From: DAVID CHEIFETZ <davidcheifetz@rogers.com>
To: Russell Brown <rsbrown@ualberta.ca>
Lionel Smith, Prof. <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>
CC: ODG <obligations@uwo.ca>
Date: 30/10/2009 03:58:10 UTC
Subject: Re: Man Who Fell to Earth Awards
Russ,
 
Essentially right. Joly claimed to be a "Marsian" in court material.  Marian was the term he used in his pleadings and motion material. He claimed he was a clone created  by the CIA, using genetic material brought back from Mars by a secret NASA mission. He never explained the science. "Martian" was the motion judge's word. It never appeared in the pleadings or any other material Joly filed in the action, nor in any material I saw from him before the reasons. I can't, now, recall, if he used the term in his attempt to appeal the dismissal. "Martian" is also the way the newspapers reported what he said to them: for example, http://www.angelfire.com/wa/UFORC/page47.html
 
Lionel: The action had to be dismissed sooner rather than later, and without wasting more time and money. However, if we're being technical, the motion to dismiss in the form it was brought should have failed. The motion judge pushed the boundaries of what was technically permissible on a motion of the type that was before her in order to dismiss the action on the grounds that she did. Also, for those who care about such technicalities, the first time the standing issue was mentioned was in the reasons, so Joly never had a chance to respond. He had said, in argument, that his "DNA" was Marsian not human but that was in the context of whether he could prove his case and why the alleged the defendants were trying to kill him. Standing and the issue of what "human being" means (for Ontario's rules or otherwise) was never discussed. There was no evidence about the biological  relationship (if any) between H. sapiens sapiens "Solensis" (if I may) and any putative Marsian humanoids. The basis of the motion to dismiss was that Joly couldn't prove he was a "Marsian" because there was no such thing. I wondered then (and still do, today) how those defendants knew he couldn't prove his case. And how these defendants knew there was no such thing.
 
David
 
 

From: Russell Brown <rsbrown@ualberta.ca>
To: "Lionel Smith, Prof." <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>
Cc: ODG <obligations@uwo.ca>
Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 10:03:56 PM
Subject: Re: Man Who Fell to Earth Awards

Lionel (et al),

Thanks to Rob Chambers who brought Joly v. Pelletier to my attention a few years ago, I included it in my Civil Procedure reading materials.

I gather from David Cheifetz, however, that the facts were not exactly as recounted by the Court.  Apparently, Mr. Joly was alleging not that he is a Martian, but that he is a Marsean (sp?) - which apparently denotes only partial Martian DNA.

Or do I not have that quite right, David?

Russ



Quoting "Lionel Smith, Prof." <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>:

> OK, if this is turning into Weird Case Hall of Fame, I have a doozy: Joly v. Pelletier [1999] O.J. No. 1728 (SCJ) (available on QuickLaw):
> 
> 2    Mr. Joly's claims in these two actions, and in several others not currently before me, all centre on his firm assertion that he is not a human being; rather a martian. As I understand them, the nature of his complaints against the numerous defendants who include a number of doctors, medical facilities and government agencies is that they have conspired with the American government in its attempts to eliminate him and have otherwise taken various steps to interfere with his ability to establish himself and live freely as a martian.
> 3    As indicated, there are two actions before me. At the beginning of the hearing Mr. Joly advised me that he has recently commenced a third action against, among others, the Central Intelligence Agency, President Clinton and the Honourable Anne McClellan for interfering with his D.N.A. test results that prove that he is, in fact, not human.
> ...
> 
> 7    The crux of the various arguments advanced orally and in the written material is that Mr. Joly's claims disclose no cause of action and are otherwise frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. It was also argued that the tort of conspiracy was not properly pleaded and that no damages have been identified or claimed. It was further pointed out that several of the defendants are not legal entities and are not capable of being sued.
> 8    Mr. Joly, in a well prepared, thoughtful argument submitted that he had evidence of falsification of records and related wrongdoing. On the pivotal point of Mr. Joly's being in fact a martian Mr. Joly advised me that the only reason he was not now able to satisfy the Court that he is a martian, not a human, is due to the falsification of his D.N.A. test results by the Americans.
> 9    The authorities relied upon by the moving parties are well known. On a motion to strike out a pleading, the Court must accept the facts as alleged in the Statement of Claim as proven unless they are patently ridiculous and incapable of proof and must read the Statement of Claim generously with allowance for inadequacies due to drafting deficiencies....
> 
> 11    In my opinion there are at lease [sic] two reasons why the two Statements of Claim in question ought to be struck and the actions dismissed.
> 1. Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as "a person who commences an action". The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines person as "an individual human being". Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly's actions is that he is a martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.
> 2. In respect to the motions brought under rule 25.11 I am of the view that the test has been passed in the circumstances of this case. In other words, I am satisfied that the claims are frivolous and vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of this Court. In addition to the fact that the tort of conspiracy has not been remotely properly pleaded, no damages have been claimed and many of the defendants are not even legal entities capable of being sued. More importantly, with all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of reality, these actions are patently ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue as they utilize scarce public resources not to mention the time and money of the numerous defendants who have been forced to defend these actions.
> 12    In the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the moving parties are entitled to the relief requested. The Statements of Claim in both actions are struck and the actions are dismissed.
> 
> 
> Personally, I prefer the reasoning in para. 11.2 to that in para. 11.1, which hardly seems like a purposive interpretation of the Rules.
> 
> Lionel
> 
>