TURMEL: Crown motion to strike air travel vax requirement challenge JCT: Here's the Crown's motion to strike. http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bcn1.pdf Court File No.: T-277-22 FEDERAL COURT B E T W E E N : JOHN C. TURMEL Plaintiff (Responding Party) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant (Moving Party) NOTICE OF MOTION TAKE NOTICE THAT the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen ("Canada") will make a motion to the Court in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules. THE MOTION IS FOR: 1. An order striking the claim without leave to amend; or 2. In the alternative, an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for costs in the amount of $11,350, and not take any further steps in the action until security for costs is provided; 3. The costs of this motion and of the action; and 4. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may allow. THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE: A. The claim 5. The claim seeks declarations that provisions of the Minister of Transport's Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 52 (Interim Order) (the "Interim Order") unjustifiably infringe the plaintiff's rights under ss. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"), and are ultra vires s. 6.41 of the Aeronautics Act, RSC 1985 c A-2; B. The claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action 6. It is plain and obvious that the claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action; 7. The claim does not set out sufficient material facts to establish any of the causes of action alleged; JCT: Oh, so it doesn't disclose a reasonable cause of action. It happens to be the same as Brian Peckford's. But though there is no explanation of how a reasonable cause of action is not disclosed, they're hoping the judge will just repeat "I don't see." And the judge probably will. C. The claim is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process 8. The claim is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process; 9. The claim is prolix and repetitive, and fails to set out a concise statement of material facts capable of establishing a deprivation of any of the causes of action alleged; JCT: If you can understand what that means, let me know. 10. The claim makes unparticularized allegation of malice and fraud, and is replete with lengthy diatribes and makes scandalous and extreme allegations that are unsubstantiated; JCT: Sure, decrying mass murder has to include malice and fraud which seem scandalous. 11. The claim attempts to relitigate allegations from a previous claim (Federal Court File No.: T-130-21) that was struck without leave to amend by this Court; JCT: Notice how he ignores the previous litigation was struck because they could not discuss "any" restrictions as unconstitutional. And has to hide that we now have a specific "air travel" restriction to complain about. But since the arguments against any restriction were dismissed, then the same arguments against the air travel restriction should be too. D. If the claim is not struck without leave to amend, the plaintiff should be required to provide security for costs 12. Canada has eight orders against the plaintiff for costs in other proceedings, which remain unpaid; 13. The outstanding costs awards total $15,006.16, including post-judgment interest; and 14. The claim is frivolous and vexatious and there is reason to believe the plaintiff will have insufficient assets available to pay Canadas costs; 15. Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rules 3, 174, 181, 221(1)(a),(c),(f), 369, 416(1)(f), (g), and 418; and 16. Such other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may accept. JCT: So that's it. The Crown does not see the reasonable cause of action and it's scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. No reasons given at all. But the previous costs are the best reason for others to file the http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bsc.pdf (docx) who don't owe costs for previous cases. Just follow the instructions at http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bins.pdf 75 people had filed a Statement of Claim against "any" restriction being unconstitutional and if I lose at the Supreme Court, they can let their actions be dismissed with no costs. But here's the chance to file another action against the government for $2 where a Lead Plaintiff will probably be appointed who doesn't owe money. Or I'll take the Lead if the Crown drops the demand for security for costs. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion: 1. Affidavit of Duane Crocker, affirmed March 17, 2022. http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bcn1a.pdf March 17, 2022 Benjamin Wong Attorney General of Canada Counsel for the Defendant TO: The Administrator Federal Court of Canada AND TO: John C. Turmel Plaintiff, self represented JCT: So I urge those of you who now have your Gold Star trophy proving you challenged the Covid Mortality false alarm to get another Gold Star with a better challenge to the false alarm. A gang of new claims will force the Crown to try to find a Lead Plaintiff and when they can't, what will they do? Just notice that the Crown totally ignored that the original action was dismissed for not claiming a specific restriction to challenge and how this new one does. Ducking the major difference between the actions.