From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: On Jun 27 Wendy Wright updated Judge Brown that Jeff    
   Harris' permit was still being processed the day after it    
   had been issued on Jun 26 and was no longer being processed!    
   Looks like OMA Director Michael McGuire didn't tell her    
   before she misled the Court.   
      
   But McGuire snail-mailed it out 3 days later on Jun 29 after    
   Judge Brown issued his judgment that afternoon.     
      
   But Jeff beat the mail-man by filing a motion by email for    
   immediate processing before the permit could be delivered to    
   mooten the issue.    
      
   Here's Wendy's Response to his new motion which sounds like    
   McGuire hasn't yet told her the permit she's still defending    
   not issuing has already been issued! Har har har:    
      
   Wendy Wright    
   CR: July 4 2018    
   VIA FAX    
      
   The Honourable Justice Brown    
   Ottawa    
      
   Re: HARRIS, Allan v. HMTQ (Turmel Kit)    
      
   Please place this letter before His Honour Mr. Justice    
   Brown.    
      
   I received a new notice of motion in the above-mentioned    
   proceeding. Among other things, the notice of motion asks    
   this Court to issue an order of mandamus that "Health Canada    
   immediately verify whether the last box on the Plaintiff    
   form has been signed" and complete the processing of the    
   Plaintiff's application forthwith."    
      
   JCT: It's the same remedy sought in his original similar    
   request that 2 months was too long to process his    
   application (which they didn't tell him was incomplete)    
   whereas his new request grounds are that 2 weeks to check    
   the last box was too long. Who says you can't seek a similar    
   remedy on different grounds? It even said so right in the    
   motion:    
       15. It is not that processing the application is taking    
       too long but that verifying that the last box was signed    
       is taking too long.   
      
   CR: It is Canada's position that this notice of motion is    
   improper, as it is an attempt to re-litigate the issues    
   decided in the Plaintiff's earlier Motion for interim    
   relief, which was dismissed by this Court on June 29 2018.    
      
   JCT: She may not yet know that the only reason it was    
   dismissed and not mooted is because she misled the court    
   that it was still being processed when it was no longer    
   being processed.    
      
   CR: In the event that the Plaintiff wishes to dispute this    
   Court's decision to dismiss his earlier motion, the proper    
   course would be to bring a Notice of Appeal, rather than to    
   collaterally attack the Court's decision by way of a second    
   motion, which essentially seeks the same relief as the    
   first.    
      
   JCT: Appealing the dismissal of the motion seeking remedy on    
   an incompleted application is not the smart way to go. And    
   he's not collaterally attacking the judgment when he agrees    
   there was nothing else the judge could do. Without a    
   complete application, the judge couldn't be expected to do    
   anything, could he?    
      
   But right now only Jeff and McGuire know it was issued on    
   Jun 26. Time to inform the Court and Wendy in the the Reply    
   letter:    
      
   Thursday July 5 2018    
   VIA EMAIL    
      
   The Honourable Justice Brown    
   Ottawa    
      
   Re: HARRIS, Allan v. HMTQ (Turmel Kit) T-881-18    
      
   Please place this letter before His Honour Mr. Justice Brown    
   and let it be Plaintiff's Reply if yesterday's letter dated    
   July 4 2018 be deemed the Defendant's Response.     
      
   The Crown has written:    
       It is Canada's position that this notice of motion is    
       improper, as it is an attempt to re-litigate the issues    
       decided in the Plaintiff's earlier Motion for interim    
       relief, which was dismissed by this Court on June 29    
       2018.    
      
   The Applicant wishes to inform the court that he did receive    
   his permit later on the afternoon of July 3 after filing the    
   motion in the morning. It had been issued a week earlier on    
   Tuesday Jun 26th and mailed out Friday night after the    
   court's June 29th judgment.     
      
   The only reason the motion was dismissed and not mooted was    
   because the Crown's Jun 27 Reply misled the Court into    
   believing that the permit was still "currently being    
   processed" when it was no longer being processed at all but    
   had already been already issued; and that information    
   withheld from the court for 3 days.    
      
       In the event that the Plaintiff wishes to dispute this    
       Court's decision to dismiss his earlier motion, the    
       proper course would be to bring a Notice of Appeal,    
       rather than to collaterally attack the Court's decision    
       by way of a second motion, which essentially seeks the    
       same relief as the first.    
      
   Appealing the dismissal of the motion seeking remedy on an    
   incompleted application would seem to be a waste of time    
   while Applicant was seeking a similar remedy on different    
   grounds, not that the processing of the application took    
   undue time but that the verifying that the last box was    
   signed took undue time; and getting it to Canada Post took    
   undue time.    
      
   Now that I have informed the Court that the motion had been    
   mooted all along, I would also point out that if the    
   Defendant had told the Court that the permit had been    
   issued, no judgment would have been pronounced to be    
   collaterally attacked.    
      
   With the issue of both motions now mooted by delivery of the    
   remedy, the only remaining issue is whether Applicant should    
   be awarded punitive costs for the Defendant having misled    
   the Court into writing a redundant judgment.    
      
   Dated at Burnaby on July 5 2018    
   Jeff Harris    
      
   JCT: So, Judge Brown is finding out this morning how McGuire    
   tricked him into writing a judgment on a mooted issue.    
   Again. Wouldn't it be nice if Judge Brown asked why he    
   wasn't told? Wendy can only dump on McGuire.    
      
   The ass-hole who thinks he's above the law deserves it.    
      
      
      
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)