Turmel's Godstars
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
He's been fighting for awhile and loves to do it lol
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
John Turmel is the lead so he would speak
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
I was wrong haha
No.vwhat were the contents of said package?
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
the package is the reply to the judge asking for clarification as to who belongs in what group.
GrowRock
Well-Known Member
What dishes replied other than it looks like 2 t # have to prove medical need? Not sure If I read that last part right
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
post the t# that needs to prove incase its me lol i never got a packageWhat dishes replied other than it looks like 2 t # have to prove medical need? Not sure If I read that last part right
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
you're in it. i saw your name.Judge Phelan asked the Crown to put the people into groups A & B
i believe group A is the people who have valid paperwork/permits at the time of the injunction.
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
thanks
TURMEL: Crown Reply to "Lift Stay for Summary Judgment!"
JCT: After the stay on our Gold Star actions expired with
the failure of the Crown to appeal the Allard decision by
March 29, I filed a motion for Summary Judgment for Repeal
of Prohibition by striking "marijuana" from Schedule II.
Justice Phelan refused to allow it to be filed ruling:
He may serve and file it at the same time of his main
motion" placed on file on 12-APR-2016
So I filed a motion to lift the expired stay and have heard
my Motion for Summary Judgment on my one issue to Repeal by
striking "marijuana" from Schedule II.
The Crown has just responded:
CR: Department of Justice
130 King St. W. Toronto M5X 1K6
April 18 2016
VIA FAX
Registries of the Federal Court
90 Sparks St. 5th floor
Ottawa K1A 0H9
CR: Dear Sir/Madam:
RE: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ T-488-14
On behalf of the defendant Her Majesty The Queen in Right of
Canada ("Canada"), I am writing to advise that Canada does
not oppose the plaintiff's motion to lift the stay in this
matter, but to request that his separate motion for summary
judgment not be accepted for filing at this time.
JCT: I guess Crown Jon Bricker didn't notice when Justice
Phelan wrote:
He may serve and file it at the same time of his main
motion" placed on file on 12-APR-2016
JCT: Nor did Jon check the court record, it's right in there:
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/Ind…/infp_RE_info_e.php…
1 2016-04-15 Toronto Motion Record containing the following
original document(s): 28 29 30 Number of copies received: 3
on behalf of Plaintiff filed on 15-APR-2016 with proof of
service on Respondent on 15-APR-2016
30 2016-04-15 Toronto Written Representations contained
within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff concerning
Motion Doc. No. 28 filed on 15-APR-2016
29 2016-04-15 Toronto Affidavit of John C. Turmel sworn on
15-APR-2016 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of
Plaintiff in support of Motion Doc. No. 28 filed on 15-APR-
2016
28 2016-04-15 Toronto Notice of Motion contained within a
Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff returnable (but no
hearing date indicated at this time) for an Order lifting
the stay on the grounds that it expired when the Crown did
not appeal by the April 29, 2016 deadline and other such
relief. filed on 15-APR-2016
JCT: So it's already filed and paid for and the Crown now
asks that it not be accepted for filing! Har har har har har
har. Too late. Wonder why?
CR: The plaintiff served Canada with a motion for summary
judgment on April 8 2016. By oral direction dated April 11,
the Court (Phelan J.) directed that the plaintiff also serve
a motion to lift the stay of this matter. The plaintiff
subsequently served this motion on April 15. Canada does not
oppose the lifting of the stay of this matter. Indeed, it is
Canada's understanding that the stay of this matter
automatically expired on March 29 2016 when the period to
appeal the trial decision in Allard passed without appeal.
JCT: Just because Phelan didn't make them lift the stay to
get their motion filed, do they think I could? Didn't they
know that a stay which automatically expired on Mar 29 still
had to be lifted? Sure, we've seen the Crown can get away
with not complying with the Rules but that doesn't mean the
Court can let me get away with it too. I'm not Canada. I'm a
mere citizen and have comply with all Rules the Crown
doesn't have to.
CR: However, while it does not oppose the lifting of the
stay, Canada requests the plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment not be accepted for filing. Rule 213 provides that
a motion for summary judgment may be made "at any time after
the Defendant has filed a defence but before the time and
place for trial have been fixed." As Canada has not yet
filed a defence, motions for summary judgment may not be
made at this time.
JCT: I didn't know that if the Defendant is in Default of
filing a Statement of Defence on time, you can't move for
Summary Judgment until he does? Har har har. Doesn't that
seem stupid? Har har har. Actually, it is stupid. It's like
saying: If I never file my defence, you can't do anything.
Har har har har har har. Shysters will say anything though
the Court could rule: "Case dismissed because they have no
defence!" Har har har har har har. That would make the legal
joke books.
To effect the fraud, all he had to do was refer to the Rule
about the rights of Defendants who are not in Default of
filing a Statement of Defence and pretend it applies to them
who did not.
While omitting Rule 210 about Moving for Summary Judgment
against a Defendant in Default. Har har har. Pretty sleazy!
Rule 210 that they refuse to consider hoping the court will
also refuse to consider it:
Default Proceedings
Motion for default judgment
210 (1) Where a defendant fails to serve and file a
statement of defence within the time set out in rule 204
or any other time fixed by an order of the Court, the
plaintiff may bring a motion for judgment against the
defendant on the statement of claim.
JCT: So they omitted Rule 210 about my situation with a
Defendant in Default and focused on Rule 213 about
Defendants not in Default. Har har har.
The proper response is a Response Motion, not a letter to
the back-rooms. The reason they have go by the back-room
Registry channel is that they can't file a proper Response
Motion since Her Majesty is in default of filing a Statement
of Defence. Since She can't file a normal response, She has
to go to the back-room to make Her "requests!"
CR: In the alternative, Canada requests that the plaintiff's
motion be adjourned until after Canada's pending motion to
strike which may obviate the need for plaintiff's motion.
JCT: So I have a right to move for summary judgment and
they'd like that violated so they can try to strike the
claim without a hearing. Since they can't file a response,
stalling me to their motion is their only hope. And since it
jives with Justice Phelan trying to delay everything until
it can be declared mooted, he has everything to also gain by
pretending I'm under Rule 213.
Notice that just as their motion to strike may obviate the
need for plaintiff's motion, so too, Plaintiff's motion for
Summary Judgment may do the same thing.
I guess I'll have to respond and point out I'm under Rule
210, not Rule 213. Should make it harder for the Court to
"fail to see!" Here's the draft of the probable letter.
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
50 Brant Ave.,
Brantford, N3T 3G7,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122,
Cell: 519-717-5198
April 25 2016
VIA FASCIMILE
Registries of the Federal Court
90 Sparks St. 5th floor
Ottawa K1A 0H9
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is my letter in response to the Defendant's April 18
2016 request by letter:
1. Because the Respondent is in default and may not file any
Motion in Response, Canada then makes a request via the
Registry that Plaintiff's
separate motion for summary judgment not be accepted for
filing at this time. In the alternative, Canada
requests that the plaintiff's motion be adjourned until
after Canada's pending motion to strike which may
obviate the need for plaintiff's motion.
2.The grounds of the request are that:
Rule 213 provides that a motion for summary judgment may
be made "at any time after the Defendant has filed a
defence but before the time and place for trial have
been fixed." As Canada has not yet filed a defence,
motions for summary judgment may not be made at this
time.
3. Rule 213 relates to Defendants not in default. Plaintiff
moves for Summary Judgment under Rule 210, not Rule 213 as
the Crown tries to pretend, against Defendants in Default:
Default Proceedings
Motion for default judgment
210 (1) Where a defendant fails to serve and file a
statement of defence within the time set out in rule 204
or any other time fixed by an order of the Court, the
plaintiff may bring a motion for judgment against the
defendant on the statement of claim.
4. Canada misled the Court that I am under Rule 213.
5. My motion for Summary Judgment on Remedy A2 in no way
prejudices Canada's upcoming motion to dismiss the actions
as if all remedies were no longer needed once one had been
granted. In reality, Summary Judgment on Remedy A2 would
ease the burden for those involved in their upcoming 300-
Plaintiff motion responses. There is no purpose in delaying
resolution of Remedy A2 and making all "Turmel Kit"
plaintiffs have to make the same argument 300-fold in their
responses.
6. Plaintiff requests an early date for the hearing of the
motion for summary judgment under Rule 210.
_______
JCT: After the stay on our Gold Star actions expired with
the failure of the Crown to appeal the Allard decision by
March 29, I filed a motion for Summary Judgment for Repeal
of Prohibition by striking "marijuana" from Schedule II.
Justice Phelan refused to allow it to be filed ruling:
He may serve and file it at the same time of his main
motion" placed on file on 12-APR-2016
So I filed a motion to lift the expired stay and have heard
my Motion for Summary Judgment on my one issue to Repeal by
striking "marijuana" from Schedule II.
The Crown has just responded:
CR: Department of Justice
130 King St. W. Toronto M5X 1K6
April 18 2016
VIA FAX
Registries of the Federal Court
90 Sparks St. 5th floor
Ottawa K1A 0H9
CR: Dear Sir/Madam:
RE: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ T-488-14
On behalf of the defendant Her Majesty The Queen in Right of
Canada ("Canada"), I am writing to advise that Canada does
not oppose the plaintiff's motion to lift the stay in this
matter, but to request that his separate motion for summary
judgment not be accepted for filing at this time.
JCT: I guess Crown Jon Bricker didn't notice when Justice
Phelan wrote:
He may serve and file it at the same time of his main
motion" placed on file on 12-APR-2016
JCT: Nor did Jon check the court record, it's right in there:
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/Ind…/infp_RE_info_e.php…
1 2016-04-15 Toronto Motion Record containing the following
original document(s): 28 29 30 Number of copies received: 3
on behalf of Plaintiff filed on 15-APR-2016 with proof of
service on Respondent on 15-APR-2016
30 2016-04-15 Toronto Written Representations contained
within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff concerning
Motion Doc. No. 28 filed on 15-APR-2016
29 2016-04-15 Toronto Affidavit of John C. Turmel sworn on
15-APR-2016 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of
Plaintiff in support of Motion Doc. No. 28 filed on 15-APR-
2016
28 2016-04-15 Toronto Notice of Motion contained within a
Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff returnable (but no
hearing date indicated at this time) for an Order lifting
the stay on the grounds that it expired when the Crown did
not appeal by the April 29, 2016 deadline and other such
relief. filed on 15-APR-2016
JCT: So it's already filed and paid for and the Crown now
asks that it not be accepted for filing! Har har har har har
har. Too late. Wonder why?
CR: The plaintiff served Canada with a motion for summary
judgment on April 8 2016. By oral direction dated April 11,
the Court (Phelan J.) directed that the plaintiff also serve
a motion to lift the stay of this matter. The plaintiff
subsequently served this motion on April 15. Canada does not
oppose the lifting of the stay of this matter. Indeed, it is
Canada's understanding that the stay of this matter
automatically expired on March 29 2016 when the period to
appeal the trial decision in Allard passed without appeal.
JCT: Just because Phelan didn't make them lift the stay to
get their motion filed, do they think I could? Didn't they
know that a stay which automatically expired on Mar 29 still
had to be lifted? Sure, we've seen the Crown can get away
with not complying with the Rules but that doesn't mean the
Court can let me get away with it too. I'm not Canada. I'm a
mere citizen and have comply with all Rules the Crown
doesn't have to.
CR: However, while it does not oppose the lifting of the
stay, Canada requests the plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment not be accepted for filing. Rule 213 provides that
a motion for summary judgment may be made "at any time after
the Defendant has filed a defence but before the time and
place for trial have been fixed." As Canada has not yet
filed a defence, motions for summary judgment may not be
made at this time.
JCT: I didn't know that if the Defendant is in Default of
filing a Statement of Defence on time, you can't move for
Summary Judgment until he does? Har har har. Doesn't that
seem stupid? Har har har. Actually, it is stupid. It's like
saying: If I never file my defence, you can't do anything.
Har har har har har har. Shysters will say anything though
the Court could rule: "Case dismissed because they have no
defence!" Har har har har har har. That would make the legal
joke books.
To effect the fraud, all he had to do was refer to the Rule
about the rights of Defendants who are not in Default of
filing a Statement of Defence and pretend it applies to them
who did not.
While omitting Rule 210 about Moving for Summary Judgment
against a Defendant in Default. Har har har. Pretty sleazy!
Rule 210 that they refuse to consider hoping the court will
also refuse to consider it:
Default Proceedings
Motion for default judgment
210 (1) Where a defendant fails to serve and file a
statement of defence within the time set out in rule 204
or any other time fixed by an order of the Court, the
plaintiff may bring a motion for judgment against the
defendant on the statement of claim.
JCT: So they omitted Rule 210 about my situation with a
Defendant in Default and focused on Rule 213 about
Defendants not in Default. Har har har.
The proper response is a Response Motion, not a letter to
the back-rooms. The reason they have go by the back-room
Registry channel is that they can't file a proper Response
Motion since Her Majesty is in default of filing a Statement
of Defence. Since She can't file a normal response, She has
to go to the back-room to make Her "requests!"
CR: In the alternative, Canada requests that the plaintiff's
motion be adjourned until after Canada's pending motion to
strike which may obviate the need for plaintiff's motion.
JCT: So I have a right to move for summary judgment and
they'd like that violated so they can try to strike the
claim without a hearing. Since they can't file a response,
stalling me to their motion is their only hope. And since it
jives with Justice Phelan trying to delay everything until
it can be declared mooted, he has everything to also gain by
pretending I'm under Rule 213.
Notice that just as their motion to strike may obviate the
need for plaintiff's motion, so too, Plaintiff's motion for
Summary Judgment may do the same thing.
I guess I'll have to respond and point out I'm under Rule
210, not Rule 213. Should make it harder for the Court to
"fail to see!" Here's the draft of the probable letter.
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
50 Brant Ave.,
Brantford, N3T 3G7,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122,
Cell: 519-717-5198
April 25 2016
VIA FASCIMILE
Registries of the Federal Court
90 Sparks St. 5th floor
Ottawa K1A 0H9
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is my letter in response to the Defendant's April 18
2016 request by letter:
1. Because the Respondent is in default and may not file any
Motion in Response, Canada then makes a request via the
Registry that Plaintiff's
separate motion for summary judgment not be accepted for
filing at this time. In the alternative, Canada
requests that the plaintiff's motion be adjourned until
after Canada's pending motion to strike which may
obviate the need for plaintiff's motion.
2.The grounds of the request are that:
Rule 213 provides that a motion for summary judgment may
be made "at any time after the Defendant has filed a
defence but before the time and place for trial have
been fixed." As Canada has not yet filed a defence,
motions for summary judgment may not be made at this
time.
3. Rule 213 relates to Defendants not in default. Plaintiff
moves for Summary Judgment under Rule 210, not Rule 213 as
the Crown tries to pretend, against Defendants in Default:
Default Proceedings
Motion for default judgment
210 (1) Where a defendant fails to serve and file a
statement of defence within the time set out in rule 204
or any other time fixed by an order of the Court, the
plaintiff may bring a motion for judgment against the
defendant on the statement of claim.
4. Canada misled the Court that I am under Rule 213.
5. My motion for Summary Judgment on Remedy A2 in no way
prejudices Canada's upcoming motion to dismiss the actions
as if all remedies were no longer needed once one had been
granted. In reality, Summary Judgment on Remedy A2 would
ease the burden for those involved in their upcoming 300-
Plaintiff motion responses. There is no purpose in delaying
resolution of Remedy A2 and making all "Turmel Kit"
plaintiffs have to make the same argument 300-fold in their
responses.
6. Plaintiff requests an early date for the hearing of the
motion for summary judgment under Rule 210.
_______
Go John! Not me. He's not giving up the fight for full repeal. Good on him.