From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Mozajko argues for MedPot appeal hearing with Harris   
      
   JCT: In yesterday's March 12 2019 letter, the Crown doesn't   
   want Mozajko's appeal heard with the Harris appeal even   
   though Judge Brown first dismissed Harris and then ruled the   
   very same for Igor. Igor answered today:   
      
   Igor Mozajko   
   Respondent (Cross-Appellant)   
      
   Wednesday March 13 2019   
      
   VIA FACSIMILE   
      
   Court Administrator:   
   Federal Court of Appeal   
   180 Queen St. W. #200   
   Toronto, ON, M5V 3L6   
   Fax: 416-973-2154   
      
   RE: Mozajko v. HMTQ No: A-339-18   
      
   1. Appellant Canada wrote in its original March 11 letter:   
       In addition to the present appeal, the Court is   
       currently seized of Her Majesty The Queen v. Igor   
       Mozajko, Court File No. A-339-18 (the "Mozajko appeal")   
       which raises similar issues. Canada proposes that these   
       appeals be heard separately as the present appeal is   
       farther advanced and the parties have requested hearings   
       in different cities (Vancouver and Toronto,   
       respectively) owing to the locations of the self-   
       represented plaintiffs. However, Canada wishes to call   
       the Court's attention to the similar issues in the event   
       the Court wishes to consider this in scheduling or   
       assigning a panel to hear these matters.   
      
   2. I raised not only similar issues but identical issues   
   which is why my March 11 2019 letter asked that my appeal be   
   expedited to be heard with that of Harris.   
      
   3. Judge Brown dismissed the Crown motion to strike Harris's   
   A claim but granted the motion to strike the B claim. In a   
   later decision, Judge Brown cited Harris in dismissing the   
   Crown motion strike my A claim and granting the motion to   
   strike my B claim. So Judge Brown ruled the same for me as   
   he did for Harris and the 250 other plaintiffs. There is no   
   advantage to having two separate appeal hearings of Judge   
   Brown's same ruling for both situations.   
      
   3. In the Appellant's March 12 2019 letter:   
       By letter dated March 11 2019, the respondent (cross-   
       appellant) requests that this appeal be heard together   
       with Allan J. Harris v. HMTQ File No A-258-18 (the   
       "Harris appeal"). However, the respondent has not filed   
       a memorandum of fact and law as respondent and cross-   
       appellant, and the time for him to do so has now passed.   
       As the required memoranda have not yet been filed,   
       Canada requests that the appeal not be scheduled at this   
       time, and that the Court proceed to schedule only the   
       Harris appeal.   
      
   4. The Harris's memoranda with my issues are prepared, mine   
   are not. But mine would be the same so I would adopt the   
   Harris submissions. Why adjudicate the same decision of   
   Judge Brown by two different panels of judges?   
      
   5. The Crown misinterprets my proposal:   
       The respondent notes in his letter that he is prepared   
       to be bound by the Court's eventual decision in the   
       Harris appeal.   
      
   6. I said I am prepared to be bound by the Harris decision   
   "with the opportunity to be heard!" That is not a minor   
   omission.   
      
   7. Canada proposes:   
       In those circumstances, Canada would consent to an   
       adjournment of the present appeal pending the outcome of   
       the the Harris appeal.   
      
   8. Adjourning my appeal does not give me the opportunity to   
   be heard by the Harris judges who would bind my fate. Why   
   would I agree to be bound without the opportunity to be   
   heard?   
      
   ________________   
   Igor Mozajko   
   CC: Jon Bricker Fax: 416-973-0809   
      
   JCT: Neat how they missed him agreeing to be bound with the   
   opportunity to speak.   
      
   The Court now also has the requests from Kent Truman and Art   
   Jackes too all against the same judge in the same case.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)