From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: In their motion to strike Jeff Harris's Amended   
   Statement of Claim to include Cause of Action B: too short   
   permits and restitution, the Crown substituted an out-dated   
   Statement of Claim from another plaintiff without the B   
   Cause and for a phony reason.   
      
   Wendy said she had included Jason Allman's Claim because it   
   was a renewal which showed permits could be obtained in 6-8   
   weeks. It really said 6-8 weeks after expiry! Jeff's Reply   
   pointed out it served no such purpose and was outdated to   
   boot and wanted it excluded from the Motion Record.   
      
   Federal Court Justice Brown's Direction on May 16 2018:   
      
   RE: Allan J. Harris v. HMTQ File: T-1379-17   
      
   "The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's request for   
   directions dated May 7 2018 together with the response of   
   the Defendant dated May 11 2018 and the Plaintiff's Reply   
   dated May 14 2018.   
   The Defendant is directed to make a supplementary filing   
   which shall include a copy of the Plaintiff's Amended   
   Statement of Claim dated March 5 2018, and a copy of a   
   representative Statement of Claim that includes Remedy B   
   regarding renewals.   
   The Defendant is granted leave to make such amendments to   
   its memorandum as she sees fit as a consequence."   
   Brown, Case Management Judge   
      
   JCT: Wow. Crown loses everything. She wanted so desperately   
   to keep Cause B out of the record and now she has to include   
   twice.   
      
   Once when she enters the Harris Statement of Claim Amended   
   for Cause B and then again for a representative claim   
   showing permits can be obtained in 6-8 weeks and include   
   "too short permit" as well.   
      
   Wonder if she's going to find another "doable in 6-8 weeks"   
   claim anywhere when there wasn't one to start?   
      
   So whatever reason they were trying to keep the Restitution   
   to 100,000 victims out of the record, it's now in. Plus she   
   now has her chance to use her Reply to explain what she   
   didn't discuss in her motion, the Big Restitution to the   
   100K.   
      
   Maybe that boo-boo is big enough to want to cover up? But it   
   would have been so simple to just mail out updated   
   certificates with amended expiry dates! What Judge Brown   
   will now end up ordering them to do they should have done on   
   their own to avoid the publicity.   
      
   Besides, the S.56 Class Exemptions do not remove the   
   requirement that the permit start when the doctor signs.   
   McGuire is lying about them, Wright is lawying about them,   
   (just repeating what her liar tells her).   
      
   Fun stuff which Wendy has to explain by Monday! How the S.56   
   orders change the requirement in S.8.2b for date doctor   
   signs to the old MMAR S.33a for date of issuance.   
   Love imagining myself in their shoes and feeling the sweat   
   with no way out "when the all-time winner has got them by the   
   balls" (Jethro Tull).   
      
   So she has to include Cause B in her Motion Record and has   
   to include her arguments on it too! Har har har har har har.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)