TURMEL: Crown objects to Turmel helping Covid plaintiffs JCT: Brother Ray filed a Motion to Reconsider Judge Horne's Order dismissing the 75 stayed actions for damages due to lockdowns back in 2021 and seeking submissions as to costs. Here is the Crown's response: Department of Justice Canada Ontario Regional Office National Litigation Sector 120 Adelaide Street West Suite #400 Toronto, ON M5H 1T1 Telephone/Telephone: 416-347-8754 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING June 23, 2023 Federal Court 180 Queen Street West, Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6 Dear Registry: Re: TURMEL, Raymond v His Majesty the King, T-138-21 CR: I am writing on behalf of the defendant in the above- noted matter to request that the plaintiff's recently served motion record be removed from the Court file. I ask that you kindly place this letter before the case management judge in this matter, Associate Judge Horne. Rule 74 of the Federal Courts Rules provides that the Court may order that a document be removed from the Court file if it is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or clearly unfounded, or if it is otherwise an abuse of the Court's process. The plaintiff's motion is defective in each of these respects. The motion seeks reconsideration of the June 19, 2023, order which struck the plaintiff's claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of the Court's process. However, the motion record identifies no basis on which the court could reconsider the June 19 order, and the motion is instead simply an attempt to re-litigate issues that have already been decided by the this Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter with Federal Court File No. T-130-21. JCT: The motion record identifies that the John Turmel case has not yet been completed at the Supreme Court and no decision below was supposed to happen while appeals were ongoing: These actions have been stayed pending the final determination of the proceedings in T-130-21 (the proceeding commenced by John Turmel). It's not an attempt to relitigate anything, only to bring to the court's attention that the final determination of the proceeding commenced by John Turmel isn't yet back from the top. Funny how the Crown missed that. CR: The plaintiff's motion record was also served, and appears to have been prepared, not by the plaintiff Raymond Turmel, but by his brother John Turmel. Please find enclosed a copy of the service email containing John Turmel's signature, and originating from the email address johnturmel@yahoo.com, and an email from earlier in the week where John Turmel indicated that he would file for a reconsideration. This Court has recently declared John Turmel to be a vexatious litigant (Canada v Turmel, 2022 FC 1526) and prohibited him from assisting others with their litigation before this Court, including by preparing, distributing or disseminating court materials on their behalf. The service of the plaintiff's motion record by John Turmel is a violation of this order, which this Court should not condone by accepting the motion record for filing. JCT: So the Court should not be informed that the John Turmel case is not yet back from the top. Let the Court continue being uninformed. But the order barring me from helping is on appeal and usually doesn't have effect until the appeal is over. But maybe not, who knows? CR: The defendant therefore asks that the plaintiff's motion record be removed from the Court file. In light of the fast- approaching deadline for the defendant to respond to the plaintiff's motion in writing if it is not removed, the defendant also asks that the Court kindly address this request as expeditiously as possible. Sincerely, James Schneider Counsel JCT: No matter, Judge Horne will learn that his Order was premature. What will he do with that information, I don't know. If he does nothing, someone is going to have make a submission to the court for no costs. It would be best to have a plaintiff with a strong sob story, someone who has a great claim for lots of pain from the lockdown. EG: - You lost your business - You lost your job, - You were locked in with an alcoholic who beat you. - You were locked in with an abuser who molested you. - A child committed suicide. It has to be submitted by Thursday the 29th. Easily done online. But I can't help. It's up to the plaintiff to point out: In his decision on costs for the Travel Ban plaintiffs: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19133.txt TURMEL: Judge Trent Horne hits anti-vax plaintiffs with 2x requested costs III. Analysis [17] With the exception of Alim Manji, none of the plaintiffs filed submissions on costs. There is no material before me to indicate what, if any, consideration any of the plaintiffs gave to the merits of their claim before filing it, considered whether the claim advanced a credible cause of action, or complied with the rules of pleading. JCT: It was the same credible cause of action as filed by Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier challenging the unconstitutional air-travel ban. Except that unlike Peckford and Bernier who accepted the danger of the threat, the material before Judge Horne argued that the threat was a false alarm because: So the fact it was the same cause of action as filed by two other well-known plaintiffs means you thought yours was as credible as theirs. J: [18] I have difficulty understanding how completing a "kit claim", replacing only the name of the plaintiff and otherwise adopting the pleading of someone else, advances a legitimate legal interest, particularly when the relief sought in T-277-22 challenged the constitutionality of Interim Order No. 52 generally, not just as it applied to Mr Turmel. JCT: Doesn't more people making the claim add to its credibility? Judge Aylen ruled that the WHO mis-comparing CFR to IFR was not a material fact. Doesn't more people thinking that comparing CFR to IFR is a material fact help convince the court it is a fact and she was wrong. Without more people, I'd be alone in again stating that the Apple Orange comparison was a material fact in prompting the real restriction on air travel. If all Canadians filed believing that comparing CFR to IFR was a fact, wouldn't that argue it is a fact to a judge? J: Absent any separate or unique claim to advance, the plaintiffs knew, or ought to have known, that their duplicative actions would be stayed (just like the proceedings were stayed in T-130-21), and have the same outcome as the proceedings in T-277-22. None of the plaintiffs have demonstrated a distinct or practical result that could flow from filing or prosecuting their own action, separate and apart from what could have been ordered in Mr Turmel's action. JCT: Sure, the second group of plaintiffs should have known what had happened to the first but the you in the original group could not have known. J: [19] In the absence of any submissions from the plaintiffs, I can only conclude that these actions were improper, vexatious and unnecessary. There is no indication that any of the plaintiffs had an intention or interest to independently prosecute the actions they commenced. In the absence of evidence or submissions from the plaintiffs, it appears that the plaintiffs' objectives in filing these claims was to clog the registry with redundant actions, and vex the defendant with needless filings. JCT: Or to help convince the court that not only Turmel believed the CFR to IFR comparison was a fact once Judge Aylen had ruled it was not. J: Even if I am incorrect in this respect, I have no difficulty concluding that these actions were filed for a collateral purpose, and not to advance a reasonable cause of action. JCT: They were filed to add to the credibility of the claim that the fact of the mis-comparison to cause the false alarm made the restriction unconstitutional. Even though I have a far superior education than any lawyer or judge who couldn't see the fact claimed, it had to help to have more people agree that the miscomparison was a fact, not only me. J: [20] Litigation is a serious business which consumes public resources. The plaintiffs' conduct has abused these resources. JCT: Maybe if the court had not already ruled that the miscomparison of CFR to IFR was not a fact but once the court had erred, it had to help to have more people claim that the CFR to IFR miscomparison was a fact. J: [21] The submissions by Alim Manji refer to other matters where numerous plaintiffs filed "kit claims", and no costs were awarded when they were ultimately dismissed. Mr Manji submits that the Crown did not have to file documentation to deal with these stayed actions, and has been awarded costs from the lead plaintiff (Mr Turmel). Mr Manji expresses a hope that no costs will be awarded. JCT: And this plaintiff will have to also. [22] I do not view the costs awards in earlier proceedings involving multiple "kit claim" plaintiffs as binding on me. There is no default position that copycat claims are immune from adverse cost consequences. JCT: It's not that copycat claims are immune, it's that stayed claims where the Crown doesn't have to do anything should be immune from paying the Crown for not having done anything. J: Each case is considered on its own facts. If costs were never awarded in "kit claim" actions, it would only serve to encourage behavior that should be discouraged. JCT: Showing that many disagree that the CFR IFR miscomparison is not a fact should be discouraged? Maybe to wanting to keep the error unchallenged but not to someone looking to correct the error. J: [23] While the defendant has not filed a defense in these actions, it cannot be disputed that the defendant has devoted resources to deal with these proceedings. JCT: Not much resources! He wrote his April 7 and 26 letters asking their actions be stayed pending mine, and for costs that applied to all the stayed actions. Since no one did anything, he wrote one letter for all of them and I was chartged with costs for the action. J: These proceedings added nothing to the substance of the issues, rather only served to create work for the defendant and the Court. JCT: And help indicate that more people disagree with Judge aylen that the facts were not facts. J: [24] The defendant requests $250.00 in costs for each action. In part, the defendant submits that an award of costs in these circumstances would serve as a deterrent to the continued filing and promotion of these claims. [25] Deterrence is a factor that can be considered in the assessment of costs (Hutton v. Sayat, 2020 FC 1183 at paras 64 and 66). JCT: So you should be deterred from warning Canadians that the vax was not necessary for a false alarm. Especially when the courts don't want Canadians to know they were coerced over a false alarm. J:[26] The Court is not restricted to Tariff B in an assessment of costs, and may award a lump sum (subrule 400(4)). [27] I agree with the defendant's submissions, but do not agree that the amount requested would be sufficient to recognize the improper, vexatious and unnecessary nature of these actions (subrule 400(3)(k)(i)), the need for deterrence, and the absence of a demonstrated good faith basis to file each of these statements of claim. A lump sum award of costs of $500.00 in each action is appropriate in the circumstances. THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The plaintiffs in Court file nos T-693-22, T-694-22, T- 695-22, T-705-22, T-710-22, T827-22, T-828-22, T-929-22 shall each pay costs to the defendant, fixed at $500.00, payable forthwith. blank "Trent Horne" blank Case Management Judge JCT: There was no appealing the decision to strike the action. The Charter does not ensure a S.6 Mobility Right to domestic travel, only to live in, work in, and move to another province. So Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier will have their S.6 Mobility Right challenges struck too. As for punishing the plaintiffs for filing a copy-cat action, as long as he doesn't accept its purpose was to demonstrate disagreement with Judge Aylen, there was nothing we can do. Remember, he knew that the covid Mortality Hyped Hundredfold was a false alarm and knew he's punishing people who tried to bring the false alarm to the world's attention to save them taking the experimental vaccine. Keep in mind that ours is the only action that has the potential to end the vax nightmare. Only the admission that the Apple Orange exaggeration makes the threat a false alarm can be used to end any arguments for the vax. And we were the only people who tried to warn the world that the world was tricked with a false alarm. As more and more people have their immune system destroyed, as more and more doctors decry the experimental vaccine, Judge Horne will have family and friends who suffer adverse effects and he'll know it was over a false alarm and he punished people who tried to save them. We can appeal his cost decision. My http://gab.com/johnturmel page has lots of links stories detailing the adverse effects, deaths, and doctors decrying the vax. Notice all the "sudden death" reports but never among the unvaccinated. That would be newsworthy. The fact they don't say means they were probably vaxed and it's being suppressed. So he's going to have to punish us from trying to warn the world that Covid Mortality Hyped Hundredfold was a false alarm than needed no vaccine. So if anyone has a great sob story and would like to write the judge a letter asking for no costs for having tried to save millions of lives the courts did not want saved, let me know and I'll announce it.