From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Costs Request for Warning Covid False Alarm   
      
   JCT: Judge Horne gave us deadlines on submissions as to   
   costs. Here is the Crown's submission:   
      
   Department of Justice Canada   
   Ontario Regional Office   
   National Litigation Sector   
      
   VIA EMAIL Our File Number: LEX-500081718   
   July 18, 2023   
      
   Federal Court   
   180 Queen Street West, Suite 200   
   Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6   
      
   CR: Dear Registry:   
      
        Re: Raymond Turmel v His Majesty the King, T-138-21 and   
   other files listed in Annex A   
      
   I am writing on behalf of the defendant in the above-noted   
   matters, Her Majesty the King ("Canada"), in response to the   
   Court's Orders of June 19, 2023 and July 18, 2023. I ask   
   that you kindly place this letter before the case-management   
   judge, Associate Justice Horne.   
      
   Canada requests costs of $500 in each of these matters, with   
   the exception of T-333-21, in which Canada seeks $250.   
      
   JCT: Remember, in the case of the second group against the   
   air travel restriction, they asked for $250 for having done   
   nothing in the stayed cases. Judge Horne gave them $500 to   
   punish them. Now they're asking for $500 for having done   
   nothing in the stayed cases.   
      
   CR: The Plaintiffs' claims are based on a "kit" Statement of   
   Claim accessed from the website of John Turmel. The Federal   
   Courts have consistently dismissed these types of claims on   
   the grounds that facts pleaded concerning each plaintiff's   
   personal circumstances were insufficient to disclose a   
   reasonable cause of caution.1   
   1 In the matter of numerous filings, 2017 FC 30, paras 37-   
   38;   
      
   JCT: Where no costs were awarded to almost 400 plaintiffs.   
      
   CR: Order of Zinn J., dated in August 17, 2018, in Hathaway   
   v HMQ (T-983-16); Order of Aalto, Proth., dated October 11,   
   2016 in several files including MacDonald v HMQ (T-1113-16);   
   Harris v HMQ, 2019 FCA 232, paras 6, 19-20, 23; Order of   
   Brown J, dated April 27, 2020, in several files including   
   McCluskey v HMQ (T-2126-18);   
      
   JCT: Here too, no costs against another 400 stayed   
   plaintiffs facing $150 if they continued to wait until I'm   
   through with my appeals. Only Steve Vetricek whose   
   application to grow wasn't even opened for 9 months stayed   
   around waiting for the Supreme Court decision on   
   reconsideration.   
      
   CR: Harris v HMQ, 2020 FCA 124, paras 26, 30-38, 41-42,   
   leave refused [2021] SCCA No 228. 400(3)(k)(i)), the need   
   for deterrence, and the absence of a demonstrated good faith   
   basis to file each of these statements of claim."   
      
   JCT: It looks like absence if you kept your eyes closed.   
      
   CR: Despite these decisions, the plaintiffs filed the   
   present claims which suffered from the same fundamental   
   defects.   
      
   JCT: Notice he never mentioned any defects.   
      
   CR: A cost consequence is reasonable in this circumstance   
   given that the plaintiffs embarked on litigation with   
   Statements of Claim they found online that they either knew,   
   or should have known, were deficient.   
      
   JCT: How were any to know? Remember, this is based on Judge   
   Aylen saying facts were not facts. Couldn't prove WHO   
   compared CFR to IFR; couldn't prove WHO said they could not   
   document asymptomatic transmission (even though they   
   published it, we can't prove it); can't prove CTV took down   
   that only 166 people not in long-term-care died; cant' prove   
   the PCR tests were a million times too sensitive, can't   
   prove on Mar 20 2020, death certificate guidelines were   
   changed to deaths "with Covid" to "from Covid," can't prove   
   France lost 0.8% of 4,000 patients with 1 gram of HCQ while   
   Bill Gates Oxford Recovery test lost over 25% with 9.6.   
   grams. Of course it's all provable, but the judge said it   
   wasn't and that's what other judges are basing their   
   decisions on, those facts aren't facts that can be proven.   
      
   CR: Canada notes that the "kit claims" on which the   
   Plaintiff relies appears to have been removed from the   
   internet. Nonetheless, an award of costs in these   
   circumstances will still serve as a deterrent to the filing   
   of "kit claims" generally in any future matters. Kit claims   
   do not advance any legitimate legal interest.   
      
   JCT: They let everyone claim for their personal damages   
   since everyone had different damages. Some claimed lockdowns   
   lost wages, lost jobs, lost family, caused pain.   
      
   CR: A lump sum award of $500 for costs is appropriate. As   
   this honourable Case Management Judge noted in his Orders of   
   July 27, 2022 and September 6, 2022, an award of $500 would   
   be "sufficient to recognize the improper, vexatious and   
   unnecessary nature of these actions   
      
   JCT: No one thought seeking relief against the pain and   
   damages they suffered was improper, vexatious, and   
   unnecessary. Some day, future historians will judge the   
   judges who caused the mass murder of millions. With the   
   emergence of vax adverse effects, won't that be fun?   
      
   CR: It would also be consistent with those two orders, which   
   dealt with substantially similar kit claims.   
      
   JCT: No, there was no way you could have known about the   
   later group orders since previous groups of stayed cases   
   were not punished with costs. But how dare you try to defy   
   the Trudeau narrative that Covid was way deadlier than flu   
   and that the vax was "safe and effective." Come on, admit   
   it, doesn't it feel good now to find out you tried to warn   
   the world that Covid was a mini-flu? Especially now that we   
   learn the vax was never safe and never effective!   
      
   CR: In T-333-21, a lump sum of $250 is appropriate. The   
   Plaintiff in this matter, Mr. Dan Hingley, has advised   
   Canada that he attempted to discontinue his action but was   
   apparently unsuccessful due to his lack of familiarity with   
   the Court system. Although Canada was unaware of this   
   attempt (and it does not appear to be in the Court's   
   recorded entries), Canada trusts that Mr. Hingley made a   
   good faith effort to exit the litigation he embarked upon.   
   Given that Mr. Hingley appears to have recognized, albeit   
   not immediately, the deficiency of his Statement of Claim,   
   Canada submits a reduced cost consequence is appropriate in   
   his circumstance. Sincerely,   
   James Schneider   
      
   JCT: As if he recognized the deficiency that the facts   
   weren't provable facts. Bet he still doesn't know why they   
   weren't provable since they are. But that's Canadian   
   Justice in Lalaland.   
      
   If you want to send a letter about costs are too much to the   
   judge, I've already explained how to use the efiling system.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)