From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Of course, Her Majesty wants to keep this in the back   
   rooms. "Doing somethign shameful, Your Highness? Have to   
   hide?"   
      
   Department of Justice   
      
   May 2 2016   
   VIA FASCIMILE   
      
   Registries of the Federal Court   
   90 Sparks St. 5th floor   
   Ottawa K1A 0H9   
      
   Dear Sir/Madam:   
      
   Re: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ T-488-14   
      
   On behalf of the defendant, Her Majesty The Queen in Right   
   of Canada ("Canada"), I am writing to reiterate   
   Canada's request that its recently filed motion proceed in   
   writing.   
      
   JCT: They really don't want people to have their say like   
   last time.   
      
   CR: and to indicate Canada's opposition to 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.   
      
   JCT: They want everyone to respond in writing. Tough.   
   Doesn't matter what they want. They're getting one answer.   
   Then they can have 310 appeals if Phelan takes it back-room.   
      
   CR: Canada's motion concerns 310 proceedings initiated by   
   self-represented plaintiffs and an applicant in eight   
   different provinces and Territories.   
      
   JCT: Har har har. Last time, the low-techs counted only 7 of   
   our 10 provinces with no Territories. Now they count in an   
   8th with Territories! Har har har har har har. The best the   
   government's got!   
      
   JCT: An oral hearing of Canada's motion in these   
   circumstances would consume considerable judicial and party   
   resources and would post significant logistical challenges   
   including, in particular, the identification of a hearing   
   date that is mutually agreeable to all parties.   
      
   JCT: It didn't last time, did it? But because they could   
   handle last time doesn't mean they can handle it this time.   
   Har har har har har har. Notice last time, Phelan didn't   
   ask everyone for a mutually agreeable date? But now he does?   
   that creates a new impediment? So what they handled before   
   can't be handled any more.   
      
   CR: Canada is of the view that its motion would therefore be   
   most expeditiously and least expensively determined in   
   writing.   
      
   JCT: Even if it puts parties at a disadvantage they did not   
   have to suffer last time.   
      
   Rule 369(2) provides that a respondent objecting to a motion   
   in writing may indicate its objection in its responding   
   motion materials.   
      
   JCT: Hey, Crown gets to send back-room letters, why not me?   
   And thanks for informing me. I'll make sure to include the   
   arguments from my letter in my responding motion too! Har   
   har har har har har.   
      
   Rather than follow the objection procedure contemplated in   
   the Rules,   
      
   JCT: Always. Why not? Phelan keeps letting them break the   
   rules. So rather than follow the rules...   
      
   CR: 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. The request   
   is improper.   
      
   JCT: But it will be proper once it's in the Response motion   
   materials! Har har har. And notice how Phelan jumped on   
   granting their requests but still nothing about giving me   
   the emails so I can make sure no one wants it in writing.   
      
   CR: In any event, the plaintiff has not identified a   
   substantial reason why he cannot adequately respond to   
   Canada's motion in writing.   
      
   JCT: Of course, I can respond in writing. It's the lesser   
   wordsmiths the Crown is putting at the disadvantage.   
      
   CR: While he suggests that his co-plaintiffs are "lesser   
   wordsmiths,"   
      
   JCT: Not what I said. Some are lesser wordsmiths. Who am I   
   to comment on a couple of hundred people I don't know? So   
   caught lawying with an exaggeration.   
      
   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.   
      
   JCT: We'll just say that you have to be pretty stupid to   
   wonder why lesser wordsmiths would be better able to address   
   those issues at an oral hearing. God, how stupid. What a   
   waste of tax dollars.   
      
   CR; Canada therefore reiterates its request that the motion   
   proceed in writing.   
      
   JCT: Hey, our response materials can demand an oral   
   hearing. Why ask for a back-room ruling now when it's coming   
   up officially soon?   
      
   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.   
      
   JCT: I'm filing a single response and telling others they   
   needn't bother doing the identical. Crown might like 310   
   Response motions but I prefer 310 appeals.   
      
   CR: To the extent that Mr. Turmel is proposing to represent   
   the other plaintiffs...   
      
   JCT: No, that Mr. Turmel will file one response and the   
   other don't have to unless they really want to.   
      
   Canada notes that the Federal Court Rules do not permit   
   representation by persons other than a solicitor (Rule 119)   
   and expressly require that persons seeking to act in a   
   representative capacity be represented by a solicitor. As   
   Mr. Turmel is not a solicitor, Canada requests that the   
   Court not entertain any submissions by him on behalf of the   
   other plaintiffs.   
      
   JCT: And I guess they must be dropping their motion to   
   consolidate us like last time where I was the lead   
   appellant. Har har har har har har. No sir, no consolidation   
   please, no matter that they had just asked for it   
   themselves. Har har har har har har.   
      
   It would be funny if Jon and the judges were generating so   
   many corpses.   
      
   I guess I'd better respond quickly or Phelan might grant their   
   backroom request before I can get it in like last time.   
      
   Anyway, all I said was that I'd be filing a response and   
   urging others not to bother and of course, Her Majesty   
   distorted that again.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)