please be
aware that I and others have collected and retained much evidence of your
misconduct. In light of these charges, the only correct action is to move for a
dissolution of the entire suit. No one can bear your abuse any longer.
While we appreciate what you have done to help the cause, we don't appreciate
that you have done more to set our cause back than help it. We are in our 4th
year of this process, together.
While we understand that being an mkultra victim is full of pitfalls and perils, we
don't appreciate that you betray your responsibility to the other victims seeking
justice.
Julie, you have caused me and my family so much harm, you have to stop. Now I
see you doing the same thing to other members. All your public libellous
conspiratorial actions and accusations are baseless, they are lies.
You are committing a crime by slandering me, my family and other members to
your group and the general public.
Julie, we need to come together, not apart. No judge, no public will take us
seriously under the circumstances present.
No one wants to work with you. There is no more confidence in your leadership.
Never was there one moment of due process in the SAAGA operation. It is fiction
based on the viral rising of other's hard work, namely myself and Alison Steel.
We had the momentum and the public on our side until you and a few others
went in and destroyed it. It will never come back, unless we come together; And I
mean the other suit as well. Do you think you can make that happen?
As I warned in our last correspondence as allies (Nov. 2019), you will destroy this
case if you go down the road you laid out. You should not be surprised that we
are here.
Regards,
Ellen Atkin
Endorsed by:
A CASE for Dissolution of the
Montreal Experiments Class Action Lawsuit
As laid out in the AMENDED APPLICATION TO AUTHORIZE THE
BRINGING OF A CLASS ACTION & TO APPOINT THE APPLICANT AS
REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF (Art. 574 C.C.P and following) prepared by
Consumer Law Group of Montreal, Quebec, I, Ellen Atkin, Class Member, find fault with Julie Tanny
Gold as potential lead plaintiff as described below.
300. The Applicant is ready and available to manage and direct the present action
in the interest of the members of the Class that she wishes to represent and is
determined to lead the present dossier until a final resolution of the matter, the
whole for the benefit of the Class, as well as, to dedicate the time necessary for
the present action before the Courts and the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives,
as the case may be, and to collaborate with her attorneys;
COUNTERPOINT
The applicants actions indicate otherwise. Publishing defamatory
lies about other Montreal Experiments victims is not for the benefit
of the class. Engaging in petty tit for tat popularity seeking tactics is
not for the benefit of the class. Having little understanding or
background in media and communications is not benefiting the
class.
301. The Applicant has the capacity and interest to fairly, properly, and
adequately protect and represent the interest of the members of the Class;
COUNTERPOINT
The applicants actions indicate otherwise. Much evidence and
testimony of those prepared to give it exists. The applicant believes
she can cancel other members applications based on her personal
whims. This indicates delusion of mind.
302. The Applicant has given the mandate to her attorneys to obtain all relevant
information with respect to the present action and intends to keep informed of all
developments;
COUNTERPOINT
The applicants actions indicate otherwise. The applicant has
dismissed member's testimonies as hearsay and “conspiracy
theories”. The applicant withholds, mis-manages and misinterprets
information from the lawyers.
303. The Applicant, with the assistance of her attorneys, is ready and available to
dedicate the time necessary for this action and to collaborate with other members
of the Class and to keep them informed;
COUNTERPOINT
The applicants actions indicate otherwise. The applicant has no data
base of members. A private facebook page is not a proper tool for
relaying information. An email list might be a good tool, but the
applicant only communicates via email with a select few, not the
entire class.
305. The Applicant is in good faith and has instituted this action for the sole goal
of having her rights, as well as the rights of other Class Members, recognized and
protected so that they may be compensated for the damages that they have
suffered as a consequence of the Defendants’ conduct;
COUNTERPOINT
The applicants actions indicate otherwise. The applicant seeks to
“cancel” people who don't conform to her world view.
306. The Applicant understands the nature of the action;
86307. The Applicant’s interests do not conflict with the interests of other Class
Members and further, the Applicant has no interest that is antagonistic to those of
other members of the Class;
COUNTERPOINT
The applicants actions indicate otherwise. Evidence of slander, libel,
conspiracy and defamation towards many members indicate
otherwise.
Prepared by Ellen Atkin
July 6th, 2021
Ellen, would you kindly provide a link to a website that has this court case?
Thank you.
Or write to me at MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com