From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Reply to Harris ultimatum on new or amended Delayed Grow claims   
      
   JCT: In my last post: Harris Reply on Crown Objection to   
   Amendments, Jeff told the court:   
       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.   
       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: So here's Wendy Wright's Reply. Remember, they're not   
   objecting to the changes, they're objecting to the way they   
   were told about the changes. So, despite the Jeff's new   
   claim now being identical to that of the later plaintiffs   
   for everyone's ease of argument, the shysters want it   
   rejected because they weren't told all the steps necessary   
   to make it identical! So they want the Lead Plaintiff to   
   work from the original without the changes of the later   
   plaintiffs, essentially work from two different claims! Har   
   har har.   
      
   Jeff's response explained that he had brought his claim into   
   conformity with the others and even if the changes weren't   
   announced sufficiently in the notice, the claims still ended   
   up the same, as planned. But we didn't fully tell them how   
   we'd make them identical so they object to the old claim now   
   made identical to the new.   
      
   Of course, Jeff can always offer to just abandon his Old   
   claim and file a new one. But to get it through a tough   
   Crown skull, it was deemed less confusing to offer them a   
   fait accomplit. Jeff filed a new "Two Causes of Action"   
   Statement of Claim. Now he could offer to abandon the Claim   
   the Crown did not want amended with Cause B and keep the new   
   one with both causes; or accept the Old one amended with   
   Cause B and abandon the new one with both. Cost $2 to let   
   them know that he could have both causes in whatever way   
   they wanted. The judge should prefer to keep the Amended,   
   abandoning the Lead Statement of Claim would have a fun   
   effect on the others.   
      
   And then he ran into a Senior Registry Officer who didn't   
   know that $2 Section 48 claims against the Crown had a   
   different format than regular claims against a Ministry and   
   rejected his Claim though he has its filing number and Judge   
   Brown can simply accept it without Jeff having to make a   
   fuss.   
      
   After all, Jeff could just file another at any time and tell   
   off any clerk who screws up about the other 80 plaintiffs   
   which proves she's wrong. But Jeff just told the judge the   
   New Claim was there ready to be accepted if he wasn't happy   
   with the Amended Claim.   
      
   Wendy Wright   
      
   March 26 2018   
      
   Colinne Martin, Senior Registrar   
      
   Dear Madam:   
      
   Re: Harris, Allan v. Her Majesty The Queen (Turmel Kit)   
        File T-1379-17   
      
   WW: Canada's position on Plaintiff's letter in response to   
   Direction that the Plaintiff state why his amendments appear   
   to go beyond those permitted by the Court's order.   
      
   This Court's March 1 2018 Order was clear -- the Plaintiff   
   was permitted to amend his Statement of Claim, but the   
   amendments were to be limited to those expressly set out in   
   his Notice of Motion dated Feb 13 without leave to further   
   amend.   
      
   The Plaintiff nevertheless now seeks to make amendments that   
   go far beyond those proposed in his motion.   
      
   JCT: Remember, the original motion had been to have his   
   Claim deemed to be the amended to the same as the latest   
   claims. But the judge insisted that the Lead File be   
   properly amended by underlining the changes.   
      
   WW: In support of this request, the plaintiff suggests that   
   the proposed amendments are similar to allegations made by   
   other plaintiffs and that the court must ultimately address   
   these allegations in any event.   
      
   JCT: Duh, right?   
      
   WW: Canada submits that it would be an inefficient use of   
   this Court's resources if, each time a claim is filed   
   containing new allegations, the plaintiff were permitted to   
   amend his own claim to incorporate those allegations.   
      
   JCT: Doesn't matter, if the later guy wants to add something   
   the earlier guys want too, they have to deal with it anyway   
   so why not for the early ones too. But she's saying that in   
   case there are other changes later, do not allow this one   
   now! In case they'll have to deal with new things later, may   
   as well as not allow this one to be rendered the same as the   
   later others.   
      
   WW: Moreover, if the plaintiff wished to make the proposed   
   amendments, it was open to him in his motion for leave to   
   amend. The plaintiff has offered no explanation for his   
   failure to do so.   
      
   JCT: So the problem isn't with the amended Statement of   
   Claim, it's with the Notice for Amended Statement of claim.   
   It wasn't announced right enough.   
      
   This shows that lawyers can be quite stupid. Putting up   
   resistance just because they can, even if it makes   
   everything tougher for the judge. Jeff had told them he   
   wanted his claim to be the same as the later ones for the   
   sake of simplicity. But since he hadn't pointed out all the   
   changes that were going to make it the same, the fact   
   they're now the same doesn't matter, they didn't get the   
   right notice of change and don't want to allow the claims to   
   be the same. Just because they weren't told all the changes   
   to bring them to conformity.   
      
   WW: The plaintiff also suggests in his letter that, if leave   
   to further amend his claim is denied, he will discontinue   
   his claim and file a new claim containing the proposed   
   amendments   
      
   JCT: Which are not amendments for the later plaintiffs and   
   would no longer be amendments for his. Har har har. And   
   there's nothing they can do to stop him. Har har har.   
      
   WW: Canada submits that this could be a clear attempt to   
   circumvent Canada's motion to strike as well as the March 1   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)