From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Motion to censure Her Majesty for sleay tactis with rules   
      
                                           File No: T-488-14   
                         FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                        JOHN C. TURMEL   
                                                   Applicant   
                              and   
      
                     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                  Respondent   
                         NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT at 11am on Tuesday April 29 2014 will be   
   heard Applicant's urgent short notice motion at the Federal   
   Court at 180 Queen St. W. Toronto.   
      
   THE MOTION SEEKS AN ORDER:   
      
   A) censuring the Defendant for failing to file a Motion   
   requesting their March 7 2014 stay of my proceeding;   
      
   B) instructing the Attorney General and Registry staff that   
   a Direction by a Judge is appealable to three Judges even if   
   a Direction by a Prothonotary to one Judge is not;   
      
   C) instructing the Attorney General and Registry staff that   
   an expired stay does not have to lifted;   
      
   D) ordering the Attorney General to re-style, re-serve and   
   re-file the Records of Motion to Stay and to Dismiss Interim   
   Relief in compliance with the Rules after the fact;   
      
   E) censuring the Attorney General for filing documents in my   
   file I was never served;   
      
   F) ordering my Motion in Response to be entered into my file   
   in response to no Crown motion that was entered only in T-   
   485-14;   
      
   G) censuring the Attorney General for failing to serve their   
   Response Motion on me while other Plaintiffs were served   
   theirs;   
      
   H) ordering any just censure for an uppity Defendant in   
   Default.   
      
   THE GROUNDS ARE THAT the Defendant has continually and   
   flagrantly not complied with the Rules of the Court.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging any time for service or amending   
   any error or omission which this Honourable Court may allow.   
      
   Dated at Brantford on Monday April 28 2014.   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
                      APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT   
      
   I, John C. Turmel, residing at 50 Brant Ave Brantford   
   Ontario make oath as follows:   
      
   A) NO MOTION FOR REQUEST TO STAY T-517-14 FILE   
      
   1. On Feb. 27 2014, I filed a Motion returnable at General   
   Sittings on March 11 2014 for an Order pursuant to S.24(1)   
   of the Charter for an interim constitutional exemption for   
   the Plaintiff's personal medical use pending trial of the   
   Action. Others did too.   
      
   2. On Mar 7 2014 the Crown faxed the Federal Court   
   Administrator requesting the Motions for interim relief by   
   Ray Turmel and Anthony Van Edig are "likely" to be   
   inappropriately lengthy for General Sittings and should not   
   be scheduled for hearing until the motion in Allard v. HMTQ   
   which dealt with similar issues is adjudicated. Because the   
   Crown sent a copy by snail-mail courier to Plaintiffs which   
   arrived 3 days later rather than by instantaneous fax, Ray   
   Turmel and Anthony Van Edig got to make no submissions on   
   the Crown's improperly-served request to de-schedule their   
   motions.   
      
   3. The same day, the Court issued an ex parte Direction   
   ordering the stay of the first 25 Statements of Claim filed   
   for such similar relief and ordered the next 75 Actions   
   filed since then automatically stayed ruling they were   
   likely to be inappropriately lengthy for General Sittings   
   and were the "very same issues" as raised in Allard.   
      
   4. At the appeal of the stay, the Crown cited its Mar 7 2014   
   "Letter" faxed to the Court Administrator requesting the   
   motion not be scheduled until the Allard motion was   
   adjudicated. The Crown further pointed out that as their   
   back-channel letter was not a formal step in the   
   proceedings, there was no requirement that it be served in   
   accordance with the Rules. However a copy was sent to the   
   Plaintiff by snail-mail.   
      
   5. Then the Crown noted how serendipitous it was that the   
   Court should have issued a Direction granting their request   
   to stay all motions, not just Ray Turmel's, because the 20   
   issues raised herein are "the very same issues" as the 4   
   issues raised in Allard.   
      
   6. The Crown further noted that it had not requested that   
   the Turmel Kit actions be stayed, that "the stay appears to   
   have issued by the Federal Court of its own volition" in a   
   serendipitous but unrelated response to their Non-Motion for   
   such Direction.   
      
   7. So my Motion got stayed by a back-channel request in my   
   brother's file and he wasn't informed of the request until   
   it was too late to argue anything about it.   
      
   B) DIRECTION CANNOT BE APPEALED   
      
   8. When I tried to file my Notice of Appeal in Toronto   
   against the Mar 7 Direction of Crampton C.J. staying my   
   action, the Registry refused stating Directions could not be   
   appealed.   
      
   9. Having examined the rules, I found a Direction may only   
   be given within an Order and calling it a Direction does not   
   preclude it being an appealable Order. I amended the Notice   
   of Appeal to so indicate and 6 other Notices of Appeal were   
   then accepted for filing the next day in Ottawa and Toronto.   
   I then had to ask for an extension of time to file the   
   appeal I'd been wrongly denied.   
      
   10. The Crown's Written Representations to the Court of   
   Appeal says:   
   Para. 2: No appeal lies from a Direction.   
   Para 36: No appeal from Direction   
      
   11. To support that argument, the Crown cited:   
   1)Aga Khan v. Tajdin [2012];   
   2) Peak Innovations v. Simpson Strong [2011]   
      
   1) Aga Khan says the Direction of a Prothonotary is not   
   appealable to a Judge, not that the Direction of a Judge is   
   not appealable to 3 Judges.   
      
   2) Peak Innovations again says the Direction of a   
   Prothonotary is not appealable to a Judge, not that the   
   Direction of a Judge is not appealable to 3 Judges.   
      
   12. Finally, the Crown repeated the error a third time:   
   Para 61: Applicant cannot appeal a direction of the Federal   
   Court.   
      
   13. The six Appeals were dismissed by three Judges as mooted   
   which indicates that the Court knows that a Direction from a   
   judge is within an Order that may be appealed though the   
   Attorney General and Registry staff as yet do not.   
      
   C) EXPIRED STAY NEEDS LIFTING   
   -----------------------------   
      
   14. On March 25 2014, after the expiry of the Mar 7 2014   
   stay until the Mar 21 2014 decision in Allard, I wrote the   
   Registry advising that I would be filing a return of my   
   motion for interim relief.   
      
   15. On March 28 2014, the Registry advised me that my matter   
   was still stayed and no action could be taken until further   
   instructions.   
      
   16. At Para.28 of the Crown's Written Representations to the   
   Court of Appeal, they say:   
   "As of this writing, there have been no further directions   
   with respect to the March 7 direction. The March 7 direction   
   therefore remains in place."   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)