TURMEL: Chance to file Affidavits proving Covid hoax JCT: The Crown has filed their Memorandum of arguments in their motion to strike my Statement of Claim and then the others too. Right now, they have to prove there is ZERO chance of success in our Cause of Anger. Cause of Righteous Anger. We can use the Judge Brown quotes where he says so: He saw some chance, higher judges saw none. Mozajko now on appeal. Looking at the Crown's Strike Motion arguments (page 71): http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19cnm.pdf Notice he objects to my being Lead Plaintiff because of past costs owed which he didn't tell the judge when he was promoting me as Lead Plaintiff. That's such a silly objection, I won't deal with it here. I'll only point out that the court already has blood on its hands for the 3 months of delay at the world finding out how we've been tricked and finding a new Lead would only add more. The first thing you'll notice is that though Wong lays out our claims which are presumed provable, then says it's all bunk, he doesn't actually cite which claims are bunk. I could have included new info in my response affidavit if he had actually said something in the claim was wrong. But since he doesn't say how any of our allegations are wrong, though saying it's all wrong, there's nothing I can offer to counter. He hasn't said "this is wrong," he just said: "It's all wrong." But he sure laid out our case pretty well with a few glaring omissions. I've already parsed his motion at http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19053.txt but let's see all the allegations he says are suspect without ever saying how: CR: PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS A. THE CLAIM 4. This claim is one of more than 60 virtually identical claims that purport to seek relief related to the Government of Canada's COVID-19 mitigation measures. The claim seeks: (a) a declaration that the federal government's COVID-19 mitigation measures infringe sections 2(c) and (d), 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") and are not saved by section 1 of the Charter; (b) an order pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Charter prohibiting any COVID restriction measures "that are not imposed on the deadlier Flu"; (c) a permanent constitutional exemption from any such measures; and (d) an order for "unspecified damages for pain and losses incurred" as a result of stress, damaged personal connections, inconvenience and time lost in line-ups, and higher prices.1 5. The claim alleges that the World Health Organization is exaggerating COVID-19 fatality rates, and that only 1 in 230,000 Canadians have died of COVID-19.2 It alleges that COVID-19 is a "man-made virus, albeit a very mild one," and that most COVID-19 deaths were in long-term care homes.3 It alleges that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is rare, and provides several paragraphs of statistics comparing COVID-19 mortality rates to those associated with the flu. CR: 6. The claim alleges a "cover up" to "fudge the statistical Cases and Fatalities data."4 It refers to alleged changes by the American Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to its death certificate guidelines, as well as an effort by the mainstream media to suppress "HydroxyChloroQuine HCQ" as an alternative to "a Bill Gates- funded Oxford Recovery HCQ test", which the claim alleges is "deliberate malevolence."5 7. The claim alleges that social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and Disqus, have "instituted draconian censorship policies,"6 and that doctors protesting COVID-19 measures are being "defamed by Big Brother at [the Associated Press] and Facebook."7 CR: 8. The claim alleges that "Covid-Mitigation restrictions include lockdowns & curfews, quarantines, mandatory masks, mandatory social distancing, mandatory vaccine, mandatory immunity card for public services."8 It alleges that "lockdown gain does not justify lockdown pain" and that lockdown measures are not supported by evidence, and have increased "suicides, murders, abuses, addictions, [and] truancy."9 CR: 9. The claim alleges that COVID measures have resulted in line-ups at stores, higher prices, stress, neighbours "snitching" on neighbours, and lost friendships due to "accusations of deniers putting alarmists at risk from the invisible plague,"10 and that: Such restrictions on civil liberties to mitigate a sham- virus are an arbitrary, grossly disproportional, conscience-shocking violation of the Charter Section 2 right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association is gone, S.6 right to [m]obility, S.7 right to life, liberty and security, S.8 right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, S.9 right to not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, S.12 right to not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.11 10. The claim specifically refers to the Ontario government's declaration of an emergency and "Stay-At-Home" order enacted under s 7.0.1(1) of the provincial Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, and alleges that Ontario has closed schools despite only one COVID-19 death among children under 20 between January 15 and July 13, 2020.12 11. The claim refers to a statement by the Prime Minister describing the requirements for international travellers arriving by air to produce a negative COVID-19 test before entering Canada, for all travellers to quarantine upon entering Canada, and the potential for "fines and prison time" for not following these requirements.13 It alleges that "The Prime Minister and his Government have been duped," and that "Restrictions on civil liberties are not warranted for a Covid threat if they are not warranted for the tenfold deadlier Flu threat."14 12. The claim asks the rhetorical question "Who benefits?," and alleges that "Personal Protection Equipment producers, Skip-the-Dishes delivery come to mind but vaccine companies seem to have most to gain by an exaggerated scamdemic."15 13. The claim alleges that the vaccine promotion is a "scam", and that some would prefer alternatives including "drinking the waters of your own cistern", vitamins, and supplements.16 14. The claim also alleges that the government owes Canadians $2 trillion in compensation, which it could pay by borrowing "new interest-free credits from the Bank of Canada."17 ERRORS 5. 1 IN 230,000 Canadians have died of COVID-19.2 JCT: 1/230,000 Canadians "not in long-term-care" have died. CR: It alleges that COVID-19 is a "man-made virus, JCT: Nobel Prize HIV discoverer Luc Montagnier alleges. CR: most deaths were in long term care JCT: CTV alleged that 98.5% were in long-term-care, not me. CR: It alleges that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is rare, JCT: WHO said "very rare." "None documented" And Wuhan ZERO. CR: provides statistics comparing COVID-19 mortality rates to those associated with the flu. JCT: Omits statistics showing C19 CFR to Flu IFR. CR: 11. It alleges "Prime Minister duped," JCT: By the Apple Orange comparison. CR: 14. alleges government owes Canadians $2 trillion JCT: It paid $2T in interest over 45 years, it can pay $2T for this screw-up, more or less. But overall, not one fact that can be contradicted. And not one fact is. So presuming it's all true, he spends time saying: 1) No Jurisdiction To Grant Relief In Relation To Provincial COVID-19 Measures JCT: We're happy striking the Federal restrictions first. CR: 2) The Claim Discloses No Reasonable Cause of Action JCT: Killer Lockdown based on fudged numbers disclose no reasonable Cause of Anger? CR: 20. It is fundamental to the trial process that a plaintiff plead material facts in sufficient detail JCT: People with their eyes closed can always say they don't see. CR: 23. Courts have also emphasized the importance of the individual plaintiff's circumstances in Charter cases. JCT: I may not exemplify all the woes cited but I'd bet some of the other 76 plaintiffs whose actions are stayed do. CR: Plaintiffs cannot rely on facts applicable to other individuals to support an alleged infringement of their individual Charter rights, JCT: I can when they've filed the same template. CR: 24. Finally, while courts must generally accept the facts pleaded as true for the purposes of a motion to strike, they are not required to accept speculation, bald allegations or conclusory statements of law dressed up as facts.41 JCT: Agreed. But has not shown some speculation, bald allegations or conclusory statements of law dressed up as facts. CR: Rule 181 requires particularization of every allegation, especially for allegations of malice or fraudulent intention.42 Plaintiffs are also not permitted to make broad allegations in hopes of later discovering facts to support them or to file inadequate pleadings and rely on the defendant to request particulars.43 JCT: Agreed if I made broad allegations in hopes of later discovering facts to support them or to file inadequate pleadings and rely on the defendant to request particulars. Give us an example... Har har har. CR: 25. The claim fails to meet these basic requirements of pleadings. JCT: Okay, don't need any examples, stating it is enough. CR: While it alleges that COVID-19 measures have resulted in harms such as "suicides, murders, abuses, addictions, [and] truancy," "stress from the distress shown by many," and "neighbours snitching on neighbours," it provides no material facts that establish a link between COVID-19 measures and the harms alleged, nor does it allege that the plaintiff has personally suffered these harms.44 JCT: This is the big one. The Court web site shows that: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/representing-yourself/procedural-charts/action#cont The Defendant must file a Statement of Defence within 30 days of the Jan 19 2021 Statement of Claim. They didn't but were still allowed to make motions. Plaintiff files a Reply within 10 days closing pleadings. All parties file affidavits within 30 days of close. So I file my Affidavit of facts 30 days after the close of pleadings. Yet we have Case Management Judge ordering me to file an Affidavit before any Statement of Defence and before they even file a complete motion record to strike. Any party ready for Trial serves/files Requisition for pre- trial conference and Memorandum after close of pleadings Other parties file Memorandum within 30 days So those are the usual steps from which our claims have deviated so much. Let's count the deviations: 1) Defendant allowed to plead in default. 2) Defendant allowed to not serve stayed plaintiffs 3) Defendant allowed to file incomplete motion record 4) Defendant allowed to see my affidavit before filing Memorandum or Statement of Defence 5) Defendant allowed 4 months of stall, cut to 3 by me. Note: CR: 24... while courts must generally accept the facts pleaded as true for the purposes of a motion to strike, they are not required to accept speculation, bald allegations or conclusory statements of law dressed up as facts.41 JCT: While facts must be accepted as true, BUT don't... Again, notice there is no indication which of our allegations are considered speculation, bald allegations or conclusory statements of law dressed up as facts. So Facts must be accepted as true but not speculation, bald allegations or conclusory statements of law dressed up as facts. If only he'd given us even one example. So here's the point. So the judge has demanded that I file my affidavits before the Crown files their Statement of Defence. I refused. So the Crown listed all our allegations, called them speculation, bald allegations or conclusory statements of law dressed up as facts, and that's their motion. If only he'd said "Your C19 3.4% CFR and Flu 0.8% IFR were not compared," I could provide an affidavit proving it. If he'd said: Wuhan did not test 10 million and find zero asymptomatic transmission, I could add to prove it. If he'd said: More than 166 Canadians not in long-term-care died," I could add to prove it. If he'd said: CDC did not up C19 over bullet to the head or lightning strike, I could add to prove it. If he'd said: the PCR test was not set too sensitive to generate extra false positives, I could add to prove it. If he'd said: The Gates study did not overdose their patients compared to France, I could add to prove it. But he didn't. He just stated our allegations, and laughed without contradicting even one. CR: 39. Prolixity, repetition and the bare pleading of a series of events are not substitutes for the requirement to plead material facts so that a defendant can understand and defend the allegations.64 JCT: There are two reasons for not being able defend against the allegations. You can't or you don't have enough facts. He presumes that because he can't, it's because he's lacking facts to understand. if you can read the Claim and understand it while he cannot, that's his problem, not ours. CR: Instead of providing material facts, the claim is replete with irrelevant and incomprehensible statements as well as spurious, extreme and scandalous allegations. For example, the claim includes: (a) lengthy allegations against third parties such as the World Health Organization, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Facebook, Youtube, and the Province of Ontario;66 (b) references to COVID-19 as a "sham-virus," "Shamdemic," "exaggerated plague" and "scamdemic;"67 (c) allegations such as "The only way to cover up when deaths do not match exaggerated expectations is to fudge the statistical Cases and Fatalities data," "the Prime Minister and his Government have been duped" and "It's the same persuasion technique as Global Warming;"68 and (d) lengthy diatribes, such as "What kind of evil cabal would use global media and medical establishments to hype a mini-virus a hundredfold with an Apple-Orange comparison into an imaginary plague to convince a gullible world into shutting down life-support systems and imposing famine on a quarter billion people and innumerable woes on many hundreds of millions more? Why condemn so many to death on a cross of hype? Qui bono? Who benefits? Personal Protection Equipment producers, Skip-the-Dishes delivery come to mind but vaccine companies seem to have most to gain by an exaggerated scamdemic." So I don't have to provide proof of the allegations in my affidavit until after they file a Statement of Defence. But they say there's not enough info in the claim for them to know how to defend. No extra info is going to let them defend being tricked by fudged numbers. But my Motion Record in Response is a chance to file any affidavits of my own except that there is nothing I need to buttress with facts since the name-calling wasn't directed at any allegation in particular. Think about it, he didn't challenge one allegation. He just called them names without specifying which name applied to which allegation. Think about it. He keeps demanding more facts which I don't have to give him until he files his Statement of Defence. Guess he thought I'd forget and try. I thought I'd have an opportunity to file some sort of countering evidence but I don't. Yet, we could get a judge who thinks I should have tried.