From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Jackes/Mozajko motions filed for MedPot appeals with Harris   
      
   JCT: On March 18 2019, letters were sent asking the Court   
   that the appeals of Art Jackes, and Igor Mozajko, and Kent   
   Truman be heard with the Harris appeal.   
      
   On April 1, Federal Court of Appeal Justice Stratas said not   
   without a proper motion. I had wondered why Kent Truman's   
   letter requesting to be joined with Jeff wasn't mentioned.   
      
   So I prepared 3 motions for them:   
      
   ART JACKES "NOT ORIGINAL SIGNATURES"   
      
   Court File No.: A-294-18   
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                          ARTHUR JACKES   
                                                     Appellant   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Respondent   
      
                         NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant will make a motion to the   
   court on the basis of written representations for an order   
   that the hearing of my appeal be expedited to that of Allan   
   J. Harris A-258-18.   
      
   THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION are that   
   1) Harris represented me as lead plaintiff for over 300   
   plaintiffs below and his appeal is further advanced than   
   mine and will raise the same issues as mine.   
   2) a separate appeal would waste resources.   
   Dated at Oakville on Monday April 8 2019.   
   Arthur Jackes   
      
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
      
   1. In the Requisition for hearing - Appeal in Allan J.   
   Harris v. HMQ A-258-18, the Defendant Canada wrote:   
       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.   
       Yours truly, Jon Bricker   
      
   2. I was also one of over 300 plaintiffs below for whom   
   Allan J. Harris is Lead Plaintiff who will be arguing the   
   issue raised in my appeal. My claim is for damages due to   
   delay by rejection on a false premises of original   
   signatures. Harris' appeal speaks for others claiming   
   damages from delay due to improper rejection as "not   
   original" signatures and I would like my appeal seeking to   
   get me back with them to be heard with them.   
      
   3. The Harris appeal is only slightly more advanced than   
   mine though with all our Memoranda having been filed, I am   
   ready to file my Requisition for Hearing - Appeal too. With   
   an opportunity to be heard, I am prepared to accept the   
   decision handed down on the issues that apply to Harris's   
   plaintiffs and would ask that my appeal be heard at the same   
   time as the Harris appeal.   
      
   4. Assigning a second panel in Toronto to hear arguments he   
   will be raising in Vancouver would be a waste of time and   
   resources.   
      
   5. Merely adjourning my appeal until after that of Harris   
   does not give me the opportunity to be heard by the Harris   
   judges who would bind my fate.   
      
   6. Appellant seeks an order his appeal be expedited to be   
   electronically heard with that of Allan J. Harris A-258-18.   
   Dated at Oakville on April 8 2019.   
   Arthur Jackes   
      
   IGOR MOZAJKO "ISSUES A&B SAME AS HARRIS   
      
   Court File No.: A-339-18   
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                           IGOR MOZAJKO   
                                                     Respondent   
                                                Cross-Appellant   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                      Appellant   
                                     Respondent in Cross-Appeal   
      
                         NOTICE OF MOTION   
                      (Pursuant to Rule 369)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant will make a motion to the   
   court on the basis of written representations for an order   
   that the hearing of my appeal be expedited to be heard with   
   that of Allan J. Harris A-258-18.   
      
   THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION are that   
   1) Harris already represents me as lead plaintiff for over   
   300 plaintiffs below and his appeal is further advanced than   
   mine and raises the same issues as mine.   
   2) a separate appeal would waste resources.   
   Dated at Wasaga Beach on Monday April 8 2019.   
   Igor Mozajko   
      
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. In the Requisition for hearing - Appeal in Allan J.   
   Harris v. HMQ A-258-18, the Defendant Canada wrote:   
       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.   
       Yours truly, Jon Bricker   
      
   2. I am also one of over 300 plaintiffs below for whom Allan   
   J. Harris is Lead Plaintiff who will be arguing issues   
   raised in my appeal. I raised not only similar issues but   
   identical issues about Claim A: "too long processing time"   
   and Claim B: "too short period."   
      
   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 when the Harris   
   ruling affects me too.   
      
   4. Harris and I both seek to overturn dismissals of our   
   claims for restitution of the shorted period of time in our   
   medical registrations. Canada seeks to overturn the   
   dismissal of both their motions to strike our delay damages   
   claims. The Harris appeal speaks for over 300 other   
   plaintiffs including me. My own appeal adds only repetition.   
      
   5. The Harris appeal is more advanced than mine so I wish to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)