TURMEL: Covid Restrictions Challenge Judge wastes more time 

JCT: It may be hard to find my reports in this plethora of 
articles but they're all at http://smartestman.ca/c19reps 

After our appointed Case Management Judge (CMJ) Prothonotary 
Mandy Aylen asked the Initial Nine plaintiffs if they 
opposed being stayed and cut out of the documentation loop, 
and a lot said no, she then stayed them and cut them out. 
The stay was extended to any new plaintiffs who filed. But 
not the second 50 after the Initial Nine. 

She asked the second 50 group the same questions asked of 
the first nine and on April 26 pronounced the same decision 
as for the first. So that wasted a few extra weeks. And to 
waste even more time, she issued an Order to me too:

T-130-21- TURMEL, John v Her Majesty the Queen
Direction of Madam Prothonotary Aylen dated April 26, 2021;
    "The parties shall confer regarding the timetable for 
    next steps in this proceeding and shall, by no later 
    than May 5, 2021, provide the Court with a jointly-
    proposed timetable and the availability of the parties 
    for a case management conference (in the event that the 
    Court determines that one is required)."

JCT: It is a complete waste of time to be discussing the 
timetable for next steps to take when the steps to take are 
laid out in the Rules. 

Now that the question of stays is final, she could have just 
directed: OK Crown, you've had 3 months to prepare, file 
your motion to strike in 4 days, file the Turmel response in 
4 days, the Crown Reply in 4 days. But no, she wants us to 
spend time discussing a timetable for the steps that are 
already laid out in the Rules: 

https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-106/FullText.html

    PART 7

    Motions

    362 (1) Subject to subsection (2), on a motion other 
    than a motion under rule 369, 

JCT: A motion under Rule 369 is in writing! 

    a notice of motion and any affidavit required under rule 
    363 shall be served and filed at least three days before 
    the day set out in the notice for the hearing of the 
    motion.

    365 (1) Subject to subsections 213(4) and 369(2), a 
    respondent to a motion shall serve a respondent's motion 
    record and file an electronic copy of or three paper 
    copies of the record no later than 2:00 p.m. on the day 
    that is two days before the day fixed for the hearing of 
    the motion.

    Motions in writing

    369 (1) A party may, in a notice of motion, request that 
    the motion be decided on the basis of written 
    representations.

JCT: This is what I prefer. Most people I help aren't 
debaters and so it's best to keep the argument in writing 
between me and the Crown. 

    (2) A respondent to a motion brought in accordance with 
    subsection (1) shall serve and file a respondent's 
    record within 10 days after being served under rule 364 
    and, if the respondent objects to disposition of the 
    motion in writing, indicate in its written 
    representations or memorandum of fact and law the 
    reasons why the motion should not be disposed of in 
    writing.

    (3) A moving party may serve and file written 
    representations in reply within four days after being 
    served with a respondent's record under subsection (2).

    (4) On the filing of a reply under subsection (3) or on 
    the expiration of the period allowed for a reply, the 
    Court may dispose of a motion in writing or fix a time 
    and place for an oral hearing of the motion.

JCT: So those are the rules. If the Crown files a regular 
motion for a live zoom hearing that you won't get to see, 
they have to file their motion record 3 days before the 
hearing date. The Respondent files 2 days before. 

Motions in writing under Rule 369 are responded to within 10 
days and the mover may Reply within 4 more. 

So what are the Crown and I supposed to discuss about the 
next steps when all steps are laid out in the Rules? Pure 
waste of time. I was hoping the extra time would add more 
plaintiffs and more pressure on the Crown and Bench until I 
heard of the suicides of the business people who lost 
everything. I don't like blood on my hands due to the delay. 
I could have appealed for a quicker timetable but chose to 
wait for more numbers. 

Logic is fine if the judge has his eyes open, but bigger 
numbers are more impressive for judges who do not. When we 
hit 400, or 1,000, or 10,000, we may get the attention of 
Rebel News. then our Court Resistance could really grow. 
Seems 70 plaintiffs isn't big enough yet to get Rebel 
attention.

It almost feels like the medpot challenges over the past 2 
decades. Those done by lawyers were always well covered by 
media but never aimed at repealing prohibition, they were 
always attacking some less or to find a way to live with 
prohibition. But I always went for repeal. Their actions 
were phony. Only mine sought real remedy. And it feels the 
same here. Lawyers going for minor stuff that helps almost 
no one. Curfews for the homeless are unconstitutional! How 
many would that win help? Forced to stay in vaccine hotels 
upon return from other countries is unconstitutional! How 
many will that help? 

Yes, it is different that these lawyers don't know how they 
were tricked, so shooting small is all they know. Medpot 
shysters didn't have to shoot small but did. 

Here, catching the bad guys fudging the numbers with a false 
comparison is very powerful, but the lawyers were suckered 
with everyone else. Except, once any one reads our Apple 
Orange complaint, they now they know how they were easily 
fooled. And may do nothing with what they now know? 

When we give someone a flyer, it's their judgment day. In 10 
years, when this is long over, they can be asked: "Why 
didn't you tell others, even shout about the mis-comparison 
once you saw it? Why did you let the lockdown continue 
knowing what you had found out? Same questions for judges. 
Anyone who reads the Statement of Claim knows the threat was 
an elementary statistical fraud.. or they were too stupid to 
understand something as simple as comparing a watermelon to 
a grape while being told they were both grapes! "Didn't you 
understand how you were fooled? Not yet? Can't judge?"

I could appeal and make a stink of the stalling tactics and 
ask to force the Crown motion forward (reducing the blood on 
both our hands) but it's the numbers that will make the case 
to low-tech judges way more than the math of the hoax. 

So I don't mind mind building numbers while the CMJ stalls 
even if it ends up with more suicided victims. The stakes we 
are gambling are frighteningly high. How do you think I feel 
waiting for more numbers while people are dying? Could be 
the wrong play if we'd have caught a wise judge with his 
eyes open. But that's a rarity. Have to go with the odds. 

So we must use the time being wasted to add to the numbers. 
It's all we have left right now. It's the reason I go to 
every demo within reach. It would be nice if I got to speak 
to the crowds but I'm a show-stealer and no organizer wants 
that. 

And people have so little personal initiative that no one in 
the 700 Brantford protestors I gave a flyer to filed. And I 
don't think any of the Stratford 700 protestors I gave a 
flyer to filed either. What we've learned is that we pretty 
well have to do it for them. They are a generation waiting 
for someone else to save them. But we're trying. 

So I have to discuss the timetable of next steps with the 
Crown before Maq 5 while I can't imagine what we are going 
to discuss.