From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Scott McCluskey was the highest grammer on Schedule B   
   seeking to strike the 150-gram carry cap to return to the   
   MMAR's 30-day cap and for a 10-day carry cap pending the   
   action. Judge Brown first granted the 10-day carry to the   
   Lead Plaintiff Allan J. Harris and asked the Crown why he   
   shouldn't extend that remedy to the others on Schedule B.   
   The Crown appealed and got a stay pending appeal which Scott   
   considers a loss and caused him much distress.   
      
   So he blamed me for losing the 10-day he was about to get   
   and complained to the judge. The judge asked Jeff and the   
   Crown to comment, Jeff said "After you" and here is their   
   response:   
      
   CR: Department of Justice   
   Ontario Regional Office Tel: 647-256-0577   
   120 Adelaide Street West Fax: 416-973-0809   
      
   July 29, 2019   
      
   VIA FACSIMILE   
      
   Federal Court - Toronto   
   Registry of the Federal Courts   
   180 Queen Street West Suite 200   
   Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6   
      
   Dear Registrar:   
      
   Re: MCCLUSKEY, Scott Stanley (Turmel Kit)   
        Court File No.: T-1900-18   
      
   Further to the direction of the Court dated July 17, 2019,   
   please accept the following as the submissions of the   
   defendant. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada   
   ("Canada"). We ask that you kindly place this letter before   
   the case-management judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice Brown.   
      
   By Order dated November 1,2018 (the "November 1 Order"), the   
   Court appointed the plaintiff in Allan J. Harris v HMQ,   
   Court File No. T-l 765-18 (the "Harris claim") as the   
   "representative or lead Plaintiff among the plaintiffs with   
   claims challenging the constitutionality of the 150-gram   
   public possession and shipping limits. The Court also stayed   
   the other claims pending determination of the Harris claim.   
      
   In his letter dated July 15, 2019, the plaintiff in Scott   
   Stanley McCluskey v HMQ, Court File No.T-l900-18, now   
   requests the following:   
   1. Removal of Mr. Turmel's ability to run my case   
   2. Removal of his apprentice Allan Jeff Harris, for failure   
   to do his duties as a representative/lead plaintiff   
   3. A restart of these cases if necessary, as the   
   interference caused by Mr. Turmel, has caused us to lose the   
   interim 10 day carry supply case to a Stay Order gained   
   by the Crown.   
      
   With respect to the plaintiffs first two requests, Canada   
   understands the November 1 Order to mean that the Harris   
   claim will proceed first, and that the claims of the other   
   plaintiffs will proceed upon completion of the Harris claim.   
      
   JCT: Jeff's been trying to explain he has no duties to Scott   
   for quite a while, only to himself, but it should be better   
   coming from the Crown. Lead means "going first," not "doing   
   it for you."   
      
   CR: Canada does not understand the Order to mean that Mr.   
   Harris or John Turmel is a legal representative for the   
   other plaintiffs, nor would this be permitted under the   
   Federal Courts Rules. Rule 119 provides that an individual   
   may only act in person or be represented by a solicitor, and   
   Rule 121 requires that persons seeking to act in a   
   representative capacity be represented by a solicitor unless   
   the Court in special circumstances orders otherwise.   
      
   JCT: As I've explained to Scott, the judge's decision itself   
   says that Jeff can't represent the others. But better it   
   come from the Crown.   
      
   CR: As Messrs. Turmel and Harris do not represent the   
   plaintiff, Canada submits that the plaintiff's requests are   
   misplaced.   
      
   JCT: "Misplaced?" Scott can remove me from his case just by   
   not filing anything I offer but filing his own stuff. No way   
   Jeff can stop being first. "Misplaced?"   
      
   CR: The plaintiff's third request is unclear. He appears to   
   suggest that he has an interim exemption from the public   
   possession and shipping limits, but that this has been   
   stayed as a result of Mr. Turmel's conduct. However, the   
   plaintiff has never sought such an exemption, nor has the   
   Court granted one.   
      
   JCT: But Judge Brown asked why he shouldn't grant the same   
   10-day supply cap to the others, Scott included. So he is   
   actually suggesting that he's about to get an interim   
   exemption which has been stayed. Not as a result of Turmel's   
   conduct but of the Defendant's appeal.   
      
   CR: While the Court did grant such an exemption to Mr.   
   Harris, Canada has appealed that decision and the Federal   
   Court of Appeal has stayed the interim exemption pending   
   appeal.   
      
   JCT: Notice how they never mentioned that he was included in   
   Schedule B for the same remedy he considers "lost" which did   
   dash his hope, but only pending the Crown's not-rosy appeal.   
      
   CR: If the plaintiff is requesting that the stay of his   
   claim be lifted, Canada submits that this request should be   
   refused.   
      
   JCT: No one's talking about lifting the stay of the   
   Statement of Claim pending Harris going first and if he is   
   requesting that, of course, it should be refused.   
      
   CR: Since the November 1 Order, Canada has filed a   
   motion to strike the Harris claim. While this motion was   
   largely dismissed, it is currently the subject of an appeal.   
   As noted in Canada's letter of May 24, 2019, the Federal   
   Court of Appeal decision in this matter has potentially   
   significant implications for the Harris claim, which may in   
   turn inform this Court's analysis of the other claims. In   
   these circumstances, Canada requests that the Harris claim   
   remain as the lead claim, and that the other claims proceed   
   only upon completion of the Harris claim.   
      
   JCT: Yes, we agree it should continue as it was going before   
   distraught Scott got involved.   
      
   CR: Canada submits that this would result in the just, most   
   expeditious and least expensive determination of these   
   proceedings on their merits. The plaintiff also appears to   
   allege in his letter that Mr. Turmel is generally engaged in   
   the unauthorized practice of law. Canada takes no position   
   on these allegations, but understands that the plaintiff has   
   contacted the Law Society of Ontario regarding his concerns,   
   and that the LSO has opened an inquiry file.   
      
   JCT: My fourth Law Society inquisition. As if I never erred   
   in my first 35 years of guerrilla lawyering and suddenly   
   started money for my legal advice instead of just giving it   
   for fun.   
      
   CR: It is Canada's view that the LSO (or the Law Society of   
   British Columbia, where the plaintiff resides), is the   
   proper forum for dealing with these allegations.   
      
   JCT: Agreed. It's their job to police illegal lawyering.   
      
   CR: Yours truly, Wendy Wright   
   National Litigation Sector   
   c.c. Scott Stanley McCluskey, plaintiff   
        Allan J. Harris, plaintiff   
      
   JCT: So Jeff gets to send in any added points. No real rush   
   since nothing is at bat in a proceeding that has been stayed   
   below.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)