From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: My original 1979 elections accountant retired so I used   
   the accountant form that does my provincial returns which are   
   paid for by the provincial government. But the Feds have a   
   $250 cap for the past 40 years and I got stuck with the   
   remaining $400.   
      
   I filed an action in Federal Court against the Election   
   Officer's cap on auditor expenses after my old accountant of   
   35 years retired and I used the firm for my provincial   
   returns. Except they charged more than the $250 the Feds cover   
   for me to file a null return. So I'd have to raise funds not   
   for the election but to pay for the auditor.   
      
   More than $300k/year Justice Phelan told less than $20k/year   
   me to save from my pension to pay the auditor if I wanted to   
   participate in the election process. I appealed.   
      
   I asked the Court of Appeal to dispense with the transcript   
   since everything relevant was contained in his decision. But   
   the Court insisted so I paid for that.   
      
   Then, with consent of the Crown, I submitted an electronic PDF   
   copy of the Appeal Book which is allowed. But there's a   
   section which says that a judge may insist on paper copies. So   
   my thumb-drive was sent to a judge for approval but he   
   insisted I pay to file paper. Make me pay for something   
   unnecessary a second time. Not.   
      
   Figuring these 300-grant-a-year judges were showing their   
   colors, I decided not to run around looking for cash but to   
   see what they would do. They dismissed it as abandoned. Now   
   that it's dismissed for not coming up with the money, I got to   
   bring my beef to the top, though they've never seen national   
   importance in my cases before. But it's on record at the top   
   what these judges did to me. Har har har.   
      
   My Application was posted at:   
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-turmel/aDKzOuw0W_8   
   TURMEL: Appealing Court financial hurdles to SCC   
      
   I got the Crown's response and parsed it but failed to post   
   it at the time. So here it is:   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Response to financial hoops appeal against elections auditor   
      
   fee cap   
      
   JCT: The Crown's Response to my Application for Leave to   
   Appeal the dismissal of my Elections Auditor Fee cap appeal   
   for financial reasons:   
      
   CR: Department of Justice   
      
   July 18 2017   
      
   Jill Hache, Registrar   
   Supreme Court of Canada   
      
   Dear Ms. Hache:   
      
   Re: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ   
   Court File No: 37647   
      
   I am counsel at the Department of Justice Canada and I   
   represent the Respondent. The Attorney General of Canada (the   
   AGC") in the above noted matter. I write in response to the   
   Applicant's Application for Leave to Appeal the decision of   
   the Federal Court of Appeal, dated June 29 2017. Please accept   
   this letter as the AGC' response to the application, pursuant   
   to Rule 27(1) and (2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.   
      
   The Applicant' seeks leave to appeal the order of the Federal   
   Court of Appeal which dismissed the Applicant's Appeal (A-202-   
   16) for delay on May 1 2017. To the extent that any summary of   
   the Applicant's complaint is possible, his application for   
   leave claim appears to be a request that this Court disregard   
   the order of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal   
   for delay, and proceed directly to an appeal of the decision   
   of Justice Phelan of the Federal Court of directly to this   
   Court.   
      
   This matter involves no issue of  public importance that   
   require the consideration of this Court.   
      
   JCT: My whole case is that it is.   
      
   CR: The FCA applied the Federal Court Rules and a specific   
   Practice Direction to direct the conduct of the appeal.   
      
   JCT: Wonder if they'll mention it was over the PDF? or just   
   the "conduct."   
      
   CR: The inherent jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal   
   to determine the format and substance of materials to be   
   submitted to it is an issue of fact and discretion that is not   
   a matter of public or national importance.   
      
   JCT: If them jerking me around for cash causes a matter of   
   national importance to not get heard, that's a matter of   
   national importance.   
      
   CR: The Applicant remains dissatisfied with the decision of   
   the Federal Court of Appeal ordering that he comply with the   
   Federal Court Rules and the practice direction of Chief   
   Justice Marc Noel regarding the filing and service electronic   
   materials dated Feb 12 2015. The Applicant was notified, at   
   least as of Nov 17 2016, that he could not file the appeal   
   book on a USB drive,   
      
   JCT: Not that it could not be done, but that it was not   
   allowed to be done. Wordsmithing to distort the actual sense.   
      
   CR: but would instead be required to file five paper copies of   
   the appeal book. Following the order of Justice Webb on Dec 8   
   2016, no action was taken by the Applicant and the matter was   
   referred to status review. Following status review a further   
   order was issued on Mar 21 20167 by Justice Gleason, informing   
   the Applicant that he would be required to file five (5) paper   
   copies of the appeal book with the Court of Appeal, by April   
   20 2017. On May 1, 2017, following the failure of the   
   Applicant to comply with the order of Justice Gleason, the   
   matter was dismissed for delay.3)   
   3) Order of Justice Stratas, Webb and Near   
      
   The Applicant now appeals the order dismissing his appeal for   
   delay, and the only argument in support of his application on   
   this point is that it is unreasonable for the Federal Court of   
   Appeal to   
      
   JCT: impose superfluous burden on an impoverished appellant.   
      
   CR: not accept his request that he file the appeal book in   
   electronic format based only on his claim of impecuniosity.   
      
   JCT: Okay better... "impose superfluous burden based only on   
   his claim of impecuniosity. Bingo, that is my case.   
      
   CR: The AGC submits that this matter is not of sufficient   
   public importance or significance,either in fact or issue of   
   law, which would satisfy the section40(1) of the Supreme Court   
   Act and require consideration of this Court. The Federal Court   
   of Appeal gave due consideration to the circumstances of the   
   applicant in rendering its decision   
      
   JCT: That's my point. The $300K/year guys did give my under   
   $20K/year consideration and after dinging me for the   
   transcript we didn't need to use which I paid for, they then   
   tried to ding me for appeal books when the rules when it says   
   electronic is permitted. So why did the judge disallow the   
   permitted electronic for the poor guy who couldn't afford the   
   paper?   
      
   CR: and the Applicant simply seeks a different determination   
   on the facts of his particular case, raising no issue of   
   public importance.   
      
   JCT: Watching fat-cat judges making me jump through financial   
   hoops with no reason, why did the judge not allow me the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)