TURMEL: Crown Response to Supreme Court Covid False Alarm Aylen ppeal JCT: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19scjct.pdf is my original Statement of Claim to declare-+id Mortality Hyped Hundredfold a false alarm. Who cares about vaccine safety and effectiveness if the threat is a hoax? http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a3sc.pdf is my Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the decision of Federal Court Judge Mandy Aylen to strike the action to declare the Covid False Alarm on the basis of comparing Apple to Orange, CFR to IFR to hype the threat a hundredfold! I've been blaming her for all the excess deaths due to the clot shot. Every time I read of another sudden excess death, I share it to my gab.com/johnturmel and librti.com/johnturmel Turmel News pages asking if they'd have taken the killer shot if she had let me warn them the threat was a false alarm. But the threat from the vaccine was not. As an engineer, I had studied fluid mechanics to know that programming our cells to produce spikes would disrupt laminar flow in capillaries to cause turbulence and blood clots. http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a3tlc.pdf is the Crown's Response I got from the Ministry of Justice: Department of Justice Canada Ontario Regional Office National Litigation Sector 120 Adelaide Street West Suite #400 Toronto, ON M5H 1T1 Telephone/Tiliphone: (416) 347 8754 Email/Courriel: james.schneider@justice.gc.ca VIA EMAIL January 23, 2023 Ms. Chantal Carbonneau, Registrar Supreme Court of Canada, 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1 Email: registry-greffe@scc-csc.ca Dear Registrar: Re: TURMEL, John v His Majesty the King, File No. 40520 JCT: It's weird to see His Majesty the King after my whole life against Her Majesty The Queen. CR: Please accept this letter as the response of His Majesty the King in Right of Canada ("Canada"), to the application for leave to appeal in this matter. The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public importance, and Canada accordingly requests that the application be dismissed, with costs. JCT: So finding out how Canadians were tricked into lockdowns and then coeerced to get the clot shot to escape or keep their jobs isn't an issue of national importance. But that's what we'll say when the Court doesn't let it in. Didn't think it was important enough. CR: A. Background In 2021, the applicant, John Turmel ("the applicant") filed a statement of claim in the Federal Court ("FC") seeking declarations related to the federal government. Among other things, the applicant sought a declaration that "COVID- mitigation restrictions" violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and sought an order pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter for an injunction prohibiting any COVID-mitigation restrictions not used to control the flu.1 - 1 Turmel v Canada, Order of Case Management Judge Mandy Aylen dated July 12, 2021, T-130-21 ["Prothonotary Order"] at para 11, Application Record, Tab 2, p 7 http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19cnj.pdf JCT: Notice there is no mention of a false alarm by hundredfold exaggeration of the mortality threat less than the flu. Because there is no threat restrictions are unreasonable, because there is no reason for restrictions. CR: A Prothonotary of the FC struck the applicant's claim without leave to amend, finding that the statement of claim failed to plead the material facts necessary to satisfy the individual elements of any specific Charter infringement and did not particularize how the applicant's Charter rights had been infringed.2 - 2 Prothonotary Order at para 25, Application Record, Tab 2, p 11 JCT: Standard judicial ploy. I don't see the facts (proving 2 plus 2 is 4). I am insufficiently shown that 2+2=4. I have seen insufficient facts thast 2+2=4. A judge can close his eyes to anything and just say "Not enough." It's the only way to dismiss 2+2=4! The point is she knew the threat was a hundredfold-hyped false alarm. A statistical trick. And she has a degree in Economics. And she didn't grasp the trickery in comparing Apple to Orange? CR: The Prothonotary also found that the claim was an abuse of process as it contained bare assertions that the Defendant could not know how to answer, JCT: Am I supposed to be bothered that the Respondent can't answer? You were suckered by an Apple Orange comparison, What kind of answer can there be? Of course, they can't answer. Condemning my claim because they cannot answer seems very Alice-in-Wonderland-ish. CR: and was replete with lengthy diatribes, and scandalous and extreme allegations. JCT: I have never been accused of being overly-lengthy. The Ontario Court of Appeal once let me speak for 7 Appellants because I could tell their story the quickest (McCrady et al) and it came in under half an hour. I talk fast and say it once. Same with my Statement of Claim. The Engineer's KISS: Keep It Super Simple. And the fact I explained France's Didier Raoult gave his patients 1 gram of HCQ to lose under 1% while the Bill Gates Oxford test overdosed the patients with 9.6 grams to lose 25.7%, 32 times more. I didn't have to call Bill Gates a scandalous name after showing all the deaths he deliberately caused to get an Emergency Use Authorization for his vaccine by discrediting HCQ. Yes,http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19scjct.pdf is replete with scandalous and extreme allegations. But true. CR: The applicant unsuccessfully appealed the Prothonotary's decision to a single judge of the Federal Court3, - 3 Turmel v Canada, 2021 FC 1095, Application Record, Tab 3, p 17 http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a3n2j.pdf and then to the Federal Court of Appeal4. - 4 Turmel v Canada, 2022 FCA 166, Application Record, Tab 4, p 28 http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a3aj.pdf CR: The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. B. The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public importance If you close your eyes and nose to the corpses, sure. But the corpses are starting to show up recently. CR: The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public importance. JCT: What is that, third time? CR: In striking the claim, the Prothonotary relied on well- established principles concerning the elements of proper pleadings, and in affirming her decision, the Courts below correctly identified and applied the appellate standard of review. JCT: Notice we reach the end of his response and it doesn't mention the issue: she should have set the precedent of allowing a claim to a declaration that any restriction for a false alarm was unconstitutional. She said there was no precedent so she couldn't let it in to warn Canadians that they were being forced into lockdowns and clot clot on a deliberate false alarm. I identified her error in that she should have set the precedent of declaring "any restrictions on a false alarm unconstitutional" and not waiting to have a specific restriction to strike. While the applicant now alleges that it would be more "just" for his claim to proceed, so that Canadians can be alerted to the COVID-19 "false alarm," he does not identify any specific errors in the decisions below, let alone any errors that give rise to issues of public importance. JCT: Sorry, refusing to set a precedent that would have saved lives had to be an error. A judge can do anything that is just and then defend the decision. Was it going to be hard to allow the challenge top any and all restrictions when that had never been done without a specific restriction before. CR: In any event, even if the applicant could identify errors, the proposed appeal would serve no purpose. JCT: It would alert Canadians that they should stop poisoning their children and themselves and now focus on saving them. CR: As the Motions Judge observed, the only federal COVID-19 measures specifically identified in the claim were the pre- flight testing and 14-day quarantine requirements for travellers entering Canada by air.5 - 5 Prothonotary Order at para 25C-D , Application Record, Tab 2, p 13 JCT: We were looking for a declaration that "any restriction for a false alarm was unconstitutional." CR: However, the testing and quarantine requirements in place at the time of the applicant's claim set out in the Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19 were repealed on September 30, 2022.6 - 6 Order Repealing the Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No 73 The applicant has correspondingly failed to identify any live issue of public importance. Canada therefore requests that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed, with costs. JCT: They repeated 4 times it's of no national importance and I'll repeat 4 times finding out how they tricked us is. Best, James Schneider, Counsel National Litigation Sector cc John Turmel, Applicant Christopher Rupar, Agent for the Respondent JCT: So I have until Monday to prepared my 2-page Reply and get it served and filed. It's going to have force them to call a stop to the mass murder. Quite the aim. And after months of delays, things are finishing. And Feb 7 I have my Covid Protest $880 Ticket Trial on at #1 102 Wellington St. Brantford N3T2M2 for attending a protest.