From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Phelan grants back-room request before I even respond   
      
   JCT: Boy, did I ever get one-twoed in this one. On Monday   
   May 2, I got the Crown's letter to the back-room judge   
   requesting my motion for summary judgment was really a   
   default judgment and should be stayed as such. Despite the   
   document being titled "Motion for Summary Judgment."   
      
   On May 3 morning, before I'd even had a chance to start work   
   on a response, I got a Direction from Phelan granting their   
   request to stall my "motion for Default Judgment."   
      
   I wondered why the judge was in such a rush that he'd give   
   me no chance to answer.   
      
   Department of Justice   
   April 26 2016   
   VIA FASCIMILE   
      
   JCT: I checked the envelope and though they dated it May 26,   
   they mailed it Thursday May 28 afternoon so it wouldn't get   
   to me until the Monday. So, dated Tuesday May 26, you'd   
   expect I'd have received it by the weekend and responded on   
   Monday. But not posted until Thursday May 28 put delivery   
   into the next week. Neat eh? And Phelan in a rush to stall   
   the Repeal motion, (the more dead people he causes, the   
   better, maybe?) he gave them what they wanted without giving   
   me time to respond. Makes you want to puke, doesn't it?   
   Anyway, as long as everyone knows Phelan is killing people   
   by stalling repeal, when it's over, I think to so too will   
   be his career. Phelan and Manson killed too many not to be   
   newsworthy, except for the media blackout on Turmel. But   
   what the judges did will come out. in all its gory details.   
      
   Registries of the Federal Court   
   90 Sparks St. 5th floor   
   Ottawa K1A 0H9   
      
   Dear Sir/Madam:   
      
   re: John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty The Queen, T-488-14   
      
   On behalf of the defendant, I am writing to confirm Canada's   
   earlier request that the plaintiff's motion not be accepted   
   or heard at this time.   
      
   By Notice of Motion dated April 8 2016, Plaintiff requested:   
       Summary Judgment on a Question of Law that: A2) "absent   
       a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption" the   
       prohibitions on marihuana in the Controlled Drugs and   
       Substances Act (CDSA) be declared invalid and the word   
       "marijuana" be struck from Schedule II of the CDSA.   
      
   By letter dated April 18 2016, Canada noted that it had not   
   yet defended the plaintiff's claim   
      
   JCT: Fails to mention they missed their 30 day deadline   
      
   CR: and that rule 213 of the Federal Court Rules did not   
   permit summary judgment in these circumstances.   
      
   JCT: What circumstances? that the Crown is in default?   
      
   CR: Canada therefore requested that the plaintiff's motion   
   not be accepted for filing.   
      
   JCT: The Rules say you have to bring a:   
      
       Motion to object   
       208 A party who has been served with a statement of   
       claim and who brings a motion to object to   
       (a) any irregularity in the commencement of the action,   
       (b) the service of the statement of claim,   
       (c) the Court as not being a convenient forum, or   
       (d) the jurisdiction of the Court, does not thereby   
       attorn to the jurisdiction of the Court.   
      
   JCT: Rule 208 says objecting to irregularities in the   
   action, or the Court not being a convenient forum or having   
   jurisdiction has to be done by way of motion.   
      
   So why is the Crown sending letters to the Administrator   
   which is not the proper way to object. They've filed no   
   notice of motion and I'm tired of Her Majesty demanding and   
   getting preferential treatment in not complying with the   
   rules.   
      
   CR: By response dated April 25 2016, the plaintiff now   
   suggests that his motion is not for summary judgment under   
   Rule 213 but for default judgment under Rule 210.   
      
   JCT: It's titled "Summary Judgment" and it suggests it's for   
   a Default Judgment I may not seek. Guess they want the   
   motion I did not seek dismissed. Imagine, I only cited Rule   
   210 to point out that Canada's failure to file a Statement   
   of Defence within the required 30 days meant that my Summary   
   Judgment Motion was against a Defendant in Default (with a   
   hearing for which proper notice was given), not a Default   
   Judgment for which they were not given notice.   
      
   CR: Although his motion record clearly requests "summary   
   judgment,"   
      
   JCT: Yes, it clearly says that.   
      
   he also submits that Canada "misled" the Court in suggesting   
   his motion was for that relief.   
      
   JCT: Well, it does say "Summary Judgment" and the Crown does   
   claim that because they're in default, it has to be Default   
   Judgment. And Canada is now misleading the Court that I   
   filed for Default Judgment when I couldn't.   
      
   CR: The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, section 25,   
   provides that default judgment cannot be obtained against   
   the Crown without leave of the Court obtained on an   
   application, of which Canada must be given at least 14 days   
   notice. As the plaintiff has not served and filed such an   
   application, default judgment is not available at this time.   
      
   JCT: See, I couldn't. Lucky I'm not asking for the Default   
   Judgment that they've proven I'm not allowed to have. Wonder   
   if I should ask the Registry for the hearing on the Summary   
   Judgment now that I've accepted the decision on the   
   imaginary Default Judgment.   
      
   CR: In any event, default judgment is inappropriate.   
      
   JCT: I agree. Summary Judgment on the issues is.   
      
   CR: Canada has served and filed a motion under Rule 221 to   
   strike the plaintiff's claim.   
      
   JCT: And wants to the judge to stall the motion I'm allowed   
   to make until they're ready? They've only had 2 years.   
      
   CR: If the claim is not struck, the motion requests that   
   Canada be given an additional 30 days to serve and file a   
   Statement of Defence.   
      
   JCT: They've only had 2 years and need more time. Crown   
   already missed the deadline.   
   They have to make a motion for extension of time to file a   
   Statement of Defence, not request a back-room Direction. But   
   why follow the rules when a letter to the back-room judge   
   seems to keep working? They should bring their case to   
   Summary Judgment.   
      
   CR: Canada has therefore clearly indicated an intention to   
   defend this proceeding should the need arise.   
      
   JCT: Sorry, intention to defend is done by filing a   
   Statement of Defence or a Motion to Strike, not a request to   
   the back-room judge to not allow it to be filed.   
   "Should the need to defend arise?" The need to defend arose   
   when they were served with the Statement of Claim and had 30   
   days to file their Statement of Defence.   
   As if I need special permission before the need arises for   
   them to file their defence. They don't need to file a   
   defence yet.   
   Notice that the continual underlying theme is "STALL!"   
   Always more time. Can't get enough patient blood on their   
   hands.. Can't stop it too soon.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)