From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Canada's Reply to Strike "Fudged Mortality Rates" Action   
      
   JCT: I filed an action to end lockdown restrictions because   
   they fudged the mortality rates. Saying "fudged mortality   
   rates" seems against their standards and my comment was   
   taken down.   
      
   The Crown filed a motion that complaining about them fudging   
   the statistics is frivolous, at least to a bottom of the   
   math barrel lawyer! Our case is all math about:   
   - fudging the mortality rates   
   - fudging the asymptomatic transmission rates   
   - fudging the Canadian death rates with CTV deletion   
   - fudging Death Rate with CDC Death Certificates Guidelines   
   - fudging Case Rate with over-sensitive PCR tests   
   - fudging HCQ efficacy with Bill Gates Oxford overdoses   
      
   But it's all frivolous to a Crown lawyer! Har har har.   
   I filed a Response pointing out all the names our   
   allegations were called but not specifically cited any.   
      
   This is the Crown Reply. It now goes to a judge. Sad part,   
   the Court has stalled word of the fudging getting out to the   
   suckers taking the unnecessary vaccine. People who took it   
   believing the mortality rates to get out of lockdown will   
   have this Crown and this judge to blame for the stall in   
   lockdown that persuaded them to take the jab.   
      
   Court File No.: T-130-21   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   B E T W E E N :   
                           JOHN TURMEL   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                                            (Responding Party)   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Defendant   
                                                (Moving Party)   
      
        WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS IN REPLY OF THE DEFENDANT   
           (Motion to Strike or for Security For Costs)   
      
   CR: 1. The plaintiff continues to reiterate allegations   
   against third parties in his submissions (i.e. Youtube, the   
   World Health Organization, and Bill Gates).1 However, he   
   still has not set out facts capable of establishing that any   
   of his Charter rights have been infringed by the federal   
   Crown.   
      
   JCT: Crown may play obtuse and keep saying there aren't   
   enough facts proving that the danger was exaggerated a   
   hundredfold.   
      
   CR: 2. The plaintiff's suggests that "it is premature to   
   bemoan not having the facts before the facts are due," and   
   that the necessary facts will be provided in his eventual   
   affidavit evidence if the claim proceeds.2 However, this   
   Court has held that ". the facts must be plead in the   
   initial claim. The question of whether those facts can be   
   proven is a separate issue, but they must be pled   
   nonetheless."3   
      
   JCT: Too bad we don't know his definition of "fact." Is it   
   not a fact that WHO exaggerated the threat by comparing   
   disparate mortality rates without saying so?   
      
   CR: 3. The plaintiff also admits that "he may not exemplify   
   all the woes cited, but I'd bet some of the other 76   
   plaintiffs whose actions are stayed do," and argues that   
   "the only reason I cannot rely on their facts is because   
   Defendant had the others stayed."4 However, the Federal   
   Court of Appeal has recently held (in the context of a claim   
   that was similarly based on a "kit" developed by Mr.   
   Turmel), that "facts that are applicable to another   
   individual" cannot be used to support a claim that a   
   plaintiff's Charter rights have been infringed."5   
      
   JCT: Which is why the others should not have been stayed so   
   they could exemplify all the woes cited! The Crown kept the   
   others out and now claim the win because I'm alone.   
      
   CR: 4. The plaintiff also now alleges he recently received   
   an $880 ticket for attending an anti-lockdown protest, which   
   he alleges engages his Charter s. 2(c) rights.6 The   
   plaintiff did not plead the facts surrounding this ticket in   
   his claim, and does not suggest that the ticket was issued   
   by the federal Crown or pursuant to any federal legislation   
   or measure.   
      
   JCT: I didn't plead it in my Jan 19 action because I didn't   
   get it until mid-March. I only pleaded that my mobility   
   rights are threatened. But I can cite it in my affidavit if   
   I'm given the chance to file one. Remember, they want it   
   thrown out before having to file the Statement of Defence   
   and our affidavits. Make sure I can't file it.   
      
   CR: 5. The plaintiff alleges that he cannot afford to   
   provide security for costs.7 However, he still has not   
   provided any affidavit evidence of his alleged   
   impecuniosity. This Court, when ordering security for costs   
   against a plaintiff seeking to file a claim based on the   
   plaintiff's litigation "kits," reiterated that "the onus of   
   proof to establish impecuniosity is high, and must be   
   discharged with robust particularity."8 Where a plaintiff   
   "has put nothing before the Court by way of affidavit to   
   demonstrate impecuniosity or inability to pay," for example,   
   an affidavit stating that his own assets are insufficient to   
   provide security or he is unable to raise the money by   
   borrowing from friends, family, or others, a claim of   
   impecuniosity should be rejected.9   
      
   JCT: There's a difference between rejecting my defence of   
   impecuniosity and granting their request for costs. I don't   
   need to prove impecuniosity unless she orders I provide   
   security for costs, in which case, someone else can take   
   over Lead Plaintiff and they get an extra few months of   
   suckers taking the jab before the "FUDGED MORTALITY RATES"   
   make it into the court and public awareness.   
      
   CR: 6. To the extent that the claim is challenging the   
   federal pre-flight testing and 14-day quarantine   
   requirements applicable to international travelers arriving   
   in Canada, it is also noteworthy that this Court has very   
   recently dismissed a Charter challenge to the further   
   requirement, which was introduced following issuance of the   
   present claim, that international travelers stay at a   
   government authorized accommodation or designated quarantine   
   facility for a period of time upon arrival in Canada (the   
   "hotel requirement).10   
      
   7. In its decision of June 18, the Court (Crampton CJ) held   
   that these requirements did not infringe any of Charter   
   sections 6, 7, 8, 9, or 12.11 While specifically concerned   
   with the hotel requirement, Canada submits that the Court's   
   findings are equally applicable to the pre-flight testing   
   and quarantine requirements referenced in the plaintiff's   
   claim, and that the plaintiff has pleaded no facts that   
   would warrant a departure from these conclusions in this   
   case.   
      
   JCT: This was the big loser where they had no answer to   
   "We're doing it for the common good." Fudging the statistics   
   to impose lockdown was not for the common good. So who cares   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)