From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)