TURMEL: Crown seeks union of 10 Covid restriction plaintiffs

Skip to first unread message

John KingofthePaupers Turmel

Feb 13, 2021, 12:56:26 AM2/13/21

https://youtu.be/NnWLjNQoWQk is my video on my
http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19scjct.pdf Statement of Claim
filed in Federal Court of Canada asking to prohibit
Covid Mitigation Restrictions or exempt me from them on
grounds WHO comparing the Covid 3.4% CFR not the Flu<s
10% CFR but to its 0.1% IFR hyped the threat a
hundredfold. ZERO symptomless spread of 10 million
tested in Wuhan. The math can be used to challenge the
hoax everywhere. Join me for a $2 filing fee
http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19ins.pdf Crown must respond by
Feb 18

Resistance: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19list list of 10
self-plaintiffs who filed the Claim so far.

The Crown just wrote to the Court trying to avoid
having to serve everyone documentation by asking to
only serve only me.

Ministry of Justice

Feb 11 2021

Federal Court
Attention Registrar

Dear Sir or Madam:

T-130-21 Turmel John
T-138-21 Turmel Raymond
T-171-21 Ethier Michel Denis
T-208-21 Inniss Biafia
T-212-21 Inniss Nathanael
T-219-21 Brunet Raymond
T-220-21 Robinson-Ritchie William Ernest Wayne
T-221-21 Robinson Wayne
T-230-21 Leadley Trevor
T-242-21 Braun Jason F.

CR: On behalf of the Defendant, HMTQ, I am writing to
request that these matters continue as specially
managed proceedings.

The statements of claim in this matter are virtually
identical and appear to be based on templates available
for download from the website
http://johnturmel.com/kits The self-represented
plaintiffs allege that Canada's COVID-19 mitigation
measures unjustifiably infringe on various Charter
rights and seek declarations, injunctive relief and
permanent personal constitutional exemptions from any
COVID-19 mitigation measures.

Canada will seek to strike these proceedings on the
grounds that they fail to disclose a reasonable cause
of action,

JCT: Having your rights violated by a lockdown based on
an exaggerated threat isn't a reasonable cause of
action? What are we complaining about? This is the
standard move when they can't file a Statement of

CR: and will also seek orders that the plaintiffs with
unpaid costs awards provide security for costs prior to

JCT: That's aimed at my brother Ray who owes a past
unpaid court cost judgment that once prevented another
of his actions from going forward. But..

CR: In light of the common issues, Canada will be
requesting leave to seek this relief by way of a single
motion that would be applicable to all of the

JCT: So, a single motion to me and not to everyone

CR: and anticipates that the parties may also require
other procedural directions as these claims unfold.

JCT: Well, yes, I don't mind them not sending out a
paper copy to everyone but they should at least send an
email copy to everyone.

CR: Canada submits that case-management is appropriate
in these circumstances, would ensure consistent
treatment and the just, expeditious and least expensive
determination of the claims on their merits.

JCT: Yes, there's no reason to be mailing the motion to
all the plaintiffs demanding responses from all the
plaintiffs. I could do a template but as long as they
get a copy of the documentation by email, there should
be no problem with case-management and just one file.

CR: Case-management would also be consistent with the
Court's approach to past claims downloaded from the
same website as the current claims.

JCT: Yes, case-management was used for the two previous
groups of almost 400 self-plaintiffs but there was no
provision for keeping plaintiffs up to date. We had to
ask the Crown to give us plaintiff emails and would
then do the sending. Not this time. If they want to
save on documentation, the least they should do is
handle the emailling of the documentation.

So when they put something I file into their dossier,
they email a copy out to everyone. When they put
something they file into their dossier, they email a
copy out to everyone.

Easily done and a minimum requirement if they want to
be relieved of the snail-mail expenses.

CR: Sincerely,
Benjamin Wong

JCT: So Jon Bricker and Benjamin Wong are the same
lawyers who dealt with use last times, minus Wendy. So
they have to file their motion to strike before Feb 18
when their Statement of Defence is due. Since they have
no defence, their only move is to get it thrown out as

So, on asking Ray to put up security for costs, what
costs since they're asking to be dispensed with dealing
with him until they've dealt with me?

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages