From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
   50 Brant Ave.,   
   Brantford, N3T 3G7,   
   Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122,   
   Cell: 519-717-5198   
      
   May 17 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   
      
   CR: In his letter dated May 6 2016, the plaintiff requests   
   leave to serve Canada with future materials via email, as well   
   as dispensation from the proof of service requirements   
   contained in the Federal Court Rules. He purports to make both   
   requests on behalf of more than 300 plaintiffs.   
      
   JCT: Plaintiff seeks not dispensation with proof of service   
   but alternate proof of service by email header.   
      
   CR: Canada's email servers are subject to strict data size   
   limits,   
      
   JCT: What data size limit. Is 200-300 kilobytes too big?   
      
   CR: which would likely be quickly exceeded if the plaintiffs   
   were to begin serving materials by email.   
      
   JCT: Plaintiff Electrical Engineer doubts their unknown data   
   size limits would be exceeded by my 250k kilobyte email.   
      
   CR: Although Canada recently requested and was granted leave   
   to electronically serve motion materials on the plaintiffs,   
   Canada was able to do so via a single email to all plaintiffs   
   which did not count significantly toward the data size limits.   
      
   JCT: Plaintiff would like to do so via a single email back   
   too. As for the still unknown data size limits, why would the   
   limit be plural? Canada's Motion Record was 1.112 Megabytes.   
   My Motion Record would be 4 to 5 times smaller. So no matter   
   how much the Crown lawyers would like to believe that their   
   data size limits would "likely be quickly exceeded" if the   
   plaintiffs were to begin serving 250Kb materials by email, 300   
   times 250Kb is 75Mb total, hardly an insurmountable number.   
   With a 2 Terabyte commercial drive costing $130, 15 Gigabytes   
   per dollar, 150 Megabytes per cent, so 75Mb storage would cost   
   0.5 cents. Plaintiff submits Canada is overly concerned over a   
   half penny expense. And it's probably cheaper on a Justice   
   Ministry mainframe.   
      
   CR: By contrast, the plaintiff's request could result in   
   Canada receiving more than 300 emails, each attaching a   
   Responding Motion Record.   
      
   JCT: Plaintiff submits that receiving more than 300 paper   
   Motion Records and scanning them to PDF is more work for all,   
   including the Registry, than receiving them as PDFs?   
      
   CR: As the plaintiff has identified no reason why he cannot   
   serve Canada and prove service in accordance with the ordinary   
   rules, Canada requests that the Court not grant the leave   
   requested by the plaintiff.   
      
   JCT: Plaintiff claims the same reason as Canada for wanting to   
   use email , to avoid inconvenience and expense. What would be   
   the purpose of having 300 self-represented plaintiffs running   
   round delivering the same form 300 times when Canada has been   
   freed from such wasted expense? Canada has now set the   
   precedent, Plaintiffs seek the same cost-reduced service from   
   the court?   
      
   _________________________________   
   John C. Turmel   
      
   CC: Jon Bricker, Ministry of Justice Fax: 416-973-0809   
   For the Defendant.   
      
   JCT: Lawyers think half-a-penny's worth of storage could swamp   
   their servers! Har har har har har har har har har har har   
   har.   
      
   Don't worry, this is the Response no one else but me is   
   serving anyway. I'd just like to skip the trip to Toronto   
   since they skipped the trip to Brantford.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)