TURMEL: Crown Costs Request for Warning Covid False Alarm JCT: Judge Horne gave us deadlines on submissions as to costs. Here is the Crown's submission: Department of Justice Canada Ontario Regional Office National Litigation Sector VIA EMAIL Our File Number: LEX-500081718 July 18, 2023 Federal Court 180 Queen Street West, Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6 CR: Dear Registry: Re: Raymond Turmel v His Majesty the King, T-138-21 and other files listed in Annex A I am writing on behalf of the defendant in the above-noted matters, Her Majesty the King ("Canada"), in response to the Court's Orders of June 19, 2023 and July 18, 2023. I ask that you kindly place this letter before the case-management judge, Associate Justice Horne. Canada requests costs of $500 in each of these matters, with the exception of T-333-21, in which Canada seeks $250. JCT: Remember, in the case of the second group against the air travel restriction, they asked for $250 for having done nothing in the stayed cases. Judge Horne gave them $500 to punish them. Now they're asking for $500 for having done nothing in the stayed cases. CR: The Plaintiffs' claims are based on a "kit" Statement of Claim accessed from the website of John Turmel. The Federal Courts have consistently dismissed these types of claims on the grounds that facts pleaded concerning each plaintiff's personal circumstances were insufficient to disclose a reasonable cause of caution.1 1 In the matter of numerous filings, 2017 FC 30, paras 37- 38; JCT: Where no costs were awarded to almost 400 plaintiffs. CR: Order of Zinn J., dated in August 17, 2018, in Hathaway v HMQ (T-983-16); Order of Aalto, Proth., dated October 11, 2016 in several files including MacDonald v HMQ (T-1113-16); Harris v HMQ, 2019 FCA 232, paras 6, 19-20, 23; Order of Brown J, dated April 27, 2020, in several files including McCluskey v HMQ (T-2126-18); JCT: Here too, no costs against another 400 stayed plaintiffs facing $150 if they continued to wait until I'm through with my appeals. Only Steve Vetricek whose application to grow wasn't even opened for 9 months stayed around waiting for the Supreme Court decision on reconsideration. CR: Harris v HMQ, 2020 FCA 124, paras 26, 30-38, 41-42, leave refused [2021] SCCA No 228. 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." JCT: It looks like absence if you kept your eyes closed. CR: Despite these decisions, the plaintiffs filed the present claims which suffered from the same fundamental defects. JCT: Notice he never mentioned any defects. CR: A cost consequence is reasonable in this circumstance given that the plaintiffs embarked on litigation with Statements of Claim they found online that they either knew, or should have known, were deficient. JCT: How were any to know? Remember, this is based on Judge Aylen saying facts were not facts. Couldn't prove WHO compared CFR to IFR; couldn't prove WHO said they could not document asymptomatic transmission (even though they published it, we can't prove it); can't prove CTV took down that only 166 people not in long-term-care died; cant' prove the PCR tests were a million times too sensitive, can't prove on Mar 20 2020, death certificate guidelines were changed to deaths "with Covid" to "from Covid," can't prove France lost 0.8% of 4,000 patients with 1 gram of HCQ while Bill Gates Oxford Recovery test lost over 25% with 9.6. grams. Of course it's all provable, but the judge said it wasn't and that's what other judges are basing their decisions on, those facts aren't facts that can be proven. CR: Canada notes that the "kit claims" on which the Plaintiff relies appears to have been removed from the internet. Nonetheless, an award of costs in these circumstances will still serve as a deterrent to the filing of "kit claims" generally in any future matters. Kit claims do not advance any legitimate legal interest. JCT: They let everyone claim for their personal damages since everyone had different damages. Some claimed lockdowns lost wages, lost jobs, lost family, caused pain. CR: A lump sum award of $500 for costs is appropriate. As this honourable Case Management Judge noted in his Orders of July 27, 2022 and September 6, 2022, an award of $500 would be "sufficient to recognize the improper, vexatious and unnecessary nature of these actions JCT: No one thought seeking relief against the pain and damages they suffered was improper, vexatious, and unnecessary. Some day, future historians will judge the judges who caused the mass murder of millions. With the emergence of vax adverse effects, won't that be fun? CR: It would also be consistent with those two orders, which dealt with substantially similar kit claims. JCT: No, there was no way you could have known about the later group orders since previous groups of stayed cases were not punished with costs. But how dare you try to defy the Trudeau narrative that Covid was way deadlier than flu and that the vax was "safe and effective." Come on, admit it, doesn't it feel good now to find out you tried to warn the world that Covid was a mini-flu? Especially now that we learn the vax was never safe and never effective! CR: In T-333-21, a lump sum of $250 is appropriate. The Plaintiff in this matter, Mr. Dan Hingley, has advised Canada that he attempted to discontinue his action but was apparently unsuccessful due to his lack of familiarity with the Court system. Although Canada was unaware of this attempt (and it does not appear to be in the Court's recorded entries), Canada trusts that Mr. Hingley made a good faith effort to exit the litigation he embarked upon. Given that Mr. Hingley appears to have recognized, albeit not immediately, the deficiency of his Statement of Claim, Canada submits a reduced cost consequence is appropriate in his circumstance. Sincerely, James Schneider JCT: As if he recognized the deficiency that the facts weren't provable facts. Bet he still doesn't know why they weren't provable since they are. But that's Canadian Justice in Lalaland. If you want to send a letter about costs are too much to the judge, I've already explained how to use the efiling system.