Turmel's Godstars

GrowRock

GrowRock

Well-Known Member
The Hippy said:
Anyone else get the 3 inch thick stuff from the Crown this week. Two complete books alomst with detail after detail. Holy sheet it a lot of work to make up one of those I bet. WTF did they send that to everyone...via courier as well.
They must think i'm a lawyer. LOL
Click to expand...
Is it the same 4-500 pages they emailed?
 
G

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
John Turmel
2 hrs ·
TURMEL: Crown pleads for no live Gold Star dismissal hearing

JCT: Of course, Her Majesty wants to keep this in the back
rooms. "Doing something shameful, Your Highness? Have to
hide?"

Department of Justice

May 2 2016
VIA FASCIMILE

Registries of the Federal Court
90 Sparks St. 5th floor
Ottawa K1A 0H9

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 reiterate
Canada's request that its recently filed motion proceed in
writing.

JCT: They really don't want people to have their say like
last time.

CR: and to indicate Canada's opposition to any attempt by
the plaintiff to respond to the motion on behalf of the
plaintiffs in the other proceedings identified in
Canada's motion record.

JCT: They want everyone to respond in writing. Tough.
Doesn't matter what they want. They're getting one answer.
Then they can have 310 appeals if Phelan takes it back-room.

CR: Canada's motion concerns 310 proceedings initiated by
self-represented plaintiffs and an applicant in eight
different provinces and Territories.

JCT: Har har har. Last time, the low-techs counted only 7 of
our 10 provinces with no Territories. Now they count in an
8th with Territories! Har har har har har har. The best the
government's got!

JCT: An oral hearing of Canada's motion in these
circumstances would consume considerable judicial and party
resources and would post significant logistical challenges
including, in particular, the identification of a hearing
date that is mutually agreeable to all parties.

JCT: It didn't last time, did it? But because they could
handle last time doesn't mean they can handle it this time.
Har har har har har har. Notice last time, Phelan didn't
ask everyone for a mutually agreeable date? But now he does?
that creates a new impediment? So what they handled before
can't be handled any more.

CR: Canada is of the view that its motion would therefore be
most expeditiously and least expensively determined in
writing.

JCT: Even if it puts parties at a disadvantage they did not
have to suffer last time.

Rule 369(2) provides that a respondent objecting to a motion
in writing may indicate its objection in its responding
motion materials.

JCT: Hey, Crown gets to send back-room letters, why not me?
And thanks for informing me. I'll make sure to include the
arguments from my letter in my responding motion too! Har
har har har har har.

Rather than follow the objection procedure contemplated in
the Rules,

JCT: Always. Why not? Phelan keeps letting them break the
rules. So rather than follow the rules...

CR: the plaintiff has now filed a letter in which he
requests, purportedly on behalf of more than 300
plaintiffs, that Canada's motion proceed orally. The request
is improper.

JCT: But it will be proper once it's in the Response motion
materials! Har har har. And notice how Phelan jumped on
granting their requests but still nothing about giving me
the emails so I can make sure no one wants it in writing.

CR: In any event, the plaintiff has not identified a
substantial reason why he cannot adequately respond to
Canada's motion in writing.

JCT: Of course, I can respond in writing. It's the lesser
wordsmiths the Crown is putting at the disadvantage.

CR: While he suggests that his co-plaintiffs are "lesser
wordsmiths,"

JCT: Not what I said. Some are lesser wordsmiths. Who am I
to comment on a couple of hundred people I don't know? So
caught lawying with an exaggeration.

CR: he does not identify any issues raised by Canada's
motion that cannot be adequately addressed in writing or
explain why the plaintiffs would be better able to address
those issues at an oral hearing.

JCT: We'll just say that you have to be pretty stupid to
wonder why lesser wordsmiths would be better able to address
those issues at an oral hearing. God, how stupid. What a
waste of tax dollars.

CR; Canada therefore reiterates its request that the motion
proceed in writing.

JCT: Hey, our response materials can demand an oral
hearing. Why ask for a back-room ruling now when it's coming
up officially soon?

CR: The plaintiff's letter also notes that other plaintiffs
will not be responding to Canada's motion record, and that
it is Mr. Turmel's intention to instead serve and file a
single response on behalf of all plaintiffs.

JCT: I'm filing a single response and telling others they
needn't bother doing the identical. Crown might like 310
Response motions but I prefer 310 appeals.

CR: To the extent that Mr. Turmel is proposing to represent
the other plaintiffs...

JCT: No, that Mr. Turmel will file one response and the
other don't have to unless they really want to.

Canada notes that the Federal Court Rules do not permit
representation by persons other than a solicitor (Rule 119)
and expressly require that persons seeking to act in a
representative capacity be represented by a solicitor. As
Mr. Turmel is not a solicitor, Canada requests that the
Court not entertain any submissions by him on behalf of the
other plaintiffs.

JCT: And I guess they must be dropping their motion to
consolidate us like last time where I was the lead
appellant. Har har har har har har. No sir, no consolidation
please, no matter that they had just asked for it
themselves. Har har har har har har.

It would be funny if Jon and the judges weren't generating so
many corpses.

I guess I'd better respond quickly or Phelan might grant their
backroom request before I can get it in like last time.

Anyway, all I said was that I'd be filing a response and
urging others not to bother and of course, Her Majesty
distorted that again.
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
Seems like quite the battle. I'm glad somebody can understand all of that legalese language. For a moment, I will make a pause and send energy out to all those threatened by the fires in Alberta. A lot of growers out in that province with neo cons all over the area. My heart goes out to them.
 
G

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
buckets said:
Seems like quite the battle. I'm glad somebody can understand all of that legalese language. For a moment, I will make a pause and send energy out to all those threatened by the fires in Alberta. A lot of growers out in that province with neo cons all over the area. My heart goes out to them.
Click to expand...
Crown wants the case dismissed without letting us have a say. And they're trying to do it without a hearing.
 
GrowRock

GrowRock

Well-Known Member
Gmack420 said:
Crown wants the case dismissed without letting us have a say. And they're trying to do it without a hearing.
Click to expand...
Criminal is all I can say. If any person pulled the shit the crown is trying, they would be held in contempt of court they haven't even made a plea!!!!!
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
but when the time comes, all 310 can file their defenses and flood them!
the really funny part is they consolidated it and named John as Lead so the courts could do it but now that we get our chance at bat, they now say no consolidation...huh??
they call the Goldstar action frivolous but Allard wasn't? gotta love the reasoning
how can they say this crap. they really don't think we have memories or a clue!
disgusting!
 
G

Gmack420

Well-Known Member
John Turmel
25 mins ·
TURMEL: Reply to Crown motion for no Gold Star live hearing

John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
50 Brant Ave., Brantford, N3T 3G7,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122, Cell: 519-717-1012
Email: johnturmel@yahoo.com

Friday May 6 2016

Letter to the Federal Court Administrator
Fax: 416-973-2154

Dear Sir/Lady:

In response to the Defendant's letter pleading to avoid a live
hearing on the dismissal of the "Turmel Kit" claims, I must
reply:

REPRESENTATION

1. CR: The plaintiff's letter also notes that other plaintiffs
will not be responding to Canada's motion record, and that it
is Mr. Turmel's intention to instead serve and file a single
response on behalf of all plaintiffs.

2. I'm filing a single response and telling others they
needn't bother doing the identical unless they want to. I
won't he posting a kit for an off-target motion. Crown might
want 310 Response motions in their files but would the
Registry appreciate such replication in theirs?

3. CR: Canada opposes "any attempt by the plaintiff to respond
to the motion on behalf of the plaintiffs in the other
proceedings identified in Canada's motion record."

4. Why would the Crown insist on needless replication but to
inconvenience self-represented Plaintiffs and permit Canada to
later argue "Plaintiffs did not avail themselves of the
opportunity" in order to contest dismissal of their actions?
Does the Court really want 310 Plaintiffs all filing identical
Motion Response kits? If so, Plaintiffs request the same
convenience of serving and filing our Motion Records by email
as was granted the Defendant; but with the email header as
sufficient proof of service on the Defendant.

5. CR: "To the extent that Mr. Turmel is proposing to
represent the other plaintiffs.. As Mr. Turmel is not a
solicitor, Canada requests that the Court not entertain any
submissions by him on behalf of the other plaintiffs."

6. Canada has asked that the "Turmel Kit" actions be
consolidated as were the 26 "Turmel Kit" appeals at the
Federal Court of Appeal. Though Canada was unable to identify
a lead Appellant, that Court named John Turmel as Lead
Appellant for the Turmel Kit Appellants. To allay Canada's
worries about any unqualified representation, I consent to the
Crown's motion for consolidation and suggest John Turmel be
named as Lead Plaintiff of the "Turmel Kit" Plaintiffs. It
would help if the court granted my previous request for the
list of emails of the Turmel Kit Plaintiffs.

NO REASON NOT IN WRITING

7. CR: In any event, the plaintiff has not identified a
substantial reason why he cannot adequately respond to
Canada's motion in writing.

8. I can respond in writing. But it is some of the lesser
wordsmiths who could not that the Crown is putting at the
disadvantage, not me.

9. CR: While he suggests that his co-plaintiffs are "lesser
wordsmiths,"

10. Who am I to comment on the talents of a couple of hundred
plaintiffs I do not know? Sure, I could bet I'm the best but I
still only said "some" are lesser wordsmiths though I do
appreciate Canada's exaggerated compliment.

11. CR: Canada is of the view that its motion would therefore
be most expeditiously and least expensively determined in
writing.

12. If you contemplate the time spent by the filing clerks of
the Justice Department, the Court Registry, and time spent by
self-represented Plaintiffs, it would seem the most
expeditious and least expensive determination of the motion
would be live.

13. CR: he does not identify any issues raised by Canada's
motion that cannot be adequately addressed in writing or
explain why the plaintiffs would be better able to address
those issues at an oral hearing.

14. Though Canada cannot see why lesser wordsmiths would be
better able to address those issues at an oral hearing than in
writing, I hope this Court does.

TOO EXPENSIVE

15. CR: An oral hearing of Canada's motion in these
circumstances would consume considerable judicial and party
resources and would post significant logistical challenges

16. JCT: An oral hearing of Canada's motion was easily handled
at the last live hearing. I think Canada insults the Registry
to suggest it can no longer perform its function as
efficiently as it did before.

MUTUAL DATES

17. CR: including, in particular, the identification of a
hearing date that is mutually agreeable to all parties.

18.For the last hearing, Justice Phelan didn't need anyone's
consent on mutual dates before fixing a time of hearing. We
were told when to show up. I would suggest the Court avail
itself of the same power to set hearing dates with no concern
about any desires, whether mutual or not, of the parties.

OBJECTION TO "IN WRITING" IN MOTION

19. Rule 369(2) provides that a respondent objecting to a
motion in writing may indicate its objection in its responding
motion materials. Rather than follow the objection procedure
contemplated in the Rules, the plaintiff has now filed a
letter in which he requests, purportedly on behalf of more
than 300 plaintiffs, that Canada's motion proceed orally.

JCT: The Crown has been proceeding by way of Letters to the
Registry rather than the motions required under Rule 308, I
simply proceeded in the same unauthorized was as they
pioneered.

CR: The request is improper. Canada therefore reiterates its
request that the motion proceed in writing.

JCT: As the Crown points out, Rule 369(2) provides that a
respondent objecting to a motion in writing may indicate its
objection in its responding motion materials so this request
to deny an oral hearing now is premature.

________________________________
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
50 Brant Ave., Brantford, N3T 3G7,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122, Cell: 519-717-5198
Email: johnturmel@yahoo.com

CC: Jon Bricker, Ministry of Justice
For the Defendant.

JCT: What do you think? Will Phelan grant their premature
request or wait for my motion?

I think consenting to the consolidation will sure shut them up
about my "representing" anyone else.
 
G

Gmack420

Well-Known Member



John Turmel
1 hr ·
TURMEL: Crown Response to MedPot Exemption appeal to Supreme Court

Department of Justice
May 5 2016
VIA FASCIMILE

Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar
Supreme Court of Canada
301 Wellington St. Ottawa K1A 0J1

Mr. Registrar:

RE: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ No." 36937

Please accept this letter as the response of the Respondent
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada ("Canada"), to the
application for leave to appeal and within request for interim
relief in the above-noted matter. Canada submits that the
proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public importance
and that the within request seeks relief that is not
available. The application request for interim relief should
therefore be dismissed.

A. Background

Since February 2014, more than 300 self-represented
plaintiffs, including the applicant, have filed virtually
identical claims in the Federal Court. The claims seek
declarations that the MMAR, which were repealed on March 31
2014, # and the MMPR which succeeded the MMAR, are
unconstitutional.

JCT: Not. and omit MMPR unconstitutional

CR: In the course of their actions, several plaintiffs,
including the appellant, brought motions for "interim
constitutional exemptions" from the CDSA for "Personal Medical
Use" of marijuana pending trial of their actions. By Order
dated June 4, 2014, (amended July 9, 2014), the case-
0management judge in Federal Court (Phelan J.) dismissed their
motions. IN so doing, the Court held that the requested relief
was inappropriate #
and that the evidence concerning each plaintiff's personal
medical circumstances was insufficient in any event to warrant
the requested relief.

JCT: Judge shouldn't be playing doctor. None of his business.

CR: The applicant appealed the July 9 2014 Amended Order. By
Order dated January 13 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal
dismissed his appeal with costs. In so doing, Federal Court of
Appeal noted that the decision below was discretionary

JCT: And only showed that it was a genocidal decision

CR: and could be set aside on appeal only if it was the result
of an obvious, serious error of law or legal principle.

JCT: And dead people isn't a serious error. Cutting off
peoples' medicine by an unqualified judge playing doctor is
not

CR: The Court found that the appellants had not demonstrated
such error and that the decision below was supportable on the
evidentiary record.

JCT: Actually, lack of evidentiary record is what play-doctor
Phelan ruled,

CR: The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the Federal Court
of Appeal decision.

JCT: Should be able to appeal before there are too many more
corpses generated in the Federal Court.

B. The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public
importance.

JCT: These decision cutting off medicine to Canada's sickest
patients have killed people but that's not of public import.

CR: The application does not raise an issue of public
importance or of a nature of significance that warrants
consideration by this Court.

JCT: I'm sure how the judges feel too.

CR: The proposed appeal concerns a motion for an interim
exemption from the CDSA for the applicant's own personal
medical use of marihuana pending trial. The issues in the
underlying motion do not transcend the dispute between the
parties.

JCT: Continued denial of medicine to formerly-legal patients
over a bureaucratic consideration to enhance the viability of
the new regime sure seems genocidal and I want 3 of Canada's
top judges to sign off on it with the genociders below.

CR: Nor does the Federal Court of Appeal decision give rise to
issues of public importance.

JCT: He must be talking about the "public" who are still
getting their medicine.

CR: In affirming the decision below, the Court of Appeal
relied on the well settled case law concerning appellate
review of interlocutory discretionary decisions

JCT: even if they're killing people...

CR: and held that the decision below did not include any
errors that would warrant appellate intervention.

JCT: The fact David Shea died while his claim for relief was
stayed by Phelan does not warrant intervention. If not judges,
who else should have discretion to condemn patients to death?

CR: Although the applicant now alleges that the Federal Court
of Appeal erred, he does not identify a specific error in its
decision that would warrant intervention by this Court.

JCT: The FCA let Phelan get away with murder but that's not
specific enough of an error.

CR: Canada therefore requests that the leave application be
dismissed.

C. The request for interim relief should be denied.

JCT: These former patients shouldn't get their meds while they
fight.

CR: The leave application also requests an interim exemption
from the CDSA for the applicant's "Personal Medical Use"
pending trial of the action. However, the leave application
contains no evidence as to the applicant's personal medical
circumstances nor any explanation as to why his medical needs
cannot be met under Canada's existing medical marihuana
regulatory regime.

JCT: Federal Court just ruled it was unconstitutional. It
isn't working.

CR: This court has previously dismissed several motions for
similar relief. Canada requests that the applicant's request
be similarly dismissed.

D. Costs.

Canada requests that the leave application be dismissed with
costs of $500. This is the second leave application brought by
the applicant, one of nine applications for leave to appeal
the same decision of the Federal Court of Appeal,

JCT: Different Court of Appeal judge

CR: and one of 22 leave applications filed in the course of
the underlying Federal Court proceedings and related
proceedings. To date, each of these applications has been
dismissed. Canada submits that the applicants have
persistently brought leave applications against Canada that
are clearly without merit.

JCT: Maybe no merit but probably plenty of corpses.

CR: A costs award would be appropriate in these circumstances.

Yours truly,
Jon Bricker.

Christopher Rupar, Agent for the Respondent

JCT: I've got until May 16 to reply and if I keep it under 2
pages, I can fax a letter in response like the Crown just did.

It is not compulsory to file a Reply to have your file sent up
for adjudication. But I'll submit a reply since it will apply
to all of us regardless.
 
GrowRock

GrowRock

Well-Known Member
John is so right.. I guess judges in this country can play God ..... Withholding life saving medicine from cancer patient etc

FUCKING DISGUSTING and criminal I might add

Hopefully turmel can make his way to the Supreme Court with this one.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top