Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    can.legal    |    Debating Canuck legal system quirks    |    10,932 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 10,394 of 10,932    |
|    John KingofthePaupers Turmel to All    |
|    TURMEL: Friday Reply to 8 Crown Response    |
|    21 Mar 18 16:33:57    |
      From: johnturmel@yahoo.com              JCT: We are allowed to file 8 responses on March 23.              CR? are those who got Crown Responses and could answer but       haven't yet sent me the response to add fuel to our fire.              T-215-18 Potvin Marc Feb 6 Mar12 Mar19 Mar23 MH Luc CR?       T-342-18 Miguel Gordon Feb 20 Mar8 Mat16 Mar23 M? Mtl Luc CR?       T-346-18 Hebert Alexis Feb20 Mar8 Mar16 Mar23 M? Mtl Luc CR?       T-371-18 Alexdandre Labrecque Gordon Feb26 Mtl Mar8 Mar16 Mar23 M? Luc CR?       T-372-18 Pierre Luc Boivin Feb26 Mar16 Mar23 M? Mtl Luc CR?       T-424-18 Andre Lavoie Mtl Mar6 Mar12 Mar19 Mar23 MH Luc       T-432-18 Sylvain Chartier Mar 5 Mar12 Mar19 Mar23 MH Mtl Luc CR?       T-459-18 Matthew Hradsky Mar 9 Mar12 Mar19 Mar23 Tor MH              So I have work from the responses to only Andre Lavoie and       Matthew Hradsky.              Remember all the goodies we mined so far. Out of the 20 or       so Crown Responses filed, a half I haven't seen or were       mooted, Crown told us that 5 of our remaining 10 Motion       moving plaintiffs were first rejected for not being original       signatures out of our 10 Response sample group.              That's half! 50% of the 90,000 total population of permits       holders would indicate that 45,000 have been rejected for       bad signature. Government Gremlin very busy. Bet it's more.       That's how stats work and the sample is so big, that average       is really really close. Those victims are out there and they       have a new-found source for our Cause of Action A damages       claim. We'll call victims of the "non-original" or "blue       ink" stall the Art Jackes class.              Plus, we learned from Donald Cote that the review for "non-       original" rejection took 3 weeks but the review of his next       application took 18 weeks, 6 times longer. Why 3 weeks for       the 1st and 18 weeks for 2nd? A statistician could suggest       the cause of the bias there. But why?              Including all the "lost in the mail" reports I've heard, it       feels like there's a first evil government gremlin opening       all the mail and trashing all mail without tracking number       because the suckers have no proof it arrived, and then       automatically reject black signatures so they'll have to       re-apply for step two. Doesn't take long to check for       tracking number and black ink.              They really can't use the non-original ruse twice, though       they did for Donald Cote, as it would anger too many. So       when the computer shows it's the second application, it now       goes through the regular 18 week delay before being opened       and any real reasons sought to reject. I've notice 18 weeks       several times! Remember, Donald's 3-week non-original       rejection didn't even mention that his chiro was not       authorized to prescribe. Think First Screener Gremlin       checked that Profession after Ink color?              So why else would it take 3 weeks to reject the first as       non-original but then 18 weeks to process the next one and       find another problem he had to now fix. Do they tell people       about their mistakes one at a time! They have a Checklist.              Anyway, expecting over 45,000 Delayeds by the non-original       ruse, that's a lot of claimants for damages from the stall       for a lousy $2.              Main point: once you file, Health Canada produces your       timeline and their reasons for rejection. If it says "Non       original!" Bingo. Jackpot. They can't prove it. Do you       really think they have some expert authenticator on staff?       Bet not.              And they have it all on their computer since they've       produced queries for the Court on everyone so far: "Our       computer query reports that Mr. X submitted on June A and       was for non-originality rejected on June B." So their query       has provided Donald Cote all the proof he needs that they       rejected his originals twice.              If you got a response and you don't send me a copy to see if       it helps us because you got yours....              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca