TURMEL: First Covid Federal Court Zoom Hearing Report EVENT JCT: High Noon on Thursday March 11 was the zoom audio hearing before our Case Management Judge ("CMJ"), Her Worship Prothonotary Aylen. Benjamin Wong for Her Majesty. REASONS The hearing was for the First Ten about whether they accepted me as Lead Plaintiff and to have their actions stayed pending resolution of mine and then be bound by it. I had objected to their being bound in case they had later updated amended claims better than mine. LEAD PLAINTIFF? Problems arose quickly so the question of me being Lead Plaintiff was raised. Some things we wanted we got and some we didn't. JURISDICTION Dealing with my concerns about the jurisdiction of a prothonotary raised to the Chief Justice to deal with some of our issues, she said that if there was an issue she could not deal with, she'd pass it along to the right level. INJUNCTIONS I pointed out prothonotaries do not have power to issue injunctions which we are asking for to prohibit Covid restrictions. Is it different that the Crown isn't asking for an injunction but to strike our asking. Yes. She can strike an action for injunction even if she can't grant it. But that can then be appealed to a judge before regular appeals, an extra step to the top. DEFAULT Then I wondered why the Crown has delayed filing their motion. I pointed out they were already in default of filing their Statement of Defence. CMJ Aylen pointed out she could grant an extension of time after the strike motion. I pointed out that if it was going to take too long, I could move for Default Judgment! She pointed out once it's in case management, it takes leave! Okay. And a denial can be appealed to a judge. STAYS Then whether the other motions should be stayed pending the resolution of mine. I noted that those stayed should not be bound by my decision in case future plaintiffs had filed upgraded and amended claims. CMJ Aylen agreed it would be persuasive but they would not be bound by my decision. Good. BEING KEPT APPRISED Then we got into my request that if the Crown was given dispensation from serving the other plaintiffs and only had to serve paperwork on me, could they at least email a copy of the documentation to the others. CMJ Aylen asked if the Crown would consent to email everyone and Wong said he did not want to. He pointed out that in the last group action for damages due to permit processing delays, there was no provision made to keep the others informed while the Lead Plaintiff's case moved on. I responded I didn't want that happening again. PHELAN J. HAD NO LEAD But back in 2014, the first group action to get their exemptions back after a judge had cut off half based on the date of their permit, no one was stayed and the Crown's motion to dismiss served on everyone and heard by teleconference at the April 29 2014 Big Event in 10 provinces in 12 cities with a registry. We're now at 6 provinces in 7 cities. It's kind of sad no one from Eastern Canada have filed despite them being the majority last time. Eventually, all actions were dismissed with no costs. Only those who appealed later got hit with Court of Appeal costs ($500) and most could not and did not pay. After all, after having to shut down their grows and start buying on the white and black markets again, what patients had any extra money. And the Crown didn't want to chase a bunch of broken patients. CONVENIENCE FOR CONVENIENCE; INCONVENIENCE FOR INCONVENIENCE If the Crown didn't want to be inconvenienced by serving their motion on everyone, the least they should do is email a copy to those who volunteer to have their actions stayed to save the Crown the time and expense. But the CMJ Aylen said no, she could not impose such an unwanted burden on the Crown as unofficially keeping them informed while she considered absolving them of the unwanted burden of serving everyone which would then have kept everyone officially informed. I pointed out it was extremely easy to email out copies given they have the list of emails that I do not. PLAINTIFFS SHOULD REFUSE STAY I said that if others were not to be kept apprised of developments in my case, the others should refuse to consent to their stay. We were all there in the first group action with no problem except the Crown had to serve everyone, and I was ready to make it easy on them. It was up to the Crown and if he wanted to inconvenience us, we'd inconvenience him back. She said it wasn't an issue of making it inconvenient and a prothonotary had to power to stay the other cases without their consent anyway. I added we could appeal to a judge. Hope she doesn't. But I advised that if Wong didn't want to send them a copy, I'd have to advise them not to consent to being stayed and remain involved to get their own documentation (with their name on it). GIVE LEAD LIST I had asked for the list of emails so I could keep others informed. Crown's regular complaint was he didn't want me representing the others like a lawyer. As if making the arguments that will eventually impact other decisions isn't the same. The judge didn't like providing me with the emails because of "privacy concerns." I pointed out they had included the emails of the original ten in the Direction calling the hearing so why couldn't I get the emails for the others too? Nope. Barb Kelly listened in on the hearing though she wasn't one of the original ten and then sent me an email noting that in the March 4 Direction to the other 40 plaintiffs, their emails were in the message header! OKAY EMAILS FROM CLAIMS But CMJ Aylen said I could have copies of the filed Statements of Claim with the emails on them so I could build my own list of plaintiffs and keep them informed myself (after her decision cuts them off)! OK. Doable by me and fixed. STAY POLL So the judge started asking each plaintiff what they wanted to do. A few said they would accept the stay, a few said they would not, and a few asked for more time to think about it. The judge gave them until Mar 18 to inform the court of their decision on being stayed, until Mar 24 for the Crown response and Mar 29 for a plaintiff Reply. She also noted that anyone could change their mind! That was nice. SECURITY FOR COSTS Although the Direction doesn't mention rejecting the Crown motion for security for costs for those who had prior cost judgments (my brother Ray), CMJ Aylen did ask the Crown how many there were. He didn't admit it was only Ray but did admit it was very few. So the judge said she'd take it up after my case was done, which is what I'd asked for. Let Ray decide if he wants to post security once he finds out what happened to me. Obviously, if I win, he will want to. METADATA FOR PROOF OF SERVICE I had asked to allow the substitution of the email I metadata (To: From: Date: Title:) as Justice Brown had allowed but without her having to okay each document. Sure, it's easy for the Crown to get a document notarized by another lawyer at the next desk but not so easy for a self-represented plaintiff. With Justice Brown, a method to save us that pain and expense arose, I'd email to the Crown, make a pdf of the "sent" file, upload the document, upload the "sent" metadata as "proof of service," and then upload a letter to CMJ Brown to accept the metadata in lieu of notarized affidavit. Which he always accepted. Judge Brown is the most logical judge I've ever run into. Sure, I'm biased, he gave us two wins, before higher slower judges took them away. But no, what may have been good enough for a full judge wasn't good enough for temporary one. The Registry clerks all may commission an oath for free which is what I've always done. As I hate paying a lawyer to do something I consider pretty useless, why not make it an offence to life in any court document, not just those where it's sworn to be truth! So I asked what I'm supposed to do in these time of Covid. She said it was now acceptable to use whatever Covid procedure was used courts by my provincial courts I wondered if the Federal Court had such a procedure for their clerks. She thought so but wasn't sure. So I'll find out. DIRECTION Later in the afternoon, CMJ Aylen issued a Direction: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19ayl5.pdf A case management conference was held today in these 10 related files. The Plaintiffs in T-219-21 and T-221-21 were not in attendance. As was made clear in my earlier Direction, all parties are required to attend all case management conferences. Any future failure to do so may result in cost consequences or the dismissal of your proceeding. JCT: She's talking about two plaintiffs I know who can ask that they be allowed to attend the upcoming hearing for the next 40 plaintiffs being asked whether they too accept the Lead Plaintiff. If CMJ Aylen dismisses them over not personally attending once she indicated she would not accept the answer by email, for sure they'll have to appeal. And won't splitting us up make things interesting. The Court has proposed that these files be stayed pursuant to Section 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act pending the final determination in T-130-21 (Mr. John Turmel's claim). Following the determination in T-130-21 (which includes any appeals therefrom), a Plaintiff would then be entitled to request that the stay of their proceeding be lifted on the basis that they are differentially situated than Mr. Turmel. In the case of a stay, the Court would not obligate the Crown or Mr. Turmel to serve a Plaintiff with any documents related to T-130-21. JCT: That's what we wanted because more and more good news is arising that we may want to add. All those doctors protesting around the world, all those lockdowns being called off, would surely be relevant to our actions! The Court requires that any Plaintiff in this group of 10 files who does not consent to a stay of their action based on the proposal above so advise the Court by no later than March 18, 2021 and provide, by that date, any submissions as to why their action should not be stayed. The Crown shall serve and file any responding submissions by no later than March 24, 2021. The Plaintiffs opposing a stay of their action shall file any reply submissions by no later than March 29, 2021. CROWN BLEW IT JCT: I have to advise not to make it easy on the Crown and make him serve each and every one of us our own document, like the plaintiffs in the first group action before Justice Phelan with no lead plaintiff. He could have had it easy with the simple expedient of emailing you a carbon copy when he emails me. No, had to go for convenience for him but not for us. And now it's going to cost him. Har har har har har har. I tried to make it easy on him if he would only take an easy step to make it easy on us, but no, and now he's faced with the same situation before Judge Phelan. Everyone gets an official copy and everyone gets to attend an official Big Event. Har har har. BUYING RECORDING I emailled the clerk to order a DVD recording. I'd bet others recorded it. I can see it for their own personal notes but not for broadcast. Get it? Broadcast would get anyone into trouble, even me with my official DVD version. In over 40 years of legal and political activity, I have not had to lie in any official capacity nor left myself in a position to be caught. It they asked me if I taped it, I'd have to admit the truth. So I don't leave any chinks in my armor. I wanted to but did not tape it. I'm working from my written notes until I get a copy of the audio ordered today. I'm quite proud of being the first person I know who regularly taped all my Ontario court appearances since 1988 when I found out it was allowed except almost no one knew the rules had been changed. I could but only for my personal notes. I even have the whole "Hitzig" appeal on tape which then transcribed and posted. Having taped "notes" sure made my reports unassailable! I actually pity both Crown Wong and CMJ Aylen. We're asking to put an end to a murderous lockdown and they have to put their names on keeping the genocide going! Posterity will not be kind to those who "failed to see" the blood in the streets. YOUTUBE LIVESTREAM SATURDAY NIGHT 9PM EST We know that our arguments that Covid is an exaggerated hoax are banned by Youtube. Not allowed to say the FOE (Forces Of Evil) are lying because the FOE run the social media. But we discuss the legal maneuvering without Big Brother getting upset. SmartestManSays channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh5JYD5np-SToCDRvfKFGgA