From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: McCluskey McMotions on Turmel illegal lawyering..   
      
   JCT: So, Scott McCluskey has filed 2 motions in recent days.   
   He filed his first Notice of Motion on Aug 29 and the Crown   
   wrote on Sep 3 that there was nothing to answer to.   
      
   Then he wrote another motion on Sep 4.   
      
   Court File Number T-1900-18   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN   
                        Scott S. McCluskey   
                               and   
                               HMTQ   
      
                         NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   SM: TAKE NOTICE THAT Scott McCluskey will make a motion to   
   the court in writing under rule 369 of the Federal Court   
   Rules.   
      
   THE MOTION IS FOR Complete Dismissal of all cases   
   approximately 325 litigants before Justice Henry S. Brown   
   and the Courts, with Lead/Representative plaintiff Allan   
   Jeffrey Harris, using Turmel kits. OR in the alternative, a   
   dismissal of Harris's case based on the allegations below.   
      
   JCT: Notice how he includes "Representative" in his   
   description of Harris even though Judge Brown has already   
   ruled Harris is not a representative. But he must think that   
   if he repeats it enough, the judge will forget what he said.   
      
   SM: THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE that Allan Jeffrey Harris   
   as lead/representative plaintiff has,   
      
   1. Mislead Justice and the Courts, by filing actions and   
   motion etc. he claims are of his own authoring and to the   
   benefit of those 325 litigants stuck below.   
      
   JCT: Nowhere did Jeff ever claim that he authored his own   
   Turmel kit.   
      
   SM: 2. The conduct of Mr. Harris towards myself and other   
   litigants like Nadine E. Bews and others stuck below has   
   surpassed civil defamation, into criminal defamation and   
   quite possibly criminal harassment. All because I dared ask   
   Harris, why he missed the filing deadline, and if he could   
   explain to all litigants why the Crown also gained a Stay   
   order on the interim relief Harris sought.   
      
   JCT: Gee, all he had to do was follow my reports on every   
   step of the Crown gaining a stay pending their appeal. If he   
   doesn't know happened, he didn't bother reading what   
   happened.   
      
   SM:3. The evidence in the affidavits proves all written   
   responses were authored for Harris by John C. Turmel, who is   
   not a plaintiff in any of the cases before Hon. Justice   
   Henry S. Brown.   
      
   JCT: So what?   
      
   SM: 4. Further, Mr. Turmel is neither a plaintiff nor a   
   lawyer or listed as a MacKenzie Friend. In fact, Mr. Turmel   
   is under investigation by the Ontario Law Society, he brags   
   for the 4th time.   
      
   JCT: Right, I do my guerrilla lawyering right.   
      
   SM: 5. The approximately 325 litigants in cases all grouped   
   together in essence a Class, for better or worse, are   
   tainted by the unlawful interference by John C. Turmel,   
   literally running the case from the sidelines giving Harris,   
   inaccurate, misleading and plain bad lawyering, tainting   
   Harris's case.   
      
   JCT: Bad lawyering resulted in the Crown losing their motion   
   to strike the challenges against long delays, against the   
   150-gram cap for the old 30-day carry and losing their   
   opposition to the Court granting Jeff his 10-day carry as   
   interim relief which has been stayed pending the Crown   
   appeal. Us winning, Crown losing so far.   
      
   SM: 6. Harris, case is tainted, and by default what affects   
   his case affects all below for better or worse.   
      
   7. In Harris's response, Harris admits Mr. Turmel does   
   accept fees for his legal advice, but only for expenses   
   Harris claims.   
      
   JCT: So if I only accept having my expenses covered, it's   
   not for my legal advice, is it?   
      
   SM: If that isn't proof that Turmel's interference then I   
   don't know what is.   
      
   JCT: I'd have interfered whether anyone covered my expenses   
   or not. And I only ever had expenses covered for defending   
   people charged with criminal offences, no one has covered   
   any expenses for my "on the sidelines" in Federal Court!   
   It's just my time sitting at home.   
      
   SM: Turmel is a non-licensed person practising law without a   
   Law degree, or passing the bar.   
      
   JCT: How true.   
      
   SM: 8. In true self-representation as is the case with all   
   325 litigants, it means they represent themselves, they   
   don't have a John Turmel forcing his unlawful lawyering upon   
   them.   
      
   JCT: No one has forced my lawyering upon them.   
      
   SM: 9. The Turmel kits themselves were made by John C.   
   Turmel, who is not a lawyer. Thus Turmel is not qualified to   
   draft legal documents. Example,Law Deport.ca offers   
   templates for legal actions. But the big difference is the   
   Law Depot kits are made by real lawyers. Thus all litigants   
   that used these kits and were encouraged over and over to   
   join up by Harris as the affidavits prove, where using kits,   
   that are not even lawyer prepared legal documents.   
      
   JCT: Yes, documents not prepared by a lawyer have been   
   winning.   
      
   SM: 10. As suggested Mr. Turmel often gives the wrong filing   
   dates to his proxy agents like Harris,   
      
   JCT: Often? He keeps repeating that but Jeff and I have been   
   pretty good at meeting our deadlines.   
      
   SM: who do not represent Turmel, but the other way around   
   Turmel plays lawyer while Harris files and says that Turmel   
   tells him to. By giving Harris the wrong filing dates,   
      
   JCT: I wish I knew what he's talking about when he says I   
   gave Harris the wrong filing dates.   
      
   SM: which Mike Spottiswood Turmel's former Pauper Party   
   President told me.   
      
   JCT: Since that's not true, I doubt my political ally would   
   tell him I make people miss their filing dates! Har har har   
   har har har. That really has to be the most stupid of his   
   charges.   
      
   SM: Turmel does this frequently.   
      
   JCT: Judge Brown knows that no one's missing their   
   deadlines. Think of how many replies to the 80 motions made   
   that I authored for those particular plaintiffs. EG: Vince   
   Reimer just last week.   
      
   SM: All not to win, but to play the game endlessly.   
      
   JCT: Not to win? I'm the only person whose motions always   
   asked to have prohibition repealed by striking marijuana   
   from the banned list. 4,000 charges dropped do belie that.   
      
   SM: Proof of Turmel's losing streak is easily found, he has   
   his own Wikipedia page, where he holds the Guinness Book   
   World Record foremost elections defeats, 97 at last count   
   and he is running again, this year.   
      
   JCT: I have headlines: "Winner at the tables, loser at the   
   polls." So my losing at the polls has nothing to do with my   
   winning at the tables or my winning in the courts. After   
   all, I filed the appeal that got 4,000 charges dropped in   
   2003! Not quite losing.   
      
   SM: 11. With regards to legal cases, I recently challenged   
   Turmel to cite a single case out of the 700 kits used that   
   he or one of his kit users won. He even bet me $50to make it   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)