From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: On July 12, Prothonotary Mandy Aylen, our Case   
   Management Judge, dismissed our action to call off lockdown   
   restrictions because they fudged the mortality rate threat!   
   She failed to see...   
      
                                            File No: T-130-21   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   Between:   
                           John Turmel   
                                                     Appellant   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               AND   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
                                                     Defendant   
                     NOTICE OF APPEAL MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT John Turmel moves to appeal the July 12   
   2021 Order of Federal Court Prothonotary and Case Management   
   Judge Mandy Aylen striking the Statement of Claim.   
      
   THE GROUNDS of the appeal are that the learned judge failed   
   to see deadly lockdowns are unjustified for:   
   A) a Covid mortality rate hyped a hundredfold turning a 1/3   
   mini-Flu into a 34-times-worse-than-Flu plague;   
   B) a Covid asymptomatic transmission rate hyped infinitely   
   turning zero documented symptomless spread into 50%.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging the time for service, filing,   
   or hearing of the motion, or amending any defect of the   
   motion as to form or content, or for any Order deemed just.   
      
   Dated at Brantford Ontario on July 21 2021.   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. The July 12 2021 Order of Prothonotary and Case   
   Management Judge Mandy Aylen stated:   
       [1] The Court is case managing a group of 74 actions in   
       which the self-represented Plaintiffs seek various forms   
       of relief related to the federal Government's COVID-19   
       mitigation measures.   
       [2] In his Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff alleges (A)   
       that:   
            116. All of the world's elected politicians fell   
            for the Apple-Orange Comparison and only Guinness   
            Record never-elected-100-times politician John   
            Turmel did not.   
            117. The Prime Minister and his Government have   
            been duped by the most elementary trick in   
            statistics, comparing apples to oranges to   
            exaggerate the threat by a hundredfold,(B); duped   
            by an unproven theory of asymptomatic   
            transmission,(C); of a virus with only 166   
            Canadians not in Long-Term-Care dying up to Nov.   
            15, 2020; a Population Fatality Rate for Canadians   
            not in Long-Term-Care of a mere 0.00044%, 1 in   
            230,000.(D)   
      
      
   2. (A) In a motion to strike, no cause of action must be   
   shown despite the facts in the claim being presumed to be   
   provably true. Instead of saying "the Plaintiff alleges   
   that.." it should have said "it is presumed true that".   
   (B) The 3.4% Covid CFR Apple was compared to the 0.1% Flu   
   IFR Orange, not its 10% CFR Apple. Comparing the Covid Apple   
   3.4 to a tenth and not to ten makes it look a hundredfold   
   bigger. 1/3 as bad as the Flu was hyped to be 34 times   
   worse. A hundredfold!   
   (C) Duped by a disproven CDC theory of half of transmissions   
   by asymptomatics necessitating masked social distancing. WHO   
   reported no symptomless spread documented, reported again it   
   was "very rare" and Wuhan found zero out of 10 million   
   tested disproving the CDC's theory of 50% spread by   
   asymptomatics.   
   (D) 166 Canadians dying not in long-term-care were still   
   probably the sickest. Almost no healthy Canadians died.   
      
   3. The Court continued:   
       [3] The Statement of Claim makes extensive references to   
       statistics comparing COVID-19 mortality rates to those   
       of the flu, news reports and statements and reports made   
       by the World Health Organization, Dr. Fauci, and the   
       American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   
       [CDC].   
       [4] The Plaintiff alleges that there has been a "cover   
       up" because actual deaths from COVID19 do not match the   
       exaggerated expected death rate, such that the   
       Government has "fudged the statistical Cases and   
       Fatalities data". The pleading refers to alleged changes   
       by the CDC to its death certificate guidelines, setting   
       PCR test kits with sensitivity cycles set too high in   
       order to generate massive false positives and an effort   
       by mainstream media to discredit HydroxyChloroQuine HCQ   
       as a treatment alternative (as opposed to a "Bill Gates-   
       funded Oxford Recovery HCQ test protocol that "was   
       really murder on his patients"), which suppression of   
       hopeful alternatives suggests "deliberate malevolence:.   
      
       [11] Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff seeks the   
       following relief:   
            A. A declaration pursuant to section 52(1) of the   
            Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the   
            Government of Canada's COVID-mitigation   
            restrictions are arbitrary and constitutionally   
            unreasonable restrictions on the Charter section 2   
            right to freedom of peaceful assembly and   
            association, section 6 right to mobility, section 7   
            right to life, liberty and security, section 8   
            right to be secure against unreasonable search or   
            seizure, section 9 right to not be arbitrarily   
            detained or imprisoned, section 12 right to not be   
            subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or   
            punishment not in accordance with the principles of   
            fundamental justice and not saved by section 1 of   
            the Charter;   
            B. An order pursuant to section 24(1) of the   
            Charter for an injunction prohibiting any federal   
            COVID-mitigation restrictions that are not imposed   
            on the deadlier Flu;   
            C. A permanent constitutional exemption from any   
            COVID-mitigation restrictions;   
            D. An order for an appropriate and just remedy for   
            damages incurred by such unconstitutional   
            restrictions on rights for pain and losses,   
            including the:   
            i. Stress and concern suffered;   
            ii. Family and friend connections damaged;   
            iii. Inconvenience and time lost in line-ups; and   
            iv. Higher expected prices for COVID Mitigation   
            Measures;...   
       [12] The Defendants have brought the present motion   
       seeking an order striking the claim without leave to   
       amend...   
       [13] The Defendant seeks to strike the Statement of   
       Claim on the basis that:   
            (i) this Court lacks jurisdiction in relation to   
            any provincial or municipal COVID-19 measures;   
            (ii) to the extent that the claim targets federal   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)