From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: The Crown wants to dismiss everyone's actions with a   
   back-room adjudication and no live hearing. I think not:   
      
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
   50 Brant Ave.,  Brantford, N3T 3G7,   
   Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122, Cell: 519-717-1012   
   Email: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   Wednesday April 27 2016   
      
   Letter to the Federal Court Administrator   
   Fax: 416-973-2154   
      
   Dear Sir/Lady:   
      
   The Crown has requested a motion IN WRITING to dismiss over   
   300 "Turmel Kit"  Statements of Claim that guarantees to put   
   lesser wordsmiths at a disadvantage.   
      
   If the 2014 motion to stay Plaintiffs' actions could be held   
   in open court with all having the chance to be heard,   
   shouldn't they be availed of the same opportunity in a 2016   
   bid to completely dismiss their actions? I would request a   
   Direction that the Motion to Dismiss be heard in open court   
   where all Plaintiffs may again participate and not   
   adjudicated in writing without that opportunity.   
      
   Since this Crown motion does not relate to the claims for   
   personal damages arising out the harms suffered under the   
   unconstitutional MMPR for which only some (50) have served   
   their Affidavit on the Defendant in Default, it is based on   
   pure technicalities. So, rather than have patients all waste   
   their time filing 300 responses to the one Motion, only I   
   will take the time to respond to the Her Majesty's rather   
   obtuse argument that settlement of the overlapping issues   
   mootens the non-overlapping ones too. The 300 can all file   
   appeals if their actions for relief on the non-overlapping   
   claims for damages are dismissed because the overlapping   
   issues were won.   
      
   Turmel Kit plaintiffs would be at a disadvantage without   
   Turmel's help but I do not have the emails of all the   
   plaintiffs and in order for me to keep them abreast, I would   
   ask for a Direction that the Crown provide me with the list   
   of emails to go with the addresses in the documents. After   
   all, their documentation contained their emails and it was   
   the Crown that chose to exclude that data from their Motion   
   Record.   
      
   My own Motion for Summary Judgment T-488-14 on remedy A2) is   
   an individual effort to adjudicate a common claim before any   
   of the distinct personal damages claims be assessed and   
   should be expedited. Regardless of the outcome of that   
   relief, the condemnation of the MMAR in Allard   
      
   JCT: Arg. Condemnation of the MMPR, not MMAR, in Allard.   
      
   further supports the remaining non-overlapping claims for   
   personal damages once bad faith by Health Canada is   
   established.   
      
   Dated at Brantford on April 27 2016   
      
   __________________________________   
   John C. Turmel   
      
   CC: Jon Bricker by fax .   
      
   JCT: Pretty sleazy trying to gut 300 cases in the back room.   
   So no one need do anything right now but be ready to   
   complain if you don't get your video-hearing like last time.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)