TURMEL: Judge Aylen stays Covid plaintiffs without data CC: JCT: 50 Apple Orange Resistance plaintiffs received an Order from Prothonotary Mandy Aylen as Case Management Judge which is a basic repeat of what happened to the Initial Nine. I've already reported on how the Crown asked to be dispensed with filing a motion to strike against everyone's actions and only file one to strike mine while the others are held in abeyance. That would have been no problem if the Crown had instead sent a CC: of their motion to strike mine, if not theirs. But no, the Crown didn't want to send the others a copy of their motion to strike my claim. They won't send you a copy and didn't want to give me your emails so I could send you a copy either. They suggested you check my file at the Registry for new documents and then ask to have a copy of it emailled to you when something new is added, or watch my blog for a report. Actually, I don't mind if everyone contacts the registry to make them send copies to everyone if the Crown won't do it. Har har har har har har. More work for the clerks if not for the Crown. So the Crown wants the Court to lift their burden of giving you what you're normally due but doesn't want to compensate by sending you a copy in your mailbox. Of course, the judge could have said: "I won't grant you dispensation from serving a motion to strike their actions personally if you don't CC: them your motion to strike the Lead Plaintiff's." A judge can say: I refuse what you want unless you do this." But Prothonotary Aylen made it sound like the Crown had her over a barrel, they refused to do it, what could she do? She had to grant them what they wanted and if they didn't want to do anything to be absolved of the work, nothing she could do. Certainly not use her power to refuse their request to compel a just compensation! Can't refuse the Crown. Priority One. And the Crown knew she could not refuse and acted uppity: We're not even going to compensate with a CC:. And she made a CC: sound like a real burden she just could not impose on them. So we'll be able to make the Registry do it! Har har har har har har. If that's the way she wants it, save the clerk at Justice the effort while making the clerks at the Registry do it. So she ruled the Crown would be dispensed with "the burden" of compensating you with a CC: when she dispensed them having to serve you the copy of the motion to strike your action that you were due. Michel Ethier has appealed her decision saying that though she might find adding a CC: to a document to be a burden for a lawyer (Crown and most judges are lawyers too) but it wouldn't be any burden for a clerk. Here are my two most recent posts on that: Michel Ethier appeals Aylen Apple Orange Resistance Stay Order c19025 https://www.facebook.com/groups/appleorangeresistance/permalink/251522413338405 Crown seeks to stay Mid-50 Plaintiffs like Ethier c19026 https://www.facebook.com/groups/appleorangeresistance/permalink/252228866601093 So today, she ruled the same for the next group of 50 plaintiffs as the initial group of 9. Those who filed after the 50 are automatically stayed with the Original Nine, and now you are too. Why the second 50 weren't stayed with the newbies who come after you is a good question but it did allow the Court to waste time asking the same question, getting the same answers, and her making the same ruling. A complete waste of time doing the same thing a second time to get the same result. Date: 20210426 Docket: T-263-21 Ottawa, Ontario, April 26, 2021 PRESENT: Case Management Judge Mandy Aylen BETWEEN: DUNCAN PATERSON Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant JCT: Duncan was the first registered after the Initial Nine which is why she put the decision under his style of cause. ORDER JCT: The Order is virtually identical to that of the Initial Nine since it deals with the same question and comes to the same answer. CMJ: [1] The Court is case managing a group of more than 60 actions in which the self-represented Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief related to the federal Government's COVID-19 mitigation measures, including: (a) a declaration that the measures violate their Charter rights and are not saved by section 1 of the Charter; (b) an order prohibiting any measures that are not imposed on the flu; (c) a permanent constitutional exemption from any such measures; and (d) damages for pain and losses incurred by the Plaintiffs as a result of such measures. [2] The Statements of Claim in each action are almost identical and based on a "kit claim" made available on the internet by John Turmel, the Plaintiff in T-130-21. [3] The Defendant has indicated that the Defendant intends to bring a motion to strike the Statements of Claim, without leave to amend, as well as motions for security for costs in relation to certain Plaintiffs who the Defendant asserts have unpaid cost awards. [4] A case management conference was held on March 11, 2021 among the parties in the initial group of actions assigned into case management - namely, T-130-21, T-138- 21, T-171-21, T-208-21, T-219-21, T-212-21, T-220-21, T- 221-21, T-230-21 and T-242-21 [Initial Group of Actions]. During that case management conference, the Court proposed that Mr. Turmel's claim in T-130-21 move forward as the lead claim and that the balance of the actions be held in abeyance, pursuant to section 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act [Act], pending a final determination in T-130-21 and any appeal therefrom. Following that final determination, it would then be open to the Plaintiffs in the stayed actions to seek to have their actions move forward upon establishing that they are differently situated than T- 130-21 and thus should not be bound by the outcome of that action. [5] In order to permit the Plaintiffs an opportunity to consider the Court's proposal, the Court established a schedule for the delivery of written submissions from the parties to the Initial Group of Actions regarding whether the Court's proposal should be implemented. [6] Following the receipt of submissions from the parties, on April 8, 2021, the Court ordered that T-130- 21 move forward as the lead claim and that the balance of the actions be held in abeyance, pursuant to section 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act [Act], pending a final determination in T-130-21 and any appeal therefrom. Following that final determination, it would then be open to the Plaintiffs in the stayed actions to seek to have their actions move forward upon establishing that they are differently situated than T- 130-21. The Court also ordered that the terms of the Order would apply to any new Statement of Claim filed subsequent to the date of the Order which was substantially identical to those filed in the Initial Group of Actions [the Order]. [7] Subsequent to the filing of the Initial Group of Actions and prior to the issuance of the Order, fifty- two additional actions were commenced based on Mr. Turmel's kit claim - namely, T-263-21, T-265-21, T-269- 21, T-280-21, T-282-21, T-283-21, T-287-21, T-291-21, T- 292-21, T-293-21, T-295-21, T-296-21, T-297-21, T-298- 21, T-299-21, T-300-21, T-308-21, T-311-21, T-312-21, T- 313-21, T-314-21, T-315-21, T-316-21, T-317-21, T-318- 21, T-321-21, T-322-21, T-323-21, T-324-21, T-327-21, T- 331-21, T-332-21, T-333-21, T-344-21, T-345-21, T-352- 21, T-364-21, T-365-21, T-370-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T- 418-21, T-419-21, T-423-21, T-467-21, T-471-21, T-486- 21, T-491-21, T-512-21, T-523-21, T-524-01 and T-563-21 [the Subsequent Actions]. [8] On April 8, 2021, the Court issued the following Direction in each of the Subsequent Actions: The Court has issued the attached Order in T-130-21 and nine other proceedings commenced based on Mr. Turmel's kit claim. As set out in the Order, T-130-21 has been designated as the lead claim and the other nine claims have been stayed pending a final determination in T-130- 21 and any appeal therefrom. Following the final determination in T-130-21, it will be open to the Plaintiffs in the other nine actions to request that the Court permit their claims to proceed if they can demonstrate that they are differently situated than T- 130-21 such that they should not be bound by any final determination made therein. The Court proposes to proceed in the same manner in relation to your proceeding. In the event that you oppose a stay of your proceeding on the terms as set out in the attached Order, you must provide the Court, by no later than April 15, 2021, with any submissions as to why your action should not be stayed. The Defendant may file any responding submissions by April 20, 2021. [9] The Court received correspondence from most of the Plaintiffs in the Subsequent Actions (the majority of which was by way of a group email) indicating that the Plaintiffs did not want their action to be stayed. Minimal submissions were received as to why the Subsequent Actions should not be stayed, but the central concern raised by those Plaintiffs was a desire to be kept informed by the Crown or the Registry regarding the status of T-130-21. [10] The Crown requests that the Subsequent Actions be stayed on the same terms as the Order. [11] I am satisfied that, for the reasons given in the Order, that the Subsequent Actions should be similarly stayed on the same terms. In relation to the concerns raised by some of the Plaintiffs regarding being kept apprised of the status and filings in T-130-21, I agree with the Defendant that the recorded entries in T-130-21 are available for viewing on the Court's website, the Plaintiffs can obtain updates on the status of T-130-21 on Mr. Turmel's website and I have ordered that the Plaintiffs be provided with a copy of any final determination in T-130-21. I will not impose on the Defendant or the Registry the burden of serving or forwarding all filings to all of the Plaintiffs in the Subsequent Actions while those proceedings are stayed. THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The actions bearing Court File Nos. T-263-21, T-265- 21, T-269-21, T-280-21, T-282-21, T-283-21, T-287-21, T- 291-21, T-292-21, T-293-21, T-295-21, T-296-21, T-297- 21, T-298-21, T-299-21, T-300-21, T-308-21, T-311-21, T- 312-21, T-313-21, T-314-21, T-315-21, T-316-21, T-317- 21, T-318-21, T-321-21, T-322-21, T-323-21, T-324-21, T- 327-21, T-331-21, T-332-21, T-333-21, T-344-21, T-345- 21, T-352-21, T-364-21, T-365-21, T-370-21, T-382-21, T- 404-21, T-418-21, T-419-21, T-423-21, T-467-21, T-471- 21, T-486-21, T-491-21, T-512-21, T-523-21, T-524-01 and T-563-21 [Stayed Actions] are hereby stayed pending the final determination (by judgment or order) in T-130-21 and any appeal therefrom. 2. The Registry shall provide a copy of any final determination in T-130-21 to each of the Plaintiffs in the Stayed Actions. 3. In the event that any party in the Stayed Actions takes the position that their action is differently situated than T-130-21 such that the final determination in T-130-21 (and any appeal therefrom) should not apply to their action, that party shall, within 30 days of the final determination in T-130-21 and any appeal therefrom, requisition a case management conference to establish a schedule for a motion to determine whether their action should move forward. 4. The terms of this Order may be varied or amended as the Court determines necessary. 5. A copy of this Order shall be placed in T-130-21 and in the Stayed Actions. 6. There shall be no costs associated with this Order. "Mandy Aylen" Case Management Judge JCT: Sadly, you'll never get to see the zoom call where the case is argued. You're not only shut out from seeing the paper documentation but also shut out from ever seeing the arguments being pleaded. Here's the good news. With your action stayed, whether you get a copy of the motion to strike or not, and if we lose, there is no reason for the Crown to receive costs from those whom the Crown did not have to serve nor respond to. In our last almost-400 plaintiff group before Justice Brown, when the Lead lost, the other actions were dismissed with "no costs!" In the previous almost-400 plaintiff group before Justice Phelan, sure, the Crown had to send them a personal copy but the Court didn't have to deal with them, only me. So again, when I was dismissed, they were also dismissed with "no costs." Just because I was dismissed doesn't mean I was wrong, a judge can fail to see anything. "I have not been sufficiently shown," "not sufficiently convinced," any such reason by the guy with his eyes closed. I have made it a rule and habit to never ask for more than what's fair, like every lawyer would ask for more for his client. But by asking for only what's fair, being refused must be an error, right? You can't imagine how many Supreme Court of Canada, appellate judges, superior judges will end up laughed at by posterity for dismissing a motion for equitable justice. Their job. So how can I feel bad with so many judges dismissing righteous claims when I know the stain will be on their reputations on the wall of shame. And because most of the issues I deal with are attempts to stop killing people, for instance here with lockdown, when the judge stalls the resolution, more will die. For instance: at the Stratford demo, I met a Dave E. who told me that no one in their circle knew of anyone who had died of Covid. But worse, he knew 4 people who had committed suicide over Covid lockdown, two after closing their businesses. That's an angle I hadn't seen but wow. I wonder how many others who lost everything didn't stick around to start again? So every suicide that happened during the delay in getting the evidence of hoax to a judge is blood on the staller's hands. And on mine if I could have pushed the issue faster. How many more business suicides before the math of the fraud gets to a judge? There was nothing much I could do when she wasted time asking the in-between 50 the very same question as the Initial Nine to get the very same answer. So the CMJ eased the Crown's burden while making you "put in the effort" to check the Registry or my blog for any new documents. The judge won't even give me the emails of those dependent on my case so I can keep them informed without them having to watch my blog reports. Of course, if Michel wins, then everyone gets to remain in the loop. Neat, isn't it, that only one need appeal and its effect applies to the group. And if he doesn't win, nothing changes for me since he is already out of the loop and him spending time appealing to 3 judges that it's not fair to make less work for the Crown by making more work for him has no effect on me below. But if you miss some of the data, how can you decide if your case is different enough to continue on your own? Wouldn't your not knowing what happened make it harder for you to decide if there is sufficient difference? The silver lining in being stayed is that you get to join the real resistance for $2, watch what happens, and if it loses, no court costs. The $2 will be the total loss to join the Apple Orange Resistance! So you can tell your friends that if they add their scream: "Hoax!" to yours, they stand to lose nothing more than the $2 filing fee but do get a nice Gold Star trophy to put on their wall or show around. I wear mine hanging around my neck at demos. So you can protest by going to a live demo, getting an $880 fine for attending an illegal event, and have your driver's license suspended if you don't pay, or you can protest by going to the court web site and filing a $2 Statement of Claim with no threat of costs or to your license. Pretty good deal, isn't it? Now we just need to get the word out that that it costs nothing more than $2 to add pressure on the Crown and the Bench to end the hoax.