From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Harris Reply on Crown Objection to Amendments   
      
   JCT: I can't believe I have not yet reported on this   
   development but there was so much happening on March 19 that   
   I just sent this to Jeff who filed it and I forgot to tell   
   you our response to the Crown's objection to filing our   
   Amended Statement of Claim to include Cause B with Cause A,   
   like all the new ones they have to deal with anyway.   
      
   You'd almost think people at the Justice Department are   
   retarded to object to Jeff and the early filers bringing his   
   Claim into conformity with the later filers. Here is the   
   response he filed on March 19 2018:   
      
   Jeff Harris   
      
   Mar 19 2018   
      
   Colinne Martin   
   Courts Administration Service   
   Ottawa, Ontario K1A OH9   
      
   Dear Registrar:   
      
   Re: HARRIS, Allan v. Her Majesty the Queen (Turmel Kit)   
   Court File No.: T-1379-17   
      
   This letter is my response to the Defendant's letter of   
   objection to the Amended Statement of Claim dated March 7   
   2018.   
      
   I had sought an order allowing me and the original   
   Plaintiffs who only filed for Cause of Action A (damages   
   from long processing time) to have our claims deemed amended   
   to those of later Plaintiffs who had also claimed for Cause   
   of Action B (back-dated time restituted for full terms)   
   rather than everyone abandon and refile new ones.   
      
   I have submitted an Amended Statement of Claim that conforms   
   to the versions by other later Plaintiffs.   
      
   The Defendant has noticed that the amended claim includes   
   several substantive amendments which were not authorized by   
   the Court's March 1 order, and to which Canada has not   
   consented. So the Defendant has asked that the Amended   
   Statement of Claim brought into congruity with later   
   versions not be accepted for filing noting:   
       paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 (please note that   
       there is no paragraph 10) differ significantly from the   
       original Statement of Claim and were not included as   
       proposed amendments in the Plaintiffs motion.   
       In addition to being non-compliant with this Court's   
       order of March 1, 2018, the significant alterations to   
       the Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim create   
       confusion and uncertainty with respect to what the   
       Canada is now responsible for addressing in its Motion   
       to Strike and potential future Statements of Defence.   
      
   Paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 still have to be   
   dealt with in later versions like that of Donald Cote T-377-   
   18 but even though the Defendant prefers that we   
   should now work from two different Statements of Claim, I   
   decided the least objectionable way to get my amendments   
   filed was to file a new updated Statement of Claim and   
   abandon the amended one whose extra underlining has left the   
   Defendant more confused than those identical later claims   
   without any underlining.   
      
   Since Defendant wants to nit-pick about notice of how the   
   first claim was brought into conformity with the later   
   version, the Plaintiff sought to file a new Statement of   
   Claim on Friday Mar 16 2018 which would have the identical   
   text as later versions but without the underlining that has   
   left Defendant so confused.   
      
   Despite their confusion with the same text but underlined,   
   they have to deal with those paragraphs in all the latest   
   claims regardless. The whole purpose of the motion to amend   
   was so we'd be working from one document and they now object   
   to such conformity because of how it was moved?   
      
   I understand the preference for the Lead Plaintiff's   
   Statement of Claim to be amended, not just deemed amended,   
   to conform with the later versions. And now that I have   
   amended it to be congruent with the others, the Crown wants   
   it rejected.   
      
   Unfortunately, the clerk was unfamiliar with the S.48 format   
   and rejected my filing:   
       March 16 2018   
       Filing ID: CAS.2018-110-035320-00   
       Status: Not Accepted because of...   
       Please use the proper statement of claim form (form   
       171A) found on our website.   
       Amanda Dunn A/Senior Registry Officer   
      
   Either the Defendant accepts my Amended Statement of Claim   
   as amended to conform with the later versions, or I'll   
   abandon my original and push to get the new one filed.   
   _______________________   
   Allan J. Harris   
      
   JCT: Wendy Wright has just filed her Reply on March 26 and   
   I'll parse it in the next post. They haven't taken enough of a   
      
   brain-beating yet.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)