From: johnsadumbass@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, 21 July 2023 at 06:57:21 UTC-7, John KingofthePaupers Turmel wrote:   
   > TURMEL: Judge Laskin sticks with premature Vexatious Litigant Order   
   >   
   > JCT: The Crown had indicated that the motion to declare me a   
   > Vexatious Litigant in the Court of Appeal after the panel   
   > had ruled on the appeal and then filed the motion "in   
   > writing" so one judge could do it all again. When he did, I   
   > filed a motion for him to reconsider and withdraw his ruling   
   > so the appeal panel could do it.   
   >   
   > TO: Judicial Administrator   
   > FROM: Laskin J.A.   
   > DATE: July 20, 2023   
   > RE: A-265-22 John Turmel v. His Majesty the King   
   >   
   > DIRECTION   
   > J: The appellant's motion record received June 22, 2023, the   
   > respondent's responding motion record received July 4, 2023,   
   > and the appellant's written representations in reply on   
   > motion for reconsideration received July 10, 2023 shall be   
   > accepted for filing.   
   > "JBL"   
   >   
   > JCT: I had 4 days to respond from Tuesday July 4. So my due   
   > date was Saturday July 8. Since that was on a weekend, it   
   > gets pushed off to Monday July 10. So I was on time and did   
   > not need a Direction accepting it for filing.   
   >   
   > Date: 20230720   
   > Docket: A-265-22   
   > Ottawa, Ontario, July 20, 2023   
   >   
   > Present: LASKIN J.A.   
   >   
   > BETWEEN:   
   > JOHN TURMEL   
   > Appellant   
   > and   
   > HIS MAJESTY THE KING   
   > Respondent   
   > ORDER   
   >   
   > J: WHEREAS on November 9, 2022, the Federal Court made an   
   > order under section 40 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C.   
   > 1985, c. F-7, declaring the appellant to be a vexatious   
   > litigant and, among other things, prohibiting the appellant   
   > from instituting new proceedings in the Federal Court,   
   > continuing any proceedings previously instituted by him in   
   > the Federal Court, except with leave of the Court, and   
   > preparing, distributing or disseminating court documents,   
   > including template documents, for use by others in Federal   
   > Court proceedings;   
   >   
   > WHEREAS on December 9, 2022, the appellant commenced an   
   > appeal to this Court from the Federal Court's order;   
   >   
   > WHEREAS on June 15, 2023, on motion in writing by the   
   > respondent in this appeal, to which the appellant filed no   
   > response, this Court made a vexatious litigant order against   
   > the appellant applicable to proceedings in this Court;   
   >   
   > WHEREAS the appellant has brought a motion for   
   > reconsideration of this Court's June 15, 2023 order on the   
   > grounds that   
   > (1) the respondent had stated his intention to seek an order   
   > that the motion that resulted in the June 15, 2023 order be   
   > heard orally together with the appeal,   
   > (2) the respondent's written representations in seeking the   
   > June 15, 2023 order were virtually identical to the   
   > respondent's memorandum in the appeal, and   
   >   
   > JCT: Which means this judge made a decision with arguments   
   > of only one side without the benefit of mine.   
   >   
   > (3) that the motion that resulted in the June 15, 2023 order   
   > should have been heard after this appeal is heard, not   
   > before;   
   >   
   > JCT: Doesn't it make sense? If the Panel overturn the first   
   > decision, what do they do about his newest one?   
   >   
   > WHEREAS by rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules, a motion   
   > for reconsideration of an order may be brought only on the   
   > grounds that   
   > (1) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it,   
   > (2) the court has in making the order overlooked or omitted   
   > a matter that should have been dealt with, or   
   >   
   > JCT: Overlooked my arguments...   
   >   
   > J: (3) the order contains clerical mistakes or omissions;   
   >   
   > JCT: Omitted my arguments which the Panel would have heard   
   > before granting the Vexatious Litigant Order in the Court of   
   > Appeal.   
   >   
   > J: AND WHEREAS the appellant has failed to make out any of   
   > these grounds,   
   >   
   > JCT: I thought I had made them...   
   >   
   > J: this Court was fully aware of the pending appeal when it   
   > granted the June 15, 2023 order, and the appellant himself   
   > bears responsibility for his decision not to file responding   
   > representations on the motion that resulted in the June 15,   
   > 2023 order;   
   >   
   > JCT: I bear responsibility for the Crown reneging on their   
   > intent to have the motion heard by the panel hearing the   
   > appeal so they could make Judge Laskin do all the work again   
   > but without my input. The Crown reneged and I'm responsible   
   > for not filing the same arguments again.   
   >   
   > J: THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion is dismissed with costs   
   > fixed at $1,000 all-inclusive. J.B. Laskin J.A.   
   >   
   > JCT: So Judge Laskin just couldn't figure out why it should   
   > have been dealt with the panel hearing both sides when he   
   > was asked to do it hearing only one side. And he knew about   
   > the appeal so he knew my memorandum arguments were available   
   > but chose to rule without them.   
   >   
   > If the panel rules against me, won't it be neat appealing to   
   > the Supreme Court also appealing this premature decision.   
   >   
   > But yes, I had thought that the written motion would be   
   > handled by the panel and should have filed my memorandum   
   > arguments here too so he could have left it to the panel.   
   look at all the stuff you "thought" you did...from the SMRTST Man (D'Oh)???    
   incredible John.  you claim to be so smart yet fail to plug any holes the   
   Crown points out so you lose.  your claims of "I don't have to" seem to ALWAYS   
   lose so why not learn.   
   being shown the same problem over and over yet you do nothing about it over   
   and over-ILLOGICAL   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)