TURMEL: Canada's Reply to Strike "Fudged Mortality Rates" Action JCT: I filed an action to end lockdown restrictions because they fudged the mortality rates. Saying "fudged mortality rates" seems against their standards and my comment was taken down. The Crown filed a motion that complaining about them fudging the statistics is frivolous, at least to a bottom of the math barrel lawyer! Our case is all math about: - fudging the mortality rates - fudging the asymptomatic transmission rates - fudging the Canadian death rates with CTV deletion - fudging Death Rate with CDC Death Certificates Guidelines - fudging Case Rate with over-sensitive PCR tests - fudging HCQ efficacy with Bill Gates Oxford overdoses But it's all frivolous to a Crown lawyer! Har har har. I filed a Response pointing out all the names our allegations were called but not specifically cited any. This is the Crown Reply. It now goes to a judge. Sad part, the Court has stalled word of the fudging getting out to the suckers taking the unnecessary vaccine. People who took it believing the mortality rates to get out of lockdown will have this Crown and this judge to blame for the stall in lockdown that persuaded them to take the jab. Court File No.: T-130-21 FEDERAL COURT B E T W E E N : JOHN TURMEL Plaintiff (Responding Party) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant (Moving Party) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS IN REPLY OF THE DEFENDANT (Motion to Strike or for Security For Costs) CR: 1. The plaintiff continues to reiterate allegations against third parties in his submissions (i.e. Youtube, the World Health Organization, and Bill Gates).1 However, he still has not set out facts capable of establishing that any of his Charter rights have been infringed by the federal Crown. JCT: Crown may play obtuse and keep saying there aren't enough facts proving that the danger was exaggerated a hundredfold. CR: 2. The plaintiff's suggests that "it is premature to bemoan not having the facts before the facts are due," and that the necessary facts will be provided in his eventual affidavit evidence if the claim proceeds.2 However, this Court has held that ". the facts must be plead in the initial claim. The question of whether those facts can be proven is a separate issue, but they must be pled nonetheless."3 JCT: Too bad we don't know his definition of "fact." Is it not a fact that WHO exaggerated the threat by comparing disparate mortality rates without saying so? CR: 3. The plaintiff also admits that "he may not exemplify all the woes cited, but I'd bet some of the other 76 plaintiffs whose actions are stayed do," and argues that "the only reason I cannot rely on their facts is because Defendant had the others stayed."4 However, the Federal Court of Appeal has recently held (in the context of a claim that was similarly based on a "kit" developed by Mr. Turmel), that "facts that are applicable to another individual" cannot be used to support a claim that a plaintiff's Charter rights have been infringed."5 JCT: Which is why the others should not have been stayed so they could exemplify all the woes cited! The Crown kept the others out and now claim the win because I'm alone. CR: 4. The plaintiff also now alleges he recently received an $880 ticket for attending an anti-lockdown protest, which he alleges engages his Charter s. 2(c) rights.6 The plaintiff did not plead the facts surrounding this ticket in his claim, and does not suggest that the ticket was issued by the federal Crown or pursuant to any federal legislation or measure. JCT: I didn't plead it in my Jan 19 action because I didn't get it until mid-March. I only pleaded that my mobility rights are threatened. But I can cite it in my affidavit if I'm given the chance to file one. Remember, they want it thrown out before having to file the Statement of Defence and our affidavits. Make sure I can't file it. CR: 5. The plaintiff alleges that he cannot afford to provide security for costs.7 However, he still has not provided any affidavit evidence of his alleged impecuniosity. This Court, when ordering security for costs against a plaintiff seeking to file a claim based on the plaintiff's litigation "kits," reiterated that "the onus of proof to establish impecuniosity is high, and must be discharged with robust particularity."8 Where a plaintiff "has put nothing before the Court by way of affidavit to demonstrate impecuniosity or inability to pay," for example, an affidavit stating that his own assets are insufficient to provide security or he is unable to raise the money by borrowing from friends, family, or others, a claim of impecuniosity should be rejected.9 JCT: There's a difference between rejecting my defence of impecuniosity and granting their request for costs. I don't need to prove impecuniosity unless she orders I provide security for costs, in which case, someone else can take over Lead Plaintiff and they get an extra few months of suckers taking the jab before the "FUDGED MORTALITY RATES" make it into the court and public awareness. CR: 6. To the extent that the claim is challenging the federal pre-flight testing and 14-day quarantine requirements applicable to international travelers arriving in Canada, it is also noteworthy that this Court has very recently dismissed a Charter challenge to the further requirement, which was introduced following issuance of the present claim, that international travelers stay at a government authorized accommodation or designated quarantine facility for a period of time upon arrival in Canada (the "hotel requirement).10 7. In its decision of June 18, the Court (Crampton CJ) held that these requirements did not infringe any of Charter sections 6, 7, 8, 9, or 12.11 While specifically concerned with the hotel requirement, Canada submits that the Court's findings are equally applicable to the pre-flight testing and quarantine requirements referenced in the plaintiff's claim, and that the plaintiff has pleaded no facts that would warrant a departure from these conclusions in this case. JCT: This was the big loser where they had no answer to "We're doing it for the common good." Fudging the statistics to impose lockdown was not for the common good. So who cares what happened to the inferior loser moves? Luckily, fudged mortality rates are facts we've pleaded that would warrant a departure from these conclusions CR: ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Dated at Toronto this June 29, 2021. Benjamin Wong Counsel for the Defendant PART I - AUTHORITIES CITED 1 Harris v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 232 2 Raymond J Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen, 2019 FC 1357 3 Sivak v R, 2012 FC 272 4 Spencer v Canada (Health), 2021 FC 621 Notes 1 See Plaintiff's factum at paras 1-5, 7-16, 22-23. 2 Plaintiff's factum at para 36. 3 Sivak v R, 2012 FC 272 at para 90. 4 Plaintiff's factum at para 29. 5 Harris v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 232 at para22 6 Plaintiff's factum at para 43. 7 Plaintiff's factum at paras 42, 54. 8 Turmel v Canada, 2019 FC 1357 at para 10 [Raymond Turmel]. 9 Raymond Turmel at para 11. 10 Spencer v Canada (Health), 2021 FC 621 [Spencer]. 11 Spencer at para 299. JCT: So that's the whole case. http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19docs reflect only the Statement of Claim, Motion to Strike, Response, Reply. But it's nice to find out that merely saying "fudged mortality rates" hurt so much Facebook had to take it down. And that's only one fudge-factor raised. But of course, math isn't fact to a "bottom of the math barrel" lawyer.