TURMEL: Motion for exemption from air travel vax JCT: Our first action http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19scjct.pdf was for exemption from any Covid restrictions on our rights as unconstitutional because the Covid Mortality threat is a false alarm. It was dismissed without hearing because we had to cite a restriction that was affecting us, couldn't ask to declare any restriction as unconstitutional. I've appealed that calling off the false alarm was more important than some legal etiquette. But then the Minister of Transport issue a vax requirement for air travel. Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford has filed for Judicial Review of that interim order but is going to take a long time and the air travel vax requirement will probably be gone before he gets to trial. So http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bscjc.pdf is the new Statement of Claim for a declaration that that ban on air travel without a vax is unconstitutional. And I've now filed a motion for an interim exemption to fly to Ottawa. Court File No.: T-277-22 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: JOHN C. TURMEL Applicant Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Defendant NOTICE OF MOTION TAKE NOTICE THAT on Friday Feb 25 2022 or at any time thereafter set by the Court, the Plaintiff will make a motion by Zoom or teleconference to the Court on short notice if necessary. THE MOTION IS FOR an Order granting Plaintiff interim relief of a personal constitutional exemption to the vaccine requirement for air travel promulgated by the Minister of Transport on January 15, 2022, in "Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to Covid-19, No. 52" (the "Decision"). THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE that the requirement is in reaction to a Covid pandemic that is a hundredfold exaggerated psy-op false alarm. AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging the time or mode of service or dispensing with any documents or amending any error or omission which this Honourable Court may allow. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used: Applicant's Affidavit and any other material this court will allow. Dated at Brantford on Feb 22 2022. ____________________________________ For the Applicant: John C. Turmel, B.Eng., APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT I, John Turmel, residing at 50 Brant Ave. in Brantford Ontario, make oath: 1. I was accredited an expert witness in the Mathematics of Gambling in the Oct 20 2003 decision of the Honourable Justice Diane Campbell of the Federal Tax Court of Canada in Epel v. The Queen (2003 TCC 707; Docket: 2001-1769(IT)G) https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc- cci/decisions/en/item/27060/index.do 2. On Mar 4 2020, the Toronto Star reported: WHO said the latest mortality rate for the virus is 3.4%. This is well above the seasonal flu, which has a mortality rate of under 0.1%. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/03/11/the-novel- coronavirus-outbreak-is-threatening-to-turn-into-a-global- pandemic-heres-everything-we-know-about-covid-19.html 3. WHO mislabeled the Covid 3.4% CFR (Case Fatality Rate) and the Flu's 0.1% IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) as mortality rates without informing that they were different mortality rates. 4. Comparing Covid's 3.4% CFR Apple not to Flu's 10% CFR Apple but to Flu's 0.1% IFR Orange made the Covid threat look 34 times deadlier than the Flu's when it was really only a third as bad. 5. WHO's finding no documented asymptomatic transmission and Wuhan's finding zero clusters of infections transmitted by 300 asymptomatics out of 10 million tested shows the "Theory of Asymptomatic Transmission" behind masked social distanced lockdowns did not agree with experiment. 6. The Statement of Claim lists other things done to hype the false alarm: - CTV censoring that only 166 healthy Canadians had died making the odds 1/230,000 of a healthy Canadian dying; - PCR test set too sensitive to hype cases with false positives; - Mar 24 2020 Death Certificate Guideline change to up deaths "with Covid" over deaths "from lightning strike" or "from bullet to the head" or "from cancer" or "from heart attack" leaving only 6% (1/17) dying from Covid alone; - Bill Gates' UK Oxford Recovery trial showing HydroxyChloroQuine was dangerous by killing 25.7% of the patients with a 9.6 gram overdose after Dr. Didier Raoult had lost only 0.8% in France using 1 gram. 7. Plaintiff has started an action to declare the "Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to Covid-19, No. 52" (the "Decision") which restricts the mobility of Canadians based on their Covid-19 vaccination status to be ultra vires section 6.41 of the Aeronautics Act and therefore of no force and effect. 8. Plaintiff argues the Decision, with limited exceptions, effectively bans Canadians who have chosen not to receive an experimental medical treatment from domestic and international travel by airplane resulting in discrimination and a gross violation of the constitutionally protected right to Mobility afforded to the Plaintiff by section 6 of the Charter. 9. Plaintiff seeks a Declaration that the Decision is invalid due to errors in fact and a declaration pursuant to section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 that sections 17.1 to 17.4, 17.7, 17.9, 17.10, 17.22, 17.30 to 17.33, 17.36 and 17.40 of the Decision ("the Vaccine Provisions") violate the Plaintiff's section 6 Charter right and that these violations are not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter; 10. Restriction on air travel to mitigate a false alarm over a virus with mortality hyped a hundredfold is an arbitrary, grossly disproportional, conscience-shocking violation of Charter right. 11. Affiant wishes to fly to Ottawa to visit family and should not be deprived of such mobility in reaction to a Covid pandemic false alarm. ------------------------------- APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS 1. Applicant has shown that WHO compared the Covid 3.4% Case Fatality Rate ("CFR") to the hundredfold too-small Flu 0.1% Infection Fatality Rate ("IFR") to hype the false alarm a hundredfold without informing that they were comparing two different mortality rates. 2. No asymptomatic transmission mandating masked social distanced lockdowns has yet to be documented. 3. Applicant attests that restricting air travel for the unvaccinated because of a Covid pandemic false alarm is an unreasonable violation of Applicant's Mobility Right under S.6 of the Charter. 4. Applicant's seeks an Order granting Plaintiff interim relief of a personal constitutional exemption to the vaccine requirement for air travel by the Minister of Transport in the January 15, 2022 "Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to Covid-19, No. 52" (the "Decision") requiring proof of vaccination for air travel pending adjudication of the action. Dated at Brantford on Feb 22 2022. _____________________________________ For the Applicant/Plaintiff John C. Turmel, B.Eng., JCT: The Crown wrote to the Court Administrator asking that the Registrar not file the motion! Department of Justice Canada Ontario Regional Office National Litigation Sector Our File Number: LEX-500081718 February 22, 2022 Registry Federal Court 90 Sparks Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H9 Dear Sir/Madam: Re: TURMEL, John v Her Majesty the Queen Court File No.: T-277-22 I am counsel for the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada ("Canada"), in the above-noted claim. I am writing to request that this matter be designated as a specially managed proceeding, and to request that the plaintiff's recently served motion for interim relief not be accepted for filing. The Statement of Claim in this matter alleges that the Minister of Transport's Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 52 ("Transport Canada Order") unjustifiably violates the plaintiff's Charter rights and is ultra vires the Aeronautics Act. In support of these allegations, the plaintiff makes numerous allegations that are similar if not identical to those made by the same plaintiff in the matter with Court File No. T-130-21, which is the lead claim among a large group of claims that are currently under case- management by the Honourable Madam Justice Aylen. Given that the matters involve the same parties and common allegations, and that the ultimate disposition of the matter with Court File No. T-130-21 may have a bearing on this case, Canada hereby requests that this and any other similar claims filed in the future be similarly designated for case- management, and that they be case-managed together with the already ongoing claims. On February 22, 2022, the plaintiff also served Canada with a motion record seeking an "interim personal constitutional exemption" from the Transport Canada Order, returnable for an oral hearing on February 25, 2022. However, contrary to Rule 360 of the Federal Courts Rules, the plaintiff has not selected a general sittings date, nor has he requested a special hearing date from the Court. As such, Canada requests that the motion record should not be accepted for filing. Sincerely, Benjamin Wong Counsel c.c. John Turmel, plaintiff, via e-mail ------------------------------- JCT: I sent a response: John C. Turmel, B. Eng., February 23, 2022 Registry Federal Court Dear Sir/Madam: Re: TURMEL, John v Her Majesty the Queen Court File No.: T-277-22 1. Benjamin Wong, counsel for the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada ("Canada") in the above-noted claim, has written the Registry to request that this matter be designated as a specially managed proceeding, and to request that the plaintiff's recently served motion for interim relief not be accepted for filing. 2. The Statement of Claim in this matter alleges that the Minister of Transport's Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 52 ("Transport Canada Order") unjustifiably violates the plaintiff's Charter rights and is ultra vires the Aeronautics Act. 3. In support of these allegations, the plaintiff makes numerous allegations that are similar if not identical to those made by the same plaintiff in the matter with Court File No. T-130-21, which is the lead claim among a large group of claims that are currently under case-management by the Honourable Madam Justice Aylen. 4. Defendant notes the matters involve the same parties and common allegations, and concludes that the ultimate disposition of the matter with Court File No. T-130-21 may have a bearing on this case, so Canada requests that this and any other similar claims filed in the future be similarly designated for case-management, and that they be case-managed together with the already ongoing claims. 5. The ultimate disposition of T-130-21 will not have a bearing on this case. It sought: B) an Order pursuant to S.24(1) of the Charter for an Injunction prohibiting any federal Covid-mitigation restrictions that are not imposed on the deadlier Flu; or C) a permanent constitutional exemption from any Covid- mitigation restrictions as an appropriate and just remedy. D) an Order for unspecified damages for pain and losses incurred by such unconstitutional restrictions on rights. 6. The Court struck the action without leave to amend because the Court could not strike "any" restrictions, there had to be a specific federal restriction affecting the Plaintiff. Now there is. 7. Plaintiff appealed on grounds that declaring the Covid Mortality false alarm was in the interests of justice. But has not appealed the lack of specific federal restriction. 8. Plaintiff waited until there was a specific federal restriction on me to be struck. 9. On Jan 15, 2022, the Minister of Transport issued Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 52 ("Transport Canada Order") which unjustifiably violates the plaintiff's Charter rights and is ultra vires the Aeronautics Act and should be struck. 10. Because there is no claim for damages and the fatal flaw in T-130-21 has been remedied in this action, this claim should not be case-managed together with the already ongoing claims that include the fatal flaw. 11. On February 22, 2022, the plaintiff also served Canada with a motion record seeking an "interim personal constitutional exemption" from the Transport Canada Order, returnable for an oral hearing on February 25, 2022. However, contrary to Rule 360 of the Federal Courts Rules, the plaintiff had not selected a general sittings date, nor requested a special hearing date from the Court. As such, Canada requested that the motion record should not be accepted for filing. 12. Plaintiff had sought a hearing: on Friday Feb 25 2022 or at any time thereafter set by the Court, the Plaintiff will make a motion by Zoom or teleconference to the Court on short notice if necessary. 14. Plaintiff has since sent a letter to the Court Administrator requesting that a hearing date be set. 15. These arguments to dismiss the motion by "not filing" should be raised before the Motions Court and not the Registry. Dated at Brantford on Feb 23 2022. _____________________________________ For the Applicant/Plaintiff John C. Turmel, B.Eng., TO: Benjamin Wong, Counsel Benjamin.Wong2@justice.gc.ca ------------------------------- JCT: I did not get a response and no hearing was booked "on Feb 25 or at any time thereafter set by the Court." So I wrote I still seek a hearing at any time thereafter Feb 25. Dated at Brantford on Feb 28 2022. For the Applicant/Plaintiff John C. Turmel, B.Eng., ------------------------------- On Feb 23, Chief Justice Crampton appointed Prothonotary Trent Horne as Case Management Judge. I got a Direction from the Court: Federal Court CANADA February 28, 2022 VIA EMAIL RE: T-277-22 JOHN TURMEL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Please be advised of the following oral direction of Case Management Judge Trent Horne dated February 28, 2022: "The parties are directed to provide mutually available dates for a case management conference by no later than March 4, 2022. The hearing of the plaintiff's motion for interim relief of a personal constitutional exemption will be discussed at the case management conference." Sincerely, Monica Mecca Registry Officer JCT: The Crown submitted a few dates and I submitted: John C. Turmel, B. Eng., March 4, 2022 Registry Dear Sir/Madam: Re: TURMEL, John v Her Majesty the Queen Court File No.: T-277-22 Feb 28 2022 Direction 1. Could you place this letter before Case Management Judge Trent Horne. 2. The Direction said: "The parties are directed to provide mutually available dates for a case management conference by no later than March 4, 2022. The hearing of the plaintiff's motion for interim relief of a personal constitutional exemption will be discussed at the case management conference." 3. My Notice asked that my motion be heard: on Friday Feb 25 2022 or at any time thereafter set by the Court,, 4. I remain ready for any date set by the court on Feb 25 or thereafter. But the Court is not setting the date to have the motion heard but to have the motion discussed and presumably not heard. And Respondent must be hoping the Air Travel restrictions are lifted to mooten this action. 5. Plaintiff seeks a declaration by this Court that the Covid Pandemic is a False Alarm and restrictions to mitigate that false alarm are unconstitutional. The pharma cabal has shouted "Fire" in a crowded church which is a crime because many could be hurt in the panicked stampede. The crime would be compounded if the preacher found out it was a false alarm and did not inform the congregation. This Court was told that the Covid Mortality was a False Alarm but did not declare the False Alarm but let the panic and dying continue. 6. And we find that not only is the vaccine not effective at preventing infection and transmission, it is not safe. The Statement of Claim explains that fluid mechanical engineering predicts that spikes obstructing blood flow in capillaries would cause clots. Dr. Hoffe announced he had given his vaxed patients D-Dimer tests and found that 63% had new micro-clots. So, of 26 million vaxed Canadians, I'd bet 16 million now have clots. 7. It also cites the University of Ottawa study over June and July 2021 of 32 heart problems after 15,997 Moderna and 16,382 Pfizer shots. 32/32,379 is about 1/1,000. Though 32 heart problems in 32,379 doses is 1/1,000, if they double- dosed, then it's 32 heart problems in 16,000 patients. So, not 1/1,000 but could be 1/500 who get heart problems! 8. On Feb 22, 2022, the CDC reported the risk of myocarditis was mitigated by increasing the time between doses from 6 weeks to 8 weeks. Myocarditis is permanent heart damage with victims usually dying within 5 years. 9. It mentioned: - Buchan et al. Ontario, period of enhanced surveillance - Among males ages 18-24, the myocarditis/pericarditis reporting rate after a second dose Moderna (300 per million doses) was ~5x higher thatn Pfizer (59 per million doses). 10. Double-dosing means there are 600 cases of Myocarditis per million. That's 0.06% of vaxed young boys to get Myocarditis. With 1.5 million Canadian boys aged 19-24, about 4% of the population, we should expect 900 cases. 11. It also mentions that from up to Feb 20 2022, COVID-19 vaccination in Canada reports 53,553 receiving their first dose last week. And so we should expect 2,000 of the 53,553 newly vaccinated last week to be young boys. 12. The three billions who took the clot shot may not have if this Court had declared the False Alarm in Jan 2021 at the start which would have been heard all around the world. By not declaring the False Alarm, this Court has blood on its hands. 13. I can check the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effects Registration System) to see how many deaths were caused by the 53,000 vaccines taken last week which can be attributed to this 1-week delay. It is time to declare the False Alarm and any more delay will cost more blood on this Court's hands. Dated at Brantford Mar 4 2022. __________________________________ For the Applicant/Plaintiff John C. Turmel, B.Eng., JCT: So I asked for any date, the Crown must be ready for any date, and the judge wastes time asking us what dates we want. Notice it's not to hear the motion but to discuss hearing it. Two weeks worth of new vaxed at 50K/week will be blamed on that delay. These judges seem to have no clue about the blood on their hands due to delay in declaring the false alarm. If anyone wants to listen in on Friday's hearing, you'll have to contact the Administrator: TOR_reception@fct-cf.ca So will the Crown be able to convince the judge that the action seeking remedy against the air-travel vax requirement is the same as remedy against any vax requirement?