From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Judge Zinn dismisses appeal against Aylen claim strike   
      
   JCT: This is a couple ot days in. I read the last paragraph   
   and was so dismayed, though possible Zelenko pressure, I put   
   it down and did other stuff until now:   
      
      
                                      Date: 20211018   
                                      Docket: T-130-21   
                                      Citation: 2021 FC 1095   
   Ottawa, Ontario, October 18, 2021   
   PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                               JOHN C. TURMEL   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Defendant   
      
                        ORDER AND REASONS   
      
   [1] The Plaintiff appeals the July 12, 2021 Order of   
   Prothonotary Aylen, as she then was, striking his Statement   
   of Claim in its entirety, without leave to amend and with   
   costs.   
      
   JCT: I think the "without leave to amend" for such a life-   
   and-death nation-breaking segregation seems not  only nasty   
   but not sound. Regardless, they're not going to let it be   
   tried whether the WHO compared Apple to Orange to trick us   
   with a hundredfold hyped Covid Mortality Rate.   
      
   Zinn J: I. The Claim   
      
   [2] Prothonotary Aylen describes the Plaintiff's claim as   
   seeking "various forms of relief related to the federal   
   Government's COVID-19 mitigation measures."   
      
   JCT: We asked to be exempt from mitigation restrictions but   
   the Crown changed it to the less precise "measures" in its   
   submissions and the judge has adopted the less precise   
   framing of the remedy sought. I didn't ask to be exempt from   
   measures but from restrictions.   
      
   Zinn J: The grounds asserted in the 130 paragraph Statement   
   of Claim allegedly warranting the relief sought, are the   
   following actions of the World Health Organization [WHO] and   
   Canada:   
      
        1) WHO's comparing the Covid 3.4% "Case Fatality Rate"   
   CFR "Apple" not to Flu's known 10% CFR "Apple" but to the   
   Flu's 100-times smaller 0.1% "Infection Fatality Rate" IFR   
   "Orange" to exaggerate the threat of Covid death by a   
   hundredfold;   
        2) WHO's finding no documented asymptomatic   
   transmission and Wuhan's finding zero transmission by 300   
   asymptomatics in 10 million tested shows the "Theory of   
   Asymptomatic Transmission" behind masked social distanced   
   lockdowns does not agree with experiment.   
        3) Canada's 10,947 Covid deaths by Nov 15 2020 had   
   10,781 in Long-Term-Care and only 166 not in Long-Term-Care   
   died; only 1 in 230,000 Canadians.   
        4) restrictions on civil liberties to mitigate a virus   
   with lethality hyped a hundredfold are an arbitrary, grossly   
   disproportional, conscience-shocking violation of Charter   
   rights resulting in an unwarranted toll in human degradation   
   and impoverishment.   
      
   [3] The Plaintiff seeks the following relief:   
      
        A) a Declaration pursuant to S.52(1) of the Canadian   
   Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter") that the   
   Government of Canada's ("Canada") Covid-mitigation   
   restrictions are arbitrary and constitutionally unreasonable   
   restrictions on the Charter S.2 right to freedom of peaceful   
   assembly and association, S.6 right to mobility, S.7 right   
   to life, liberty and security, S.8 right to be secure   
   against unreasonable search or seizure, S.9 right to not to   
   be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, S.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 s.1 of the Charter.   
      
        B) an Order pursuant to S.24(1) of the Charter for an   
   Injunction prohibiting any federal Covid-mitigation   
   restrictions that are not imposed on the deadlier Flu; or   
        C) a permanent constitutional exemption from any   
   Covid mitigation restrictions;   
        D) an Order for unspecified damages for pain and losses   
   incurred by such unconstitutional restrictions on rights;   
        E) any Order abridging any time for service or amending   
   any error or omission as to form or content which the   
   Honourable Court may allow.   
      
   [4] Prothonotary Aylen found several deficiencies in the   
   claim. At paragraph 25, she found with respect to the   
   alleged Charter violations that "the Statement of Claim   
   fails to plead the material facts to satisfy the essential   
   elements of any of the specific Charter infringements   
   alleged and does not allege or particularize how the   
   Plaintiff's Charter rights have been infringement [sic]." At   
   paragraph 28, she found that "the Statement of Claim   
   contains bare assertions of Charter breaches without   
   sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable   
   to each of the Charter rights alleged to have been   
   violated."   
      
   JCT: This is constant: insufficient facts! But not yet   
   suggesting what would satisfy her. Luckily, you can read the   
   Statement of Claim for yourself and judge whether there were   
   sufficient facts to ask for exemption from restrictions   
   based on being tricked by the Hundredfold Hyped Mortality   
   Rate!   
      
   Zinn J: [5] She therefore concluded that the Statement of   
   Claim discloses no cause of action.   
      
   JCT: If she made sure to see nothing, what else could she   
   conclude?   
      
   Zinn J: [6] She also found at paragraph 29 that the   
   Statement of Claim should be struck as an abuse of process   
   "as it pleads bare assertions without the necessary material   
   facts on which to base those assertions, such that the   
   Defendant cannot know how to answer it, is replete with   
   lengthy diatribes and makes scandalous and extreme   
   allegations that are unsubstantiated, such as alleged cover-   
   ups and conspiracies."   
      
   JCT: I've mentioned in every pleading that it would be nice   
   to cite one "bare assertion without fundamental facts" and   
   they can't. And here again, it's a bare assertion that WHO   
   Apple Oranged us into unconstitutional deprivation of rights   
   and freedoms.   
      
   Zinn J: [7] The Plaintiff submitted, in part, that these   
   deficiencies, and the lack of evidence that he personally   
   had been subjected to certain of the COVID-19 mitigation   
   measures would be found in the more than 70 additional   
   claims apparently based on a kit he made available online.   
   The Prothonotary held that the Plaintiff could not rely on   
   facts applicable to other plaintiffs to support his own   
   alleged Charter breaches.   
      
   JCT: I wish he'd mention how she stayed the others so they   
   could not be there with me in the hearing when the Crown   
   can't say none of you suffered such and such deprivation   
   even when Turmel did not.   
      
   Zinn J: II. Test on Appeal and Issue   
      
   [8] In Hospira Healthcare Corp v Kennedy Institute of   
   Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, the Court of Appeal held that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)