From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Asking Covid Case Management Judge for no stays   
      
   JCT: So the Covid 19 Apple Orange Resistance challenge has   
   gotten bogged down on the Crown's attempt to cut all   
   plaintiffs out of the proceeedings until mine is over. I   
   consented as long as they gave them a copy of the   
   documentation but when they said they would not and the   
   judge said she couldn't force them, we decided to not have a   
   lead plaintiff like was done before.   
      
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
   Mar 18 2021   
      
   Court Administrator   
      
        re: T-130-21 TURMEL: John Turmel   
      
   Dear Sir/Madam:   
      
   Would you please put this email response to the Mar 11 2021   
   Direction before Case Management Judge Aylen.   
      
   In 2014, half of Canada's 36,000 cannabis patients had their   
   permits invalidated. A group of over 300 filed suit to get   
   their permits back proffering their previous Health Canada   
   Authorization as proof of medical need. Justice Phelan was   
   appointed Case Management Judge and on April 29 2014, he   
   presided over an "unprecedented, remarkable, extraordinary"   
   teleconferenced hearing in 10 provinces in 12 courthouses.   
   No Lead Plaintiff was named and all 315 names are on the   
   Style of Cause;   
   https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/218251/1/document.do   
       BETWEEN:   
       "In the matter of numerous filings seeking a declaration   
       pursuant to s 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights   
       and Freedoms"   
      
       MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO,   
       ORDER AND REASONS:   
       PHELAN J.   
       DATED: JANUARY 11, 2017   
       WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: John Turmel   
       FOR THE PLAINTIFF (T-488-14)   
       Jon Bricker FOR THE DEFENDANT   
      
       [44] For all these reasons, the motion is granted. The   
       Court will issue an Order that:   
       a) all of the claims/application listed are struck   
       without leave to amend; and   
       b) no costs being requested, no costs will be granted.   
       (It is doubtful under the circumstances if the Court   
       would have granted costs.)   
      
   No plaintiff but me submitted written representations but   
   the decision applied to all when they did not submit a reply   
   without any need for a Lead Plaintiff.   
      
   That style of cause is now listed as:   
       "subsection 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and   
       Freedoms" and the listing the 316 files.   
      
   Since our current actions are also under "subsection 52(1)   
   of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," that group   
   title cannot be used again. Should a new title be sought, I   
   would note that our Facebook Page is titled: APPLE ORANGE   
   RESISTANCE. So a preferred style of cause might be:   
       BETWEEN:   
       "In the matter of numerous APPLE ORANGE RESISTANCE   
       filings seeking a declaration pursuant to s 52(1) of the   
       Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"   
      
   In 2016, another group of cannabis patients filed templates   
   for damages due to long delays in processing medpot grow   
   applications. Justice Brown was appointed Case Management   
   Judge. He named one plaintiff Lead and I was derelict in not   
   realizing that the other plaintiffs would not be kept   
   apprised while the Lead Plaintiff's action was pursued.   
      
   Canada has noted as a precedent that no plaintiffs in that   
   second group were kept apprised. I submitted we don't want   
   that happening again.   
      
   I had consented to Canada's request to file a motion to   
   strike on one lead plaintiff with the pre-requisite that the   
   other plaintiffs would be emailed the documentation of the   
   Lead case. The Crown has refused to email a copy   
   TO the others and this Court had found it cannot impose such   
   a burden on an unwilling Defendant.   
      
   If Judge Phelan's management could keep all plaintiffs on   
   the style of cause and thus fully informed, then that is the   
   right way to proceed here now that Canada has stated its   
   unwillingness to send a copy of the documentation to other   
   plaintiffs.   
   John Turmel   
      
   JCT: Only 10 of us were originally polled on whether we   
   wanted a Lead Plaintiff to make the case and let it be   
   persuasive in the others'.   
      
   I don't know anyone who has chosen to be stayed so it looks   
   like the Crown blew it in not aggreeing to email a copy to   
   the others and now will have to prepare 60 individual   
   motions for each of us. Har har har har har har.   
      
   Sure, merging a letter with an email list doesn't take a   
   rocket scientist so it's not much work to serve everyone.   
   And so, what's the purpose of trying to duck so little work?   
   in ducking a CC: with a list of emails?   
      
   The only reason I can fathom for the request to save them   
   almost no time is simply to make sure that most plaintiff   
   remain uninformed. Can you think of another gain for   
   the Crown?   
      
   And it does waste time, and with people dying from lockdown,   
   the longer they can stall, the more blood on their hands. If   
   that's their true goal. What else?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)