TURMEL: Crown seeks union of 10 Covid restriction plaintiffs  

https://youtu.be/NnWLjNQoWQk is my video on my 
http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19scjct.pdf Statement of Claim 
filed in Federal Court of Canada asking to prohibit 
Covid Mitigation Restrictions or exempt me from them on 
grounds WHO comparing the Covid 3.4% CFR not the Flu<s 
10% CFR but to its 0.1% IFR hyped the threat a 
hundredfold. ZERO symptomless spread of 10 million 
tested in Wuhan. The math can be used to challenge the 
hoax everywhere. Join me for a $2 filing fee 
http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19ins.pdf Crown must respond by 
Feb 18 

Resistance: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19list list of 10 
self-plaintiffs who filed the Claim so far. 

The Crown just wrote to the Court trying to avoid 
having to serve everyone documentation by asking to 
only serve only me. 

Ministry of Justice 

VIA EMAIL 
Feb 11 2021 

Federal Court 
Attention Registrar

Dear Sir or Madam:

T-130-21 Turmel John 
T-138-21 Turmel Raymond 
T-171-21 Ethier Michel Denis 
T-208-21 Inniss Biafia 
T-212-21 Inniss Nathanael 
T-219-21 Brunet Raymond 
T-220-21 Robinson-Ritchie William Ernest Wayne 
T-221-21 Robinson Wayne 
T-230-21 Leadley Trevor 
T-242-21 Braun Jason F. 

CR: On behalf of the Defendant, HMTQ, I am writing to 
request that these matters continue as specially 
managed proceedings.

The statements of claim in this matter are virtually 
identical and appear to be based on templates available 
for download from the website 
http://johnturmel.com/kits The self-represented 
plaintiffs allege that Canada's COVID-19 mitigation 
measures unjustifiably infringe on various Charter 
rights and seek declarations, injunctive relief and 
permanent personal constitutional exemptions from any 
COVID-19 mitigation measures.

Canada will seek to strike these proceedings on the 
grounds that they fail to disclose a reasonable cause 
of action, 

JCT: Having your rights violated by a lockdown based on 
an exaggerated threat isn't a reasonable cause of 
action? What are we complaining about? This is the 
standard move when they can't file a Statement of 
Defence.

CR: and will also seek orders that the plaintiffs with 
unpaid costs awards provide security for costs prior to 
proceeding.

JCT: That's aimed at my brother Ray who owes a past 
unpaid court cost judgment that once prevented another 
of his actions from going forward. But.. 

CR: In light of the common issues, Canada will be 
requesting leave to seek this relief by way of a single 
motion that would be applicable to all of the 
proceedings 

JCT: So, a single motion to me and not to everyone 
else?

CR: and anticipates that the parties may also require 
other procedural directions as these claims unfold. 

JCT: Well, yes, I don't mind them not sending out a 
paper copy to everyone but they should at least send an 
email copy to everyone. 

CR: Canada submits that case-management is appropriate 
in these circumstances, would ensure consistent 
treatment and the just, expeditious and least expensive 
determination of the claims on their merits. 

JCT: Yes, there's no reason to be mailing the motion to 
all the plaintiffs demanding responses from all the 
plaintiffs. I could do a template but as long as they 
get a copy of the documentation by email, there should 
be no problem with case-management and just one file. 

CR: Case-management would also be consistent with the 
Court's approach to past claims downloaded from the 
same website as the current claims.

JCT: Yes, case-management was used for the two previous  
groups of almost 400 self-plaintiffs but there was no 
provision for keeping plaintiffs up to date. We had to 
ask the Crown to give us plaintiff emails and would 
then do the sending. Not this time. If they want to 
save on documentation, the least they should do is 
handle the emailling of the documentation.

So when they put something I file into their dossier, 
they email a copy out to everyone. When they put 
something they file into their dossier, they email a 
copy out to everyone. 

Easily done and a minimum requirement if they want to 
be relieved of the snail-mail expenses. 

CR: Sincerely, 
Benjamin Wong 
Counsel 

JCT: So Jon Bricker and Benjamin Wong are the same 
lawyers who dealt with use last times, minus Wendy. So 
they have to file their motion to strike before Feb 18 
when their Statement of Defence is due. Since they have 
no defence, their only move is to get it thrown out as 
frivolous.

So, on asking Ray to put up security for costs, what 
costs since they're asking to be dispensed with dealing 
with him until they've dealt with me?