From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Justice lawyer Wendy Wright response to Jeff Harris'   
   motion to amend the Statement of Claim of early Plaintiffs   
   for only Cause of Action A (too long) to adopt the Statement   
   of Claim of later Plaintiffs with Cause of Action B (want   
   time back) and engage all S.7 rights.   
      
       I am writing in response to the Plaintiff's motion for   
       leave to amend his pleadings and to extend time to   
       respond to the Defendant's motion to strike.   
      
       The Defendant will consent to the Plaintiff's motion for   
       leave to amend and extend time provided that the   
       Plaintiff's amendments will be limited to those   
       expressly set out in his Notice of Motion dated Feb 13   
       2018 and provided that the Defendant be permitted to   
       file additional submissions on its motion to strike in   
       order to properly address the amendments.   
      
   JCT: As Jeff pointed out, the Defendant must properly   
   address the arguments in the Statement of Claim of those   
   later Plaintiffs who need no such amendment. This is only   
   for the original Turmel Kit Plaintiffs to adopt the claims   
   of the more recent ones, such as T-340-18, T-341-18, T-342-   
   18, T-343-18 and T-345-18.   
      
       The Plaintiff's motion does not address a proposed   
       timetable in his motion for leave. Therefore, the   
       Defendant proposes the following timetable:   
       - The Plaintiff will serve and file his amended   
       Statement of Claim and his Responding Record to the   
       Defendant's motion to strike by Feb 26 2018;   
      
   JCT: Oops. A "duh" moment. Quite premature. Can't be done by   
   Monday. Can't be filed until the judge extends the time, not   
   when they say so. They should know this. The last time they   
   consented, the judge put the date past their deadline! And   
   here they are again demanding Jeff do something that can't   
   be done.   
      
   Plus the judge gave Jeff time to respond, if any. Now he'll   
   have to suggest a later timetable. On Monday. But not the   
   response they're expecting.   
      
   So we're saying we want to adopt the claims of the guys with   
   both A and B and they want Jeff to refile an amended   
   Statement adding B rather than let the judge order we work   
   from a later complete claim with A & B. After all, the   
   remedy will apply to everyone anyway. So with some complete   
   claims, why make Jeff amend his rather than adopt theirs?   
      
       - The Defendant will file any additional submissions on   
       its motion to strike (submissions to be restricted to   
       the amendments to the Claim) by March 2 2018;   
       - The Defendant will serve and file its Reply   
       submissions on its motion to strike including an   
       additional submissions dealing with the amendments by   
       March 2 2018. Wendy Wright   
      
   JCT: Seems they forgot something. They want us to file our   
   response to their motion to strike Cause A on Monday. They   
   then file any additional submissions to strike Cause B and   
   we don't get to respond. We're supposed to respond to the   
   motion to Strike Cause B before they Reply. Nice trick if   
   you get away with it.   
      
   So Wendy Wright really screwed up. And Jeff gets to remind   
   the court he couldn't comply until the court says so. Har   
   har har har har har har har har. That will be a fun Reply on   
   Monday.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)