TURMEL: Appeal Aylen Covid Mortality Hoax dismissal to Judge Zinn JCT: Sep 7 2021 appeal of Prothonotary Mandy Aylen Order dismissing Statement of Claim before Federal Court of Canada Justice Zinn, Crown Benjamin Wong: Clerk: This general sitting of the Federal Court is now open. Please be advised that this hearing is being recorded. T-130-21 John Turmel v. Her Majesty The Queen. Mr. Turmel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Wong for the Defendant. Zinn J.: I have read the decision of Justice Aylen, prothonotary Aylen as she then was, I then the Statement of Claim, the submission, Mr. Turmel, I've read your record of appeal and your submissions. Mr. Wong, I've read your submissions as well. Mr. Turmel, it's your appeal, you go first. Turmel: This is a question of national import. We are not facing vaccine mandates across the country, restrictions on the healthy in order to get them to take the vaccine. Now, many doctors have been warning that the vaccine has some dangerous side effects. The worst is a mechanical engineering, a fluid mechanics problem. Your blood vessels are designed to be smooth, so that you can have a fast laminar flow going through. But when you get the spike protein and your cells start producing spike proteins on the outside, in the blood vessels, when you get down to the capillaries, the spikes impede the flow. Now, if you impede the flow of blood, that causes clots. So therefore, there's a food bet that everybody who got the jab is now growing micro-clots in their capillaries and a D- Dimer test will be the only way to be able to find out if you've got clots growing. But it makes sense from a fluid mechanical point of view that if you've got impediments in the bloodstream like spikes, you're going to form clots around them. And there have already been many reports of clots with respect to the vaccine from doctors. Now, these doctors who are warning us against the clot shot are being censored, they've been taken down, they've been suppressed for getting their licenses. I've had 5 of my videos taken down. I am suspended now from Twitter. My Facebook group, Apple Orange Resistance, is now on limited distribution so that big media is suppressing anyone who wants to warn about the vaccine's side effects. They have up the rule so that the doctor who wants to fill out an Vaccine Adverse Reaction form has to spend an unpaid half an hour doing it and most of the symptoms are minor. Like sneezes, or flus, or pains, or little stuff. What doctor is going to do that? So they've set it up so the Vaccine Adverse Reactions forms don't get filled out very much and are understated, they say by a factor of 100. I'm not going to say that for the deaths but I will say that for sure for the symptoms. How many doctors are going to spend half an hour saying: I suspect this may be due to the vaccine because he's got a sore leg? So these doctors have been taken down, the censorship is terrible, and what's worse is that Covid Mortality was hyped a hundredfold. My Statement of Claim lays out how WHO announced that the Covid 3.4% mortality rate was way worse than the Flu's 0.1% mortality rate without telling us they're comparing two different mortality rates! The first mortality rate is a CFR, hospitalized deaths. People in the hospital die. They didn't have an Infection Death Rate for the whole groups. But for Flu, they used the group Infection Fatality Rate. One in a thousand. Now the Flu's numbers are simple. One in a hundred people end up in hospital and one in ten die. So the Flu's CFR is 10% of the 1% who go to the hospital. We don't know what the Covid IFR is but we know that out of those in the hospital, 3.4% were announced to be dying. That is one third of the Flu's 10% CFR had they compared Apple to Apple. But they didn't compare it to the hundred times bigger CFR, they compared it to the hundred times smaller Flu IFR which therefore hyped the danger of Covid by a factor of a hundred. A hundred! And the whole world got tricked. Every doctor, every scientist, nobody noticed that they were comparing two different mortality rates. I'm the only scientist in the world who noticed it, who figured out: Whoa, they're Apple Oranging us. Now, I've got the site SmartestManOnEarth.Ca, SmartestMan.Ca for short, and that was only when I was claiming that I have the same education as Mr. Spock. Systems Engineering. He was the Science Officer. And being able to figure out the winningest way to go with math. I was the Teaching Assistant of Canada's only Mathematics of Gambling course. I've been accepted as an expert witness in math before the Federal Tax Court of Canada. So when I tell you they fudged the numbers, it's pretty easy to prove. You've just got to go check. 0.1% is an IFR for Flu, 3.4% is a CFR for Covid. They compared Apple to Orange and it's easily proven. That's the first strike. The Statement of Claim has six in all. The second is the cause for lockdowns, saying that people without symptoms can transmit. CDC said 50% of infections were caused by people without symptoms and yet, Wuhan tested 10 million and found zero infections from people without symptoms. If people without symptoms could infect, there would be clusters around those symptomless people, their friends and family who caught it too. But there were no such clusters found. So the whole reason for lockdowns, masks, social distancing, that you can transmit without symptoms, is false. It's just like the Flu. We can protect against people with symptoms, don't send them to visit grannies but the kids can go. The point is they exaggerated the threat so that the first 6 months of the pandemic in Ontario, only one kid is reported to have died. And they shut the schools. One! One kid died. And he was probably obese and diabetic too. So if they're going to inject our kids with clot shots when only one of them died of the virus, if that doesn't tell you that this is a scam, what else. How can they be pushing to inject these clots into kids who don't suffer from the disease? They have too powerful an immunity. So that is the greatest indicator that the mandates for the vaccines are based on an unfounded fear. They fear healthy people, they want to ban healthy people as if they're the threat. But we're finding out now that the people with clots are the ones that can spread the clots around. If that's so and 2 billion people have already gotten their clots, we're all going to end up getting it someday, I figure. But that's not the point. They fudged the numbers. The two big ones are Apple Oranging the death mortality rate and you can't even say Apple Orange because they took zero from Wuhan and hyped it to 50% infections from symptomless people. Now, CTV took down the post, the video, where they admitted there were only 166 deaths in Canada for people not in long- term-care, 1 in 230,000. Now, you're not going to hear about it but the PCR tests were set to over-sensitive to generate false positives to hype the cases. They even found a papaya, a sheep and a goat tested positive for Covid under that PCR too-sensitive test. Then on Mar 24 2020, they changed the CDC death certificate guidelines so they upped Covid over "bullet to the brain" or "lightning strike" or "hit by a bus" so that 94% of deaths listed, the CDC at their site admit had co-morbidities like that and they're reducing the numbers now. Huge swaths they now admit, these were all murders, these were all lightning, these were all accidents, they're reducing the numbers. But they hyped the numbers to scare the people by changing the CDC death certificate guidelines to up Covid over "bullet to the head." The last one is: In order to get Emergency Use Authorization, there need to be no other useful treatments. When HydroxyChloroQuine was found to save 99.2% of the people and only lost 0.8% out of 4,000 patients, that is pretty powerful proof that HydroxyChloroQuine worked. And therefore it had to be discredited. So Bill Gates had to run a test at Oxford where he didn't lose 0.8% of his patients, he managed to lose 25% of his patients by overdosing them by a factor of 10, 9.6. So you had these 6 fudgings of the numbers to promote the hoax that this is a dangerous virus that's going to need a mandate for vaccines to protect us. So they have censored all the doctors and they have taken me down too. I have not published a book at Amazon with the pleadings from this case with my Statement of Claim because I didn't think they'd allow my Statement of Claim up there unless it was a Federal Court proceeding. It's called Covid Mortality Hyped Hundredfold. That's one way of explaining it. Now, number two, I've got candidates coming up in the federal election, we're over 80 now, and we're probably going to be a lot more before the end of the election who are out there telling people: Hey, they fudged the numbers. They Apple Oranged us. Our idiot politicians fell for an Apple Orange comparison. Sadly, this was brought to the attention of the Federal Court and the federal Crown, in January when I filed my Statement of Claim explaining how they fudged the numbers. And how this was not really a dangerous threat. It wasn't 34 times worse, 3.4% compared to 0.1%, it was a third as bad, 3.4% compared to 10%. So we have a 1/3 mini-Flu that is afflicting us and the politicians are reacting like it's a plague, and are imposing conditions upon us like it's a plague. Now, there's not much we're going to be able to do to help the people who took the jab before they found out the Covid virus was hyped a hundredfold. We'll probably have to provide them with free D-Dimer tests which is why my Statement of Claim suggests using the interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada to fund the medication needed by the poor suckers who took the clot shot. They're all growing micro-clots in their capillaries, right now, I would bet. Because that's how fluid mechanics works. If you've got impediments in the bloodstream, you're going to have clots. Some of them are going to be big enough to kill you. And Dr. Sean Brookes said everybody who took the shot, the majority, will be dead in 6 months to 5 years. This is a national catastrophe that has been going on. Now, in the last 8 months, since I brought it to the Crown's and the Court's attention, nothing has been done to push it forward so that it could become known. Millions of Canadians have taken their clots. And there's nothing we can do for them other than cheap D-Dimer tests and watch out for the clots getting big. So the poor people who took the jab are going to end up needing care for the rest of their lives watching out for these clots that are growing, they have to grow if you know fluid mechanics, and I would therefore be asking this Court not only to over-rule the dismissal of my case by Judge Aylen who just couldn't get it. She's got a degree in Economics but she just couldn't understand how an exaggeration of a hundredfold would violate our rights if we were under lockdown for it. A lot of these statistical things a graduate in Economics couldn't get and I'm stunned thinking: how can anybody look at the math I've produced and not get it? But nevertheless, "dismissed." So I need to have the Crown's motion to strike over-ruled, thrown out, and permit me, by expediting a trial of the action for summary judgment. I've got everything I need, I don't need anything else. I'm ready to go for summary judgment. And we've got to get summary judgment and this information out before more kids take the jab to go back to school. So you've got the responsibility to correct a bad mistake by the Court and the Crown. For 8 months, people haven't found out how they were tricked. And they were tricked. And when you find out you were tricked, you're going to have a cause of action. Now, my candidates, I hope, should be a hundred pretty soon, maybe by tomorrow. I've already spoken to 80 of them who will be out there spreading the word about how the Apple Orange comparison was used to trick us. And with more and more candidates explaining how we were tricked, I'd bet we will have a real cause of anger. No "cause of action" the Court says but there is a "cause of anger." We were tricked into taking a deadly clot shot that's going to give us all clots, and the only thing we can do about it now, for those who got it, is to take care of them with the D-Dimer tests and stop the vaccines by everybody else by admitting the Covid Nortality was Hyped a Hundredfold. Last point, if I don't get a positive decision here, is this a final judgment where I have a 30-day appeal period or is it an interlocutory decision with a 10-day appeal period? I don't want to make that mistake. Zinn J.: With respect to your question, it's not the rule of the Court to provide advice, as you probably well-know. I would suggest you err on the side of caution. Mr. Wong. Wong: Before I start, the decision being appealed today is by Justice Aylen when she was a Prothonotary. So just to avoid confusion, I will be referring to her as Prothonotary Aylen. There are going to be four parts to my submission: which I'll try to keep relatively brief. I'm going to first introduce the claim and the procedural history of the claim. I'll briefly take you to the relevant appellate standard of appeal, I'll then take you through Prothonotary Aylen's decision to demonstrate that she didn't err when she struck the plaintiff's claim without leave to amend for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and for being an abuse of process. JCT: Thank you, thank you. And I'll briefly take you through her finding that in the alternative, the security for costs against the plaintiff was warranted JCT: Don't remember, but thank you thank you. My white hat. I'll start with the claim at Tab 1 if the Record, it's around 43 pages, I've summarized it at paragraph's 2 to 11 of our Written Representations. So I'm not going to repeat everything, but I think there are three main take-aways just from reading the claim. The first is that the plaintiff is challenging the Federal Government's Covid 19 mitigation measures. JCT: They're called "restrictions" in the claim. He's alleging that they violated his subsection 2(c), 2(d), 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 rights. There are a number of provincial measures mentioned in the claim but the only measure by the Federal Government that was specifically identified was the pre-flight testing requirement for travellers entering Canada by air and the 14-day quarantine requirement for international travellers. JCT: To get them struck, need a declaration the Covid Mortality was a hoax. The second take-away is that while the claim does allege that these Covid 19 mitigation measures JCT: "restrictions" in the claim. Can't let them change what was sought by mis-labelling it. have generally caused harms. There's mentions of suicides, murders, additions, to stress, ruined friendships, nowhere in the plaintiff allege that he has personally suffered JCT: Which is why they stayed all the other plaintiffs who might have been able to so allege.. from these harms as a result of the federal Covid 19 mitigation measures JCT: "restrictions" in the claim, not "measures." There's a reason they need to change away from the specificity of "restrictions" to the ambiguity of "measures." and this is confirmed by the plaintiff's admission that many of his charter rights hadn't been engaged JCT: As I complained about others not being able to contribute if they fit the bill. as a result of the measures. JCT: "restrictions" in the claim, not "measures." which Prothonotary Aylen points out in paragraghs 27 and 30 of the motion to strike decision at Tab 11. Finally, the claim does make a number of extreme lengthy allegations against a number of parties JCT: Who pulled the Apple Orange trick to clot us... Just some examples of pin-points in the claim. At paragraph 6, 37, 56, 97 to 98, and 112 to 113. There are allegations against the World Health Organization, JCT: Deemed true for the purpose of the motion to strike. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates Facebook, Youtube, kind of centering on this allegation of an exaggeration of fatalities suffered from Covid 19 JCT: centering around the miscomparison of CFR to IFR to hype a hundredfold. which is alleged to be a man-made but mild virus. There is also lengthy allegations of the suppression of the benefits of certain therapies in favor of others which is alleged to be the cause of deliberate malevolence. JCT: I just can't see conning people into taking clots can have any benevolent intent. So those are the main take-aways of the claim. In terms of the procedural background of this claim. This is the first of more than 80 identical claims which have been brought by other plaintiffs that are based off of a "kit" uploaded to the internet by the plaintiff. The other claims have been stayed pending the final disposition of this claim and once this claim is disposed of, the other plaintiffs will have the opportunity to make arguments as to why their specific claim should proceed. JCT: Can we find anyone who had to quarantine when they came in who wants to complain once he finds out how Covid Mortality was a hoax? The Federal Court of Appeal already dismissed a challenge to this order to stay the other proceeding. JCT: Justice Gleason J.A. dismissed Michel Ethier's appeal of Justice Favel J. who dismissed Michel Ethier's appeal of Prothonotary Aylen's Order staying all other claims pending mine and exempting the Crown from service of any documents. Going back to the motion to strike decision, Prothonotary Aylen that struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being an abuse of process. The Plaintiff originally did try to appeal this decision, he was granted an extension of time to file, just note from that decision at Tab 9 from Justice McVeigh, she noted that it's apparent that this appeal is of dubious merit but only granted the extension of time based on the extraordinary circumstances that the plaintiff had successfully attempted to file the appeal by the deadline but it was rejected by the Registry at first; and the potential impact of the appeal on other 80 some odd claims. Now I'll move to the standard of review governing this Court's decision, which I don't think is controversial. It's set out at paragraph 2 of the Federal Court of Appeal's "Hoski" decision at tab 4 of the motion record. It's palpable and over-riding error with respect to findings of fact and mixed fact and law and correctness with respect to extricable questions of law. So with the standard of review in mind, I'm now going to take you to the decision at Tab 11. I'm going to first start with Prothonotary Aylen's finding that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. She correctly identifies the correct legal principles governing this analysis. At paragraph 17 of her decision, she sets up the test governing Rule 221(1)(a). Taking the plaintiff's allegations as true. JCT: If what I allege is true, no cause of anger? It must be plain and obvious that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's statement of the test at paragraph 17 of the Imperial Tobacco decision, which is at Tab 14, At paragraphs 18 to 20 of her decision, she identifies the requirement that a reasonable cause of action requires that each element of the cause of action be pled with sufficient particularity and each allegation must be supported by the material facts. In the case of a Charter claim, this means that each element of the charter test set out by the Supreme Court needs to be pled and supported by material facts. This finding is consistent with paragraphs 16-25 of the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Mancuso which is at Tab 6. As well as paragraph 22 of the Supreme Court's decision in McCabe at Tab 5. At paragraph 25 of her decision, correctly identifies the Supreme Court's jurisprudence concerning the essential elements of section 2(c), 2(d), 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12. She goes through each one and sets out the relevant test to establish the breach of the charter. And finally, at paragraph 21, she notes the plaintiff can't rely on facts applicable to other individuals to support their personal Charter claim. This is consistent with paragraph 25 of the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Harris, which is another Turmel kit claim at Tab 3. So having correctly identified the governing legal principles, Prothonotary Aylen proceeded to apply them and it's our submission that she applied them without a palpable or over-riding error. And paragraph 25 really is the meat of the analysis. Prothonotary Aylen goes through the governing test for each Charter allegation and she finds that even if the facts pleaded by the plaintiff were true, JCT: Facts? what facts? they were insufficient to establish that any of the plaintiff's personal charter rights had been infringed. So if we look at sub-paragraph 25(d) of her decision, she notes that while the 14-day quarantine might engage an individual's liberty in trust under section 7, the claim doesn't plead that the plaintiff has been subject to to that 14-day quarantine. Nor does the plaintiff plead any psychological impact of the Covid 19 mitigation measures on him. JCT: They're "restrictions" in the claim, not "measures." let along the serious and profound effects on psychological integrity that's required to make out a breach of an individual's security of the person under section 7. So that's just one example. She goes through every Charter allegation and kind of sets out why either the test hasn't been pled or each element of the test hasn't been pled or there aren't material facts available to support the claim. The plaintiff now alleges in his written submissions that Prothonotary Aylen failed to consider the data that he provided which he alleged that the Covid 19 mortality rate has been exaggerated and she failed to take this data as true. JCT: I caught them comparing CFR to IFR to hundredfold hype the mortality rate and to them, it's still an allegation. At paragraph 3 of the decision which show that Prothonotary Aylen expressly considered the statistics, even if the statistics provided were true. JCT: A true statistic was not deemed a material fact. The question wasn't whether there wasn't a reasonable cause of action because the statistics weren't true. She found there wasn't a reasonable cause of action because the plaintiff hadn't established a personal impact, that his personal charter rights had been infringed. JCT: Lucky she stayed all the other claims who might have been able to establish a personal impact, that their personal charter rights had been infringed. So we would argue that that does not rise to a palpable and over-riding error because she did consider the statistics Prothonotary Aylen then rejected the plaintiff's arguments that even though he hadn't personally suffered relating to Covid 19 mitigation measures JCT: They're "restrictions" in the claim, not "measures." some of the other plaintiffs might. And Prothonotary Aylen again correctly noted that a plaintiff cannot rely on facts applicable to other plaintiffs to support their personal charter claim. So in light of all of these findings, at paragraph 28, Prothonotary Aylen concluded that the Statement of Claim contained bare assertions of Charter breaches without sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to each of the alleged Charter breaches. And as such, it didn't disclose a reasonable cause of action. Canada submits that Prothonotary Aylen was correct in law. The plaintiff hasn't identified a palpable and over-riding error and as such, the Court shouldn't interfere with this finding. I'll now move on to the Prothonotary Aylen's finding that the claim should also be struck as an abuse of process. JCT: Bringing it to the Court's attention that we were tricked into the suicide shot is an abuse of process! It doesn't appear that the plaintiff is challenging this finding but I will note that she correctly identifies the legal principles governing rule 221(1)(f) in paragraph 22 of her decision. She found that the claim was replete with lengthy diatribes and made scandalous and extreme allegations that are unsubstantiated. JCT: How can mass murder come across but scandalous and extreme? If she says it's unsubstantiated... she's a judge.. such as alleged cover-ups and conspiracies. This finding has been extensively supported by the evidentiary record. Canada submits that Prothonotary Aylen's finding that the claim was also an abuse of process was correct in law and the plaintiff has failed to identify a palpable and over- riding error in its application. The plaintiff doesn't appear to allege that Prothonotary Aylen erred in finding that leave to amend should not be granted. In paragraph 30 where she sets out why she chose not to exercise her discretion. And the plaintiff hasn't suggested that the pleading could be cured by way of amendment and that the defects of the pleading were such that they couldn't be cured by the amendments. On the submissions before Prothonotary Aylen, there is nothing that would suggest that appellate intervention on this finding was warranted. Finally, the plaintiff does not appear to be alleging that Prothonotary Aylen erred in finding that, in the alternative, if she would have granted Canada's motion to strike, she would have granted Canada's request for security for costs in the amount of $11,350. And Prothonotary Aylen found that Canada had numerous cost awards against the plaintiff and the plaintiff hadn't demonstrated an impecuniosity. And this was sufficient to warrant security for costs. Again, there's nothing to suggest that appellate intervention on this finding is warranted. JCT: They didn't tell her about the costs awards I owed when they urged her to name me Lead Plaintiff. Once they'd gotten me, they then unleashed a point that could not have been used on anyone else. Sleazy! But they're caught. It's in the earlier record. That concludes my submissions unless there are any questions. Zinn J.: I recall that you're asking for $500 in costs. Wong: Yes, we are requesting costs fixed at $500. Zinn J.: Thank you, I don't have any questions. Mr. Turmel, do you have anything to add keeping in mind that a Reply is to be directed to something that the Respondent has raised that you have not had an opportunity to respond to? Turmel: Yes. It is argued that I have not suffered many of the harms from lockdown I have alleged. Canadians are suffering. And I've also alleged that if they had not stayed all the other applicants, then they couldn't say that about me. Now, they did strike [stay] the other applicants and the Crown did not tell the judge that they would be objecting to me as plaintiff because of my past costs when they proposed me as the Lead Plaintiff. So they let her appoint me Lead Plaintiff without telling her that they had an objection to me as the Lead Plaintiff for past costs. None of the other people had any past costs. Only me. Zinn J.: Just a minute, Mr. Turmel, my understanding is that none of the other actions have been struck, they've been stayed pending yours. And then they are reborn, if you will, and each one of those other plaintiffs has the opportunity to address the Court as to why their actions should continue. And if one of those plaintiffs has some personal impact, then that it something I would expect them to indicate to the Court at that point. I don't take your point that somehow they're disadvantaged because somehow yours is the first case going ahead. JCT: Oops. one misstatement, struck for stayed, Turmel: I am disadvantaged by not having them with me. Zinn J.: You can't rely, as Justice Aylen pointed out, the law is quite clear, if you're relying on that you personally suffered a breach of your charter rights, you can't rely on the fact that others may have. You have to show that you have. Turmel: Before Justice Phelan in the 2014 for about 400 people who were complaining about losing their medpot grow licenses, they were all heard together with me and they were all given the chance to make their points too and if Justice Aylen had not stayed everybody in this hearing, they would be with me now. the Crown wouldn't be able to say: the only one we're fighting with doesn't have these reasons, when everybody else does. They stayed the other people so that I can't rely on them. If they hadn't stayed the other people, treated them like Judge Phelan did, left their motions alive with mine, then I would have been able to say: I don't but he does. Now I'm being told I can't say one of the other applicants had this situation and his right violated because the Court stayed him. If the Court hadn't stayed him, he would be here to be able to make that point. I'm pointing out that the only reason that can be used against me is that I must rely on other people is because they stayed the other people. So I couldn't rely on them. If they hadn't stayed them, I could, like I did before. Zinn J.: Can you tell me what decision of Justice Phelan you are referring to? Turmel: I believe it's called In the case of "Numerous Applications" and it's got to be mentioned in the documentation. I mention Justice Phelan. The name is hard to understand, numerous cases, but it's there and he had a hearing in 12 Courtrooms in 10 provinces by video- teleconference with everybody invited. Everybody. He gave everybody a chance to speak if they wanted. Hence if that had been continued here and nobody had been Anybody else who was affected by these mandates and these restrictions, if not Turmel. So, that's the situation in the 2014 where Justice Phelan had everybody there. And the Crown said it was: unprecedented, extraordinary, remarkable to have this many people on a telephone teleconferenced Court case. And it was a special event. JCT: I'd made this point since the Crown had raised it. So had the people not been stayed, they wouldn't be able to say I can't raise their arguments. Zinn J.: I would note that Mr. Wong says that the decision to stay was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal and that's not before me. Turmel: It hasn't been upheld yet, it's been upheld by 1 judge. It's at the Court of Appeal in process. Zinn J.: But it's not before me today. Turmel: No. But I'm just saying that if the Crown wants to argue that I can't raise what others have got, I have to point out the only reason I can't do that is because they stopped it. And the Crown focused on getting me named Lead Plaintiff, knowing they would have objections to me... My point is simply: had they not stayed everybody, then they could not say that the other candidate situations do not apply. They would. You might have one or two guys who had the quarantine, one or two who had the travel, one or two who couldn't get into Quebec, like me, for example! That's a provincial restriction. Nevertheless, we're talking about federal mandates being imposed with the Government urging people to force other people to get the clot shot or be punished. And I'm going to be punished. JCT: Sure enough, the punishment edicts are coming out. Because, I'm not going to be getting my clots. And therefore, they're coming up with ways, dreaming up ways, to punish people who aren't going to have clots as if we're the threat. So they've got it backwards. We're not, healthy people are not the threat and yet healthy people are being treated as a threat by the people who are truly sick, shedding. That's my point. It could not be said: other issues could not be raised if they hadn't stayed the others. It wasn't me who stayed them, I wanted them along. So they could make their points if I could not. Second point, abuse. The judge said that this was an abuse of process because there were all these bald allegations and statements without backing and she didn't specify one. Not one. She didn't say that the Apple Orange comparison wasn't true, that it was a bald allegation. Well I got document. I've got the Toronto Star article with the WHO's statement. And it's known around the world. She didn't cite that as a bald allegation. What about Wuhan with their zero to 50% from the CDC. Nobody found that allegation irrational, or whatever. So she did not cite one particular in dismissing these as bald allegations with nothing to... In other words, it's a standard judicial cop-out to say: I haven't seen enough. I have not seen sufficient evidence to prove two plus two is four. My point is: the eyes can be closed to anything. Either she didn't see it or she wasn't looking. But the point was that all of these statistical inferences are material facts. Just because a judge says: I don't think they're facts, when they are a fact, okay? We're going to argue here: What's a fact? The Court says: Oh, the WHO fudged the numbers, that's not a fact. Oh, Wuhan proved CDC fudged the numbers, that's not a fact. CTV downed the truth, that's not a fact. PCR test too sensitive for false positives, that's not a fact. All of these things the Court ruled were not facts and were an abuse, without stating once why. Therefore we're left with: insufficient evidence two plus two is four. You can say "insufficient evidence" about anything. In my judicial career over 40 years, I've seen it a lot where judges dismiss a true case, a right case, a mathematically sound case, by saying: I haven't seen enough. So that's what we've got here, she doesn't mention one thing that I got wrong. Not one. Just says it's all wrong. Now, excuse me but what's a "material fact." I says the material facts are the statistics I presented and if the judge wants to say statistics are not material facts, we'll leave that for the readership of this to decide. So, finally, right now, every time I see an article about someone who took the clot shot and died of clots, after February 26th when Judge Aylen received the file, I say: Hey, this is the last two lines of my poem. Would you taken clot shot if the Fed Court had us told, Covid Mortality was over-fudged a hundredfold? Who would have taken an experimental clot shot if they'd known it was a mini-flu? a 1/3 death rate mini-flu? How many people? And to think we've now got the politicians forcing them, like now? The fact is, nobody knows until my candidates start telling everybody in the upcoming election that we were fudged, they fudged the numbers to trick us. So we were tricked and that is a cause of anger. It doesn't matter how many legal reasons one might find. If you don't make this known, and let this through, more people are going to die, who will take their clot shots, who would have never taken their clot shot if the story about the Apple Orange hoax had not been suppressed. It's been dismissed. it's a fact. They fudged the numbers to hype it a hundredfold. That a judge with an Economics degree couldn't see that is a startling conclusion. So I'm saying someone's got to correct her mistake. Ever since February, everybody who took the clot shot has a cause of anger at the Federal Court. And the only way to fix it is for you to quash her decision, over-turn it and let me in for a summary judgment so that I can get the stats to the people's attention before my candidates do in the election. Because, otherwise, they're going to be yelling at the Court for suppressing. Why didn't the Court tell you that they Apple Orange to hype the number. Zinn J.: With due respect, Mr. Turmel, that is not the role of the Federal Court or any Court to tell people things. JCT: And it's not the role to suppress those things Zinn J: We rule on actions that are before us and motions that are before us. Turmel: Tell that to the families of the victims. Zinn J.: Mr. Turmel, I have given you extreme latitude but I will not hear about blood on the hands of the Federal Court, as alleged in your submissions. That's not our job. JCT: He may not hear it but the blood is still there. Turmel: Well, you have the power to do anything that is just. Zinn J.: I have the power to allow the appeal or to deny the appeal. Full stop. That's it. Turmel: And the appeal [action] was dismissed. You can't tell me which of my material facts weren't facts. She didn't say. Zinn J.: You made that point, Mr. Turmel. Turmel: I know. She's made all these mistakes. She calls facts "allegations that are unproven" when it's obvious they're proven. She made a lot of mistakes in dismissing mathematical facts and calling them not facts. And I need this Court to overrule her, get rid of the motion to strike, and let the case go forward to trial. I'm asking to strike down any and all Covid restrictions because they fudged the numbers. Not because it hurts too much, because my rights are violated. It's because they fudged the numbers. They tricked us. That's why this should be going through. I used the Federal Court as an opportunity to bring it to the Court's attention: Hey, they fudged the numbers to trick us to death. What are you going to do about it? "Dismissed, not interested." Excuse me but people are dying out there. And the Court should not be able to just say: Oh, you didn't cross the t or dot the i, therefore we're just going to let them keep dying. I'm pointing out to the Court that people are taking these clots and they're going to be in trouble and we've got to stop it. And you're the only people who can stop it by letting the case in. Letting me make my point that all restrictions... they want me to name which restriction when I said "all." "All and any restrictions." They only name two, I'm saying all restrictions. It's included in the new mandates now. I don't care what particular restrictions, I'm saying all of them are based on a fraud, on a hyped mortality rate, and all of them should be disallowed. This Court has the power to say... Zinn J.: No, this Court doesn't have the power, this Court has jurisdiction over federal matters. Not over provincial, not over municipal, not over school boards, not over hospitals, it has to have a federal basis, and Mr. Wong has stated that there are basically two, as outlined in your claim. Those are the only matters. If we accept everything you say, those are the only matters over which this Court has jurisdiction. Turmel: Fine. At least I get a declaration that they fudged the numbers which might the politicians to stop imposing vaccine mandates. I need the Court to declare that they fudged the numbers. That's the important thing I seek. Not any particular remedy. I want the Court to admit they fudged the numbers so the politicians stop reacting to a fudged threat. That's all I want, my case to go forward. I'm not asking you to make a determination that they fudged the numbers, I want my trial judge at summary judgment to make that determination. They fudged the numbers, therefore, please, don't issue any restrictions. Strike down the two federal ones we know about, but don't do any more. It's been fudged, that's my goal. I know there are only two federal restrictions right now, until they come up with more, but nevertheless, we need our politicians to find out they got tricked and it would be better coming from a Court than it would be coming from a hundred politicians running in an election. But that might work too. We might be able to get the message out to the people through the elections that they were tricked, but it would be nicer to be saved by the Court. And that means that the judge's decision has to be over-ruled for not having provided any specifics of what I got wrong when I got nothing wrong and then allow summary judgment and see what the Court says. If they're going to declare that any restrictions due to a Covid fudging the numbers are unconstitutional. So, that's it, any restrictions because of the Covid Mortality hyped hundredfold should be declared and let the Government react to it. But I need a declaration out of the Court, only, that it's unconstitutional to fudge the threat.. Zinn J.: I understand your position entirely. Turmel: That's it, yes. I need you to over-rule her decision because she wasn't specific about what I got wrong, and she got everything wrong, and these conditions, even the two we're talking about, the quarantine and other one, are nevertheless the result of a fudged threat. I need the Court to declare that there was a hyped threat saying no restrictions should be allowed and then let the Government react. That's all I'm asking, for this Court to over-rule the decision and expedite the trial of the action.. Zinn J.: Thank you. Thank you both. I'm going to reserve my decision on your appeal, Mr. Turmel, you'll get my decision relatively soon. Thank you again, with that we can adjourn.