JCT: Brother Ray filed a Motion to Reconsider Judge Horne's
Order dismissing the 75 stayed actions for damages due to
lockdowns back in 2021 and seeking submissions as to costs.

Here is the Crown's response:

Department of Justice Canada
Ontario Regional Office
National Litigation Sector
120 Adelaide Street West Suite
#400 Toronto, ON M5H 1T1
Telephone/Telephone: 416-347-8754

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

June 23, 2023

Federal Court
180 Queen Street West, Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6

Dear Registry:

Re: TURMEL, Raymond v His Majesty the King, T-138-21

CR: I am writing on behalf of the defendant in the above-
noted matter to request that the plaintiff's recently served
motion record be removed from the Court file. I ask that you
kindly place this letter before the case management judge in
this matter, Associate Judge Horne.

Rule 74 of the Federal Courts Rules provides that the Court
may order that a document be removed from the Court file if
it is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or clearly unfounded,
or if it is otherwise an abuse of the Court's process. The
plaintiff's motion is defective in each of these respects.

The motion seeks reconsideration of the June 19, 2023, order
which struck the plaintiff's claim for failure to disclose a
reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of the Court's
process. However, the motion record identifies no basis on
which the court could reconsider the June 19 order, and the
motion is instead simply an attempt to re-litigate issues
that have already been decided by the this Court, the
Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada in
the matter with Federal Court File No. T-130-21.

JCT: The motion record identifies that the John Turmel case
has not yet been completed at the Supreme Court and no
decision below was supposed to happen while appeals were
ongoing:
These actions have been stayed pending the final
determination of the proceedings in T-130-21 (the
proceeding commenced by John Turmel).

It's not an attempt to relitigate anything, only to bring to
the court's attention that the final determination of the
proceeding commenced by John Turmel isn't yet back from the
top. Funny how the Crown missed that.

CR: The plaintiff's motion record was also served, and
appears to have been prepared, not by the plaintiff Raymond
Turmel, but by his brother John Turmel. Please find enclosed
a copy of the service email containing John Turmel's
signature, and originating from the email address
[email protected], and an email from earlier in the week
where John Turmel indicated that he would file for a
reconsideration.

This Court has recently declared John Turmel to be a
vexatious litigant (Canada v Turmel, 2022 FC 1526) and
prohibited him from assisting others with their litigation
before this Court, including by preparing, distributing or
disseminating court materials on their behalf. The service
of the plaintiff's motion record by John Turmel is a
violation of this order, which this Court should not condone
by accepting the motion record for filing.

JCT: So the Court should not be informed that the John
Turmel case is not yet back from the top. Let the Court
continue being uninformed. But the order barring me from
helping is on appeal and usually doesn't have effect until
the appeal is over. But maybe not, who knows?

CR: The defendant therefore asks that the plaintiff's motion
record be removed from the Court file. In light of the fast-
approaching deadline for the defendant to respond to the
plaintiff's motion in writing if it is not removed, the
defendant also asks that the Court kindly address this
request as expeditiously as possible.
Sincerely,
James Schneider
Counsel

JCT: No matter, Judge Horne will learn that his Order was
premature. What will he do with that information, I don't
know.

If he does nothing, someone is going to have make a
submission to the court for no costs. It would be best to
have a plaintiff with a strong sob story, someone who has a
great claim for lots of pain from the lockdown.

EG:
- You lost your business
- You lost your job,
- You were locked in with an alcoholic who beat you.
- You were locked in with an abuser who molested you.
- A child committed suicide.

It has to be submitted by Thursday the 29th. Easily done
online. But I can't help. It's up to the plaintiff to point
out:

In his decision on costs for the Travel Ban plaintiffs: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19133.txt

TURMEL: Judge Trent Horne hits anti-vax plaintiffs with 2x
requested costs

III. Analysis

[17] With the exception of Alim Manji, none of the
plaintiffs filed submissions on costs. There is no material
before me to indicate what, if any, consideration any of the
plaintiffs gave to the merits of their claim before filing
it, considered whether the claim advanced a credible cause
of action, or complied with the rules of pleading.

JCT: It was the same credible cause of action as filed by
Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier challenging the
unconstitutional air-travel ban. Except that unlike Peckford
and Bernier who accepted the danger of the threat, the
material before Judge Horne argued that the threat was a
false alarm because:

So the fact it was the same cause of action as filed by two
other well-known plaintiffs means you thought yours was as
credible as theirs.

J: [18] I have difficulty understanding how completing a
"kit claim", replacing only the name of the plaintiff and
otherwise adopting the pleading of someone else, advances a
legitimate legal interest, particularly when the relief
sought in T-277-22 challenged the constitutionality of
Interim Order No. 52 generally, not just as it applied to Mr
Turmel.

JCT: Doesn't more people making the claim add to its
credibility? Judge Aylen ruled that the WHO mis-comparing
CFR to IFR was not a material fact. Doesn't more people
thinking that comparing CFR to IFR is a material fact help
convince the court it is a fact and she was wrong. Without
more people, I'd be alone in again stating that the Apple
Orange comparison was a material fact in prompting the real
restriction on air travel. If all Canadians filed believing
that comparing CFR to IFR was a fact, wouldn't that argue it
is a fact to a judge?

J: Absent any separate or unique claim to advance, the
plaintiffs knew, or ought to have known, that their
duplicative actions would be stayed (just like the
proceedings were stayed in T-130-21), and have the same
outcome as the proceedings in T-277-22. None of the
plaintiffs have demonstrated a distinct or practical result
that could flow from filing or prosecuting their own action,
separate and apart from what could have been ordered in Mr
Turmel's action.

JCT: Sure, the second group of plaintiffs should have known
what had happened to the first but the you in the original
group could not have known.

J: [19] In the absence of any submissions from the
plaintiffs, I can only conclude that these actions were
improper, vexatious and unnecessary. There is no indication
that any of the plaintiffs had an intention or interest to
independently prosecute the actions they commenced. In the
absence of evidence or submissions from the plaintiffs, it
appears that the plaintiffs' objectives in filing these
claims was to clog the registry with redundant actions, and
vex the defendant with needless filings.

JCT: Or to help convince the court that not only Turmel
believed the CFR to IFR comparison was a fact once Judge
Aylen had ruled it was not.

J: Even if I am incorrect in this respect, I have no
difficulty concluding that these actions were filed for a
collateral purpose, and not to advance a reasonable cause of
action.

JCT: They were filed to add to the credibility of the claim
that the fact of the mis-comparison to cause the false alarm
made the restriction unconstitutional. Even though I have a
far superior education than any lawyer or judge who couldn't
see the fact claimed, it had to help to have more people
agree that the miscomparison was a fact, not only me.

J: [20] Litigation is a serious business which consumes
public resources. The plaintiffs' conduct has abused these
resources.

JCT: Maybe if the court had not already ruled that the
miscomparison of CFR to IFR was not a fact but once the
court had erred, it had to help to have more people claim
that the CFR to IFR miscomparison was a fact.

J: [21] The submissions by Alim Manji refer to other matters
where numerous plaintiffs filed "kit claims", and no costs
were awarded when they were ultimately dismissed. Mr Manji
submits that the Crown did not have to file documentation to
deal with these stayed actions, and has been awarded costs
from the lead plaintiff (Mr Turmel). Mr Manji expresses a
hope that no costs will be awarded.

JCT: And this plaintiff will have to also.

[22] I do not view the costs awards in earlier proceedings
involving multiple "kit claim" plaintiffs as binding on me.
There is no default position that copycat claims are immune
from adverse cost consequences.

JCT: It's not that copycat claims are immune, it's that
stayed claims where the Crown doesn't have to do anything
should be immune from paying the Crown for not having done
anything.

J: Each case is considered on its own facts. If costs were
never awarded in "kit claim" actions, it would only serve to
encourage behavior that should be discouraged.

JCT: Showing that many disagree that the CFR IFR
miscomparison is not a fact should be discouraged? Maybe to
wanting to keep the error unchallenged but not to someone
looking to correct the error.

J: [23] While the defendant has not filed a defense in these
actions, it cannot be disputed that the defendant has
devoted resources to deal with these proceedings.

JCT: Not much resources! He wrote his April 7 and 26 letters
asking their actions be stayed pending mine, and for costs
that applied to all the stayed actions. Since no one did
anything, he wrote one letter for all of them and I was
chartged with costs for the action.

J: These proceedings added nothing to the substance of the
issues, rather only served to create work for the defendant
and the Court.

JCT: And help indicate that more people disagree with Judge
aylen that the facts were not facts.

J: [24] The defendant requests $250.00 in costs for each
action. In part, the defendant submits that an award of
costs in these circumstances would serve as a deterrent to
the continued filing and promotion of these claims.

[25] Deterrence is a factor that can be considered in the
assessment of costs (Hutton v. Sayat, 2020 FC 1183 at paras
64 and 66).

JCT: So you should be deterred from warning Canadians that
the vax was not necessary for a false alarm. Especially when
the courts don't want Canadians to know they were coerced
over a false alarm.

J:[26] The Court is not restricted to Tariff B in an
assessment of costs, and may award a lump sum (subrule
400(4)).

[27] I agree with the defendant's submissions, but do not
agree that the amount requested would be sufficient to
recognize the improper, vexatious and unnecessary nature of
these actions (subrule 400(3)(k)(i)), the need for
deterrence, and the absence of a demonstrated good faith
basis to file each of these statements of claim. A lump sum
award of costs of $500.00 in each action is appropriate in
the circumstances.

THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The plaintiffs in Court file nos T-693-22, T-694-22, T-
695-22, T-705-22, T-710-22, T827-22, T-828-22, T-929-22
shall each pay costs to the defendant, fixed at $500.00,
payable forthwith.
blank
"Trent Horne"
blank Case Management Judge

JCT: There was no appealing the decision to strike the
action. The Charter does not ensure a S.6 Mobility Right to
domestic travel, only to live in, work in, and move to
another province. So Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier will
have their S.6 Mobility Right challenges struck too.

As for punishing the plaintiffs for filing a copy-cat
action, as long as he doesn't accept its purpose was to
demonstrate disagreement with Judge Aylen, there was nothing
we can do.

Remember, he knew that the covid Mortality Hyped Hundredfold
was a false alarm and knew he's punishing people who tried
to bring the false alarm to the world's attention to save
them taking the experimental vaccine.

Keep in mind that ours is the only action that has the
potential to end the vax nightmare. Only the admission that
the Apple Orange exaggeration makes the threat a false alarm
can be used to end any arguments for the vax.

And we were the only people who tried to warn the world that
the world was tricked with a false alarm.

As more and more people have their immune system destroyed,
as more and more doctors decry the experimental vaccine,
Judge Horne will have family and friends who suffer adverse
effects and he'll know it was over a false alarm and he
punished people who tried to save them.

We can appeal his cost decision.

My http://gab.com/johnturmel page has lots of links stories
detailing the adverse effects, deaths, and doctors decrying
the vax. Notice all the "sudden death" reports but never
among the unvaccinated. That would be newsworthy. The fact
they don't say means they were probably vaxed and it's being
suppressed.

So he's going to have to punish us from trying to warn the
world that Covid Mortality Hyped Hundredfold was a
false alarm than needed no vaccine.

So if anyone has a great sob story and would like to write
the judge a letter asking for no costs for having tried to
save millions of lives the courts did not want
saved, let me know and I'll announce it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)