From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: After the Crown had asked me to pay for the print costs   
   of the Appeal Book, I filed:   
       1. Appellant was named "Lead Appellant" for 25 other   
       Appellants who consented to consolidation of our appeals   
       to avoid duplication by all parties.   
       2. On Apr 10 2015, the Respondent requested the Lead   
       Appellant pay $597.77 to prepare and file the Appeal   
       Book.   
       3. Appellant files at the Supreme Court of Canada in   
       "forma pauperis." Though I can be found online as the   
       KingofthePaupers, with ZERO income until hit 65 years-   
       old next year. To cover my life support, I have to beg,   
       borrow or win at the Brantford Poker casino.   
       4. All the other Appellants have been cut off of their   
       regular economical marijuana supply and coping with new   
       high prices puts them in a pauperly situation too.   
       PART II - ISSUES IN QUESTION   
       5. Is the Right to Life of the patients of such import   
       that the Respondent should defray the $597.77 for the   
       Appeal Book?   
       PART III - ARGUMENTS   
       6. The Appellant submits Canada has not considered the   
       consequences should Lead Appellant not be able to afford   
       the costs of the Appeal Book. What will the Crown do   
       with the other 25 Appellants without a Consolidated   
       Appeal Book?   
       7. The whole purpose in appointing me lead Appellant was   
       to give everyone a break from duplication as serious   
       issues are adjudicated. My dearth of financial resources   
       should not now be cause for a whole lot more inevitable   
       duplication.   
       8. Given the resources available to Respondent compared   
       to Appellants, given the large savings accrued to the   
       Respondent by Appellants' consent to consolidation,   
       Respondent has so benefited that to now make print costs   
       an issue is unconscionably chintzy.   
       THE MOTION SEEKS an Order that the Respondent   
       A) defray the cost of the Appeal Book, and   
       B) serve a copy on all Appellants.   
       THE GROUNDS are that the consolidation of 26 appeals has   
       so benefited the Respondent that to now make print costs   
       an issue is unconscionably chintzy.   
       Dated at Toronto on April 15 2015.   
       John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
   JCT: I got their response:   
      
   Department of Justice   
      
   May 11   
      
   Federal Court of Appeal   
      
   Dear Sir/Madam:   
      
   RE: John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen, A-342-14   
      
   On behalf of the Respondent,  Her Majesty the Queen in Right   
   of Canada, I am writing to advise that Canada consents to an   
   order that it bear the costs of photocopying, serving and   
   filing the Appeal Book in this matter.   
      
   By letter dated April 10 2015, Canada advised the Appellant   
   of its willingness to prepare the Appeal Book on the   
   Appellant's behalf, provided that photocopying costs were   
   borne in advance by the Appellant. The Appellant responded   
   with the present motion for an order that Canada "defray"   
   these costs.   
      
   The Appellant's request is tantamount to a request for   
   advanced costs. While in Canada's view, the Appellant has   
   not met the requirements for such an order, Canada does not   
   wish to incur additional expenses in responding to the   
   Appellant's motion, and is therefore now willing to bear the   
   (comparatively smaller) cost associated with photocopying,   
   serving and filing the Appeal Book. However, Canada   
   respectfully reserves the right, which is presumptively   
   available to all litigants (and which does not appear to be   
   engaged by the Appellant's motion), to seek these costs if   
   ultimately successful on appeal.   
      
   The Appellant also requests an order that Canada serve an   
   Appeal Book on the appellants in all 26 of the consolidated   
   appeals. Canada submits that this request is unnecessary in   
   light of the Dec 12 2014 order designating the Appellant's   
   appeal as the lead appeal file for the purposes of   
   consolidation, and that the request is also inconsistent   
   with the Court's Sep 9 2014 direction, which provided that   
   materials, generally need be served only on the lead   
   appellant. Canada therefore respectfully requests that this   
   part of the Appellant's Motion be dismissed.   
      
   Sincerely,   
   Jon Bricker,   
   Counsel, Business and Regulatory Law Division   
      
   JCT: Okay, smart move. It's more expensive to oppose my   
   motion than to pick up a $600 tab. Heck it may be more   
   expensive than picking up another $15,000 for the rest! I   
   could put up a fight for the $15,000 job.   
      
   I don't think they're going to ask the KingofthePaupers for   
   money again when all I'm trying to do is KISS for everyone.   
   So my Reply will reward their wising up. I've never wasted   
   anyone's time unless it was part of the game.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)