home bbs files messages ]

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