From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown tries to strike Art Jackes "blue-ink" action.   
      
   JCT: Art Jackes had had his original medical document   
   rejected as not original!! Having proof in hand that they   
   were wrong, he filed a motion to interim remedy but when   
   they found out he had just sent in a new application signed   
   in blue ink, they hopped-to-it and mooted his motion.   
      
   But since his was the first complaint about rejection of   
   original for non-originality, the Crown in early motions   
   tried to separate him off from the other causes of delay.   
      
   And it seems they did file a motion to sever his claim and   
   strike it. So when reminded that he had to file a response,   
   he'd written:   
      
   From: Art Jackes   
   Sent: March-26-18 3:36 PM   
   To: Martin, Colinne   
   Subject: RE: T-1654-17 // Arthur Jackes v. HMTQ   
   Importance: High   
      
   This letter is in response to the Direction of Brown J.   
   dated Mar 14 2018.   
      
   I failed to file any response to the Defendant's Motion to   
   dismiss in the file of Lead Plaintiff Jeff Harris T-1379-17   
   because   
      
   a) I was not cited as one of the Respondents to the motion   
   and there is no specific argument in that motion to dismiss   
   the claim for delay by mis-identification of signature   
   originality.   
      
   b) The Defendant has not yet filed any motion to dismiss the   
   other Delay claims nor ever any motion to dismiss mine. I do   
   not know what I am to respond to.   
      
   c) Since the only difference with my case is the reason for   
   the stall, I trust Mr. Harris to handle that for me if the   
   Defendant raises any proof my originals were not original.   
      
   I would ask that my case simply be added to the list of   
   plaintiffs over delay and let Mr. Harris handle my delay   
   distinction should the Defendant raise it.   
      
   Please accept my sincere apology, health issues have kept me   
   from responding sooner.   
   Arthur Jackes   
      
   JCT: I had written that but for some reason, I hadn't seen   
   their specific motion against Art and keep being shown the   
   motion against all the plaintiffs in Jeff Harris' file.   
      
   Crown Wendy Wright responded:   
      
   WW: April 5 2018   
      
   Honourable Justice Brown   
   via Colinne Martin, Registry Officer   
      
   Dear Justice Brown   
      
   Re: JACKES, Arthur v. HMTQ File No: T-1654-17   
      
   Further to the Court's request, please accept the following   
   as the response of the defendant to the plaintiff's email   
   sent today in which he responds to this Court's Direction   
   dated March 15 2018.   
      
   In his email, the plaintiff outlines that he did not file   
   any response to Canada's motion to strike because he was not   
   "cited as one of the Respondents" to the Crown's motion and   
   because there "is no specific argument in that motion to   
   dismiss the claim for delay by mis-identification [sic] of   
   signature originality."   
      
   This is incorrect. In accordance with this Court's Dec 11   
   2017 Order, Canada served the plaintiff with a motion to   
   strike his claim via overnight courier on Jan 4 2018. On Jan   
   5, he telephoned me and confirmed that he had received the   
   documents. These events were recorded in the Affidavit of   
   Service of Diane Dyke sworn Jan 5 which I have attached.   
      
   JCT: His aging mother was going through medical trauma which   
   kept him kind of distracted. Plus their serving him with   
   paper and no email didn't make it easy for him to get it to   
   me.   
      
   WW: Contrary to the plaintiff's assertions, the Crown's   
   motion to strike his claim was specific to the plaintiff's   
   claim and was different from Canada's motion to strike the   
   claim of Lead Plaintiff, Mr. Jeffrey Allan Harris in T-1379-   
   17.   
      
   In his email, the plaintiff asks that his "case simply be   
   added to the list of plaintiffs over delay and let Mr.   
   Harris handle my delay distinction should the Defendant   
   raise it." However, in its Order dated Dec 11 2017,   
   this Court ordered that the above-mentioned claim was to   
   proceed separately from that of the lead plaintiff in T-   
   1379-17. The Crown has served and filed its motion to Strike   
   and the Plaintiff has not opposed the Crown's motion. His   
   claim should therefor be dismissed.   
      
   In the alternative, the plaintiff's claim could be added to   
   those stayed pending the outcome of the lead file T-1379-17.   
      
   Yours truly,   
   Wendy Wright. Counsel   
   National Litigation Sector   
      
   JCT: With nothing at all to gain, you have to wonder why she   
   even bothered trying to kill his when she's got 4 more like   
   it to handle. And keep in mind that the judge knows about   
   those several other Plaintiff's who had their originals   
   rejected as not original. Donald Cote twice (!) just   
   recently. So Art wrote back:   
      
   Art Jackes   
   To: Martin, Colinne   
   Apr. 6 at 7:15 p.m.   
      
   This letter is in response to defendant's letter dated April   
   5th, 2018.   
      
   I would point out that other plaintiffs have laid the same   
   complaint about having their originals rejected as non-   
   original!   
      
   Since the defendant must still deal with the same issue   
   raised by those particular plaintiffs, why shouldn't mine be   
   grouped with theirs? (.....especially since I filed first!)   
      
   JCT: And we'll leave it at that. I doubt Judge Brown is   
   going to nix Art's Claim because I didn't know they'd filed   
   a separate motion for him. After all, Still, in the   
   alternative, Crown sees nothing wrong with him just being   
   kept alive in the pack with the others.   
      
   Which is what I expect Judge Brown will decide. He's batting   
   1000 so far, doubt he's going to hit foul on this one.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)