Turmel's Godstars

John Turmel
25 mins ·
TURMEL: Crown wants 300 Gold Stars' to file paper, not email

John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
50 Brant Ave.,
Brantford, N3T 3G7,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122,
Cell: 519-717-5198

May 17 2016
VIA FASCIMILE

Registries of the Federal Court
90 Sparks St. 5th floor
Ottawa K1A 0H9

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ T-488-14

CR: In his letter dated May 6 2016, the plaintiff requests
leave to serve Canada with future materials via email, as well
as dispensation from the proof of service requirements
contained in the Federal Court Rules. He purports to make both
requests on behalf of more than 300 plaintiffs.

JCT: Plaintiff seeks not dispensation with proof of service
but alternate proof of service by email header.

CR: Canada's email servers are subject to strict data size
limits,

JCT: What data size limit. Is 200-300 kilobytes too big?

CR: which would likely be quickly exceeded if the plaintiffs
were to begin serving materials by email.

JCT: Plaintiff Electrical Engineer doubts their unknown data
size limits would be exceeded by my 250k kilobyte email.

CR: Although Canada recently requested and was granted leave
to electronically serve motion materials on the plaintiffs,
Canada was able to do so via a single email to all plaintiffs
which did not count significantly toward the data size limits.

JCT: Plaintiff would like to do so via a single email back
too. As for the still unknown data size limits, why would the
limit be plural? Canada's Motion Record was 1.112 Megabytes.
My Motion Record would be 4 to 5 times smaller. So no matter
how much the Crown lawyers would like to believe that their
data size limits would "likely be quickly exceeded" if the
plaintiffs were to begin serving 250Kb materials by email, 300
times 250Kb is 75Mb total, hardly an insurmountable number.
With a 2 Terabyte commercial drive costing $130, 15 Gigabytes
per dollar, 150 Megabytes per cent, so 75Mb storage would cost
0.5 cents. Plaintiff submits Canada is overly concerned over a
half penny expense. And it's probably cheaper on a Justice
Ministry mainframe.

CR: By contrast, the plaintiff's request could result in
Canada receiving more than 300 emails, each attaching a
Responding Motion Record.

JCT: Plaintiff submits that receiving more than 300 paper
Motion Records and scanning them to PDF is more work for all,
including the Registry, than receiving them as PDFs?

CR: As the plaintiff has identified no reason why he cannot
serve Canada and prove service in accordance with the ordinary
rules, Canada requests that the Court not grant the leave
requested by the plaintiff.

JCT: Plaintiff claims the same reason as Canada for wanting to
use email , to avoid inconvenience and expense. What would be
the purpose of having 300 self-represented plaintiffs running
round delivering the same form 300 times when Canada has been
freed from such wasted expense? Canada has now set the
precedent, Plaintiffs seek the same cost-reduced service from
the court?

_________________________________
John C. Turmel

CC: Jon Bricker, Ministry of Justice Fax: 416-973-0809
For the Defendant.

JCT: Lawyers think half-a-penny's worth of storage could swamp
their servers! Har har har har har har har har har har har
har.

Don't worry, this is the Response no one else but me is
serving anyway. I'd just like to skip the trip to Toronto
since they skipped the trip to Brantford.

What a joke, they want us to send in the paperwork so they can scan it then save it to there system but us emailing it to them is too much work and half a cent too expensive?

whatever the judge decides im sure will point this case in 1 direction or the other...we will always be a thorn in the side of authority.

bigmanc said:

What a joke, they want us to send in the paperwork so they can scan it then save it to there system but us emailing it to them is too much work and half a cent too expensive?

whatever the judge decides im sure will point this case in 1 direction or the other...we will always be a thorn in the side of authority.

Click to expand...

The crown is just trying to whittle down our numbers as it is unlikely all of the 310 of us will file in time.

Time to claim relegion, liberals started all this peace and love crap.

Wow, what is the crown smoking? Seems like some sprayed weed to me.

John's right on the money as far as the size of these emails, seems like there's still some Harper acolytes in the justice department.

now it would be good if anyone who hasn't filed to file.
they can't deny anyone new with this new kit!
http://johnturmel.com/kits

if anyone wants/needs help-please PM me

John Turmel
36 mins ·
TURMEL: How dispensaries can challenge Tory Bylaw in days

JCT: Because regular law needs time to raise funds to pay
lesser legal strategists, Toronto dispensaries are in a
tough bind. But guerilla law has no such limitations.

Give me one poor but legal cannabis oil user to challenge
the bylaw ($150 to file) and who can then stiff the city for
the costs if he loses and here's how fast he can be in
court. Usually, 3 days notice, but we can move on short
notice if we want. Meaning "Hi Your Honor, I need justice
right now."

Here's a draft of what the MedPot Engineer would do:

File No: _______________

SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO

Between:
_______________________________
Plaintiff

AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

TO THE RESPONDENT
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The
claim made by the applicant appears on the following page.

THIS APPLICATION will come on for a hearing on (day),
(date), at (time), at (address of court house).

IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of
any step in the application or to be served with any
documents in the application, you or an Ontario lawyer
acting for you must forthwith prepare a notice of appearance
in Form 38A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure,
serve it on the applicant's lawyer or, where the applicant
does not have a lawyer, serve it on the applicant, and file
it, with proof of service, in this court office, and you or
your lawyer must appear at the hearing.

IF YOU WISH TO PRESENT AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE TO THE COURT OR TO EXAMINE OR CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES ON THE APPLICATION, you or your lawyer must, in
addition to serving your notice of appearance, serve a copy
of the evidence on the applicant's lawyer or, where the
applicant does not have a lawyer, serve it on the applicant,
and file it, with proof of service, in the court office
where the application is to be heard as soon as possible,
but at least four days before the hearing.

IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN
IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU
WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL
FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A
LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

Date: ________________ Issued by _____________________
Local registrar
Address of court office

TO: City of Toronto

APPLICATION

1.The applicant makes application for a declaration that
bylaw xxxxx ordering the shut down of cannabis dispensaries
is an unconstitutional violation of applicant's S.7 Charter
right.

2. The grounds for the application are that the bylaw
impedes lawful access to my only source of cannabis oil
whose prohibition was recently struck down in R. V. Smith
(2015).

3. The documentary evidence to be used at the hearing of the
application is the Applicant's Affidavit attesting to
medical need for cannabis oil and the dispensaries that
provide it.

(Date of issue)

__________________________________
Plaintiff Signature
Name:
_______________________________________________________
Address:
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Tel/fax: ______________________________________________
Email: ________________________________________________

JCT: One thing that bugs me about Ontario forms is that the
back page has to be printed in landscape rather than
protrait. Every document needs to be handled differently due
to the different formatting of the last page. Used to be
portrait but someone figured out a way to make it more
complicated. Stupid eh?

Next step would be to file a

NOTICE OF MOTION

TAKE NOTICE THAT on ___________ 2016 at _______ am, a motion
will be heard on short notice for an interim stay on the
bylaw alleged to infringe the right of the Applicant pending
resolution of the Application.

JCT: Usually, you can move in 3 days. With life and death at
stake, you can move on short notice. I often have including
on the very same day. "Here's my motion, your Honor, I need
it heard on short notice today." Don't remember a judge ever
having said no.

THE GROUNDS of the motion are that the bylaw impedes lawful
access to my only source of cannabis oil whose prohibition
was recently struck down in R. V. Smith (2015).

AFFIDAVIT

I, _________________________, residing at __________________
make oath as follows:

1. I am a registered user of marihuana for medical purposes.
My L.P. Registration Number: ______________________

2. I need dried marijuana reduced to cannabis oil to treat
my symptoms.

3. The current unconstitutional marijuana regime does not
provide for provision of cannabis oil.

4. Though few accidents have been reported over many years,
production of cannabis oil can still be hazardous.

5. Cannabis dispensaries are my only source of cannabis oil.
Am I to run the risk of producing it myself?

7. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion for an
interim stay on the enforcement of bylaw xxxxxxx which
unconstitutional impedes my access to cannabis oil pending
resolution of the Application.

JCT: And then a short factum repeating the facts, pointing
out the cannabis oil prohibition through bylaw issue, and
arguing why making him boil his own oil could have sad
consequences.

And a Notice of Constitutional Question 30 days before the
hearing of the actual Application.

One last thing about Canadian law that bugs me. We have to
get rid of "sworn" affidavits. Perjury should be lying in
legal matters whether you promised not to lie or not. "Sorry
I didn't promise not to lie" shouldn't cut it. If you say or
sign it and it's false, it won't need a notary to put you in
jail. Just like lying to the FBI, Martha Stewart didn't need
to be under oath to be charged. So no need for expensive
affidavits any more unless as attestation to some transfer.
Affidavits just pad lawyer fees and cause needless expenses.

So that's how the Toronto or any anti-dispensary bylaw is
best challenged. Now let's see what their "legal counsel"
come up with.

Some good news for once.

John Turmel
Yesterday at 1:56pm ·
TURMEL: Supreme Court says Open SaysMe Magic Words sufficient

JCT: A few posts ago, I posted my letter to Supreme Court of
Canada Registry Agent Suzanne Sarazin on the letter requesting
our Applicants for Leave to Appeal the Federal Court of
Appeal's decision letting Phelan play doctor and asked them to
reconsider whether the Magic Words that ask within the
Application for any needed extension of time or to fix or okay
any other irregularities or omissions was sufficient or if I
had to file a second separate one. And everyone else.

Ms. Sarazin called today to say that the motion within the
Application was sufficient and no one had to file anything
more. I thanked her profusely and am now spreading the good
news to all who have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada on
Phelan playing doctor.

So nothing more to file, were do we stand?

bigmanc said:

So nothing more to file, were do we stand?

Click to expand...

IN the corner as usual lol. I don't know really. I check his fb daily just to make sure I don't miss any updates if we need it file anything. Seems jct is being put off by phelan as long as he can. I bet we'll get new regs from hc before Jtc gets any results- not that it's his fault he's clearly trying everything at his disposal to move the case along. Aug 24 will be here before we know it.

Too long to copy and paste.
https://www.facebook.com/john.turmel/posts/10155070227912281

John Turmel
May 23 at 4:45pm ·
TURMEL: Phelan lets Crown email, forces 310 Self-Reps to serve and file paper

JCT: Remember back a few posts, after Justice Phelan had
expeditiously granted the Crown's request to serve their
Motion Records on the 310 Self-Rep Gold Star "Turmel Kit"
Plaintiffs, I sent a request that the Gold Stars be allowed to
serve their Motion Records in Response by email too.

So the deadline is Tuesday May 23 2016 and Justice Phelan
hasn't expeditiously responded. So everyone is expected to run
around Ontario serving and filing their Motion Records.

I am filing my Response Motion record to their motion in
writing to dismiss. Notice no answer from Phelan on giving us
a live hearing like last time. Maybe they want to wipe
everyone out on a technicality. Won't matter. Like I said, if
they don't get justice, they can appeal. That's where things
get easy. Just complaining about judge's errors, not proving
out case.

But the Crown's motion is so full of bullshit that everyone
shouldn't have to respond to get it denied.

But Justice Phelan didn't deny us the same as the Crown, he
just let our request expire without answer.

bigmanc said:

So nothing more to file, were do we stand?

Click to expand...

Exactly what I was wondering???

GrowRock said:

Exactly what I was wondering???

Click to expand...

Well I'm laying down. My hands hurt from trimming all day lol.

Did anyone else recieve an email from the crown? And if so what now?

yeah, il read it now

edit - tons of bullshit. Crown still wants all plaintiffs to continue by writing. They are treating us all like individuals. Turmel cant answer for us as he is not a lawyer. Turmel gets no reimbursement for plants or product because he was not in the mmar. Turmel also wants costs, crown says no.

crown says multiple claims unnecessary. Waste of tax payers dollars and courts time. Believes government of Canada should be reimbursed.

theres tons more, ids a long read

crap crap crap crowns crap

Did you happen to see the deadline to reply in writing. Or was that the May date that has already passed??

i'll read it when i get home.
such a crock from the few pages i have read.
they are also trying to stop John Turmel because his paperwork was a day late because of Canada Post. the Crown is going after that as well. unbelievable.
the Crown also said that Turmel can't apply for default judgement because the Crown didn't file a reply??!! if we tried that the foot from the Crown would be huge and heavy. they really don't see how hypocritical they look

Fucken tool crown compares our standing to prostiutes uniting stating that case as precedent for dismissal of the gold stars standing is fucking ridiculous to say the least. Prostition is a choosen profession an illness is not end of story to use that bs case as precedent on a medical case is laughable to say the least..... Imo

i wish that this Jon Bricker needs MMJ one day. then and only then will he see what crap he has personally done.
i read the stuff and it's complete BS.
i spoke with John Turmel and he said they are really playing dirty. the crown claiming that Tousaw argued the repeal of MJ from the CDSA was done properly but was dismissed but he did not submit it when they filed like they had to if they wanted to try that. it was not dismissed on it's merits.
just plain disgusting and i hope the judge sees through it