TURMEL: Justice Laskin premature Vexatious Litigant Order

JCT: The Crown applied to Federal Court to have me declared
a Vexatious Litigant and banned from helping people any
more and filed a Memorandum of reasons.

I filed my Memorandum of corrections.

Justice Fothergill granted the Application but would not say
it extended to the Federal Court of Appeal.

I appealed and filed my Memorandum against the decision.
The Crown filed their Memorandum repeating their reasons.

Then the Crown announced they were going to file an motion
to declare me a Vexatious Litigant in the Court of Appeal
and that it would be argued orally with the underlying
appeal. Then they served their Motion with the same
arguments they had used below and in their Appeal
Memorandum.

I didn't file a response because it would be my third time
repeating the same things and I'd made the case at the oral
hearing.

Then on Jun 15, I got a decision by Justice Laskin on the
motion declaring me a Vexatious Litigant in the Court of
Appeal too. http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40cn2jr.pdf

So I filed a Motion to Reconsider his decision
http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40rn.pdf

No: A-265-22
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Between:
John Turmel
Applicant
Appellant

AND
His Majesty The King
Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

TAKE NOTICE THAT the Appellant John Turmel will make a
motion to Federal Court of Appeal Justice Laskin under Rule
369 to reconsider his May 15 2023 Order to extend the
decision of the Federal Court declaring Appellant a
"Vexatious Litigant" to the Federal Court of Appeal before
the appeal of the "Vexatious Litigant" declaration has been
heard.

AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging the time or mode of service or
dispensing with any documents or amending any error or
omission which this Honourable Court may allow.

THE GROUNDS ARE THAT

1. In the Feb 28 2023 letter, Respondent wrote that Canada
intends to seek directions or orders: (4) That the Motion be
heard orally, together with the underlying appeal...

2. The Written Representations in the Motion to declare the
Appellant a "Vexatious Litigant" are virtually identical to
its Memorandum in Federal Court whose issues are being
appealed and in its Appeal Memorandum.

3. The Motion to declare Appellant a "Vexatious Litigant"
should be heard after the appeal against the "Vexatious
Litigant" Federal Court Declaration is heard, not before.
Dated at Brantford on Jun 22 2023
__________________________________
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,
To the Respondent/Applicant
Jon Bricker

APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

1. In Para.4 of the Jun 15 2023 Reasons for Order of
Justice Laskin, he notes that Turmel has not filed a
response in the motion.

2. In the February 28 2023 letter of Jon Bricker, he stated:
Canada advised of its intention to bring a motion for an
order declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant in
the Federal Court of Appeal (the "Motion")..
Specifically, Canada intends to seek directions or
orders:
4. That the Motion be heard orally, together with the
underlying appeal; and

3. Since the Memorandum in the Application in Federal Court
is virtually identical to the Memorandum in the Appeal and
the Written Representations in the Motion, and since my
Memorandum below and in appeal have been filed, it seemed
superfluous to file the same arguments a third time when
they were to be raised at the same appeal hearing.

4. Respondent erred in presenting the Motion to extend the
Federal "Vexatious Litigant" Order now under appeal to the
Court of Appeal before it could be sustained by the Court of
Appeal because it now prejudices the appeal.

5. Unfortunately, this Court acted on the Motion for a
"Vexatious Litigant" declaration before the appeal of the
Federal Court 'Vexatious Litigant" Order and so did not have
the benefit of my response on the appeal.

6. What if the Appeal Court should find that the litigations
brought had some merit and sets aside the Declaration from
below. What do do about the premature Declaration herein?

7. Because my failure to file a repeat of my Appeal
Memorandum response was because I believed it would be dealt
with at the underlying appeal, Applicant/Appellant asks that
the decision on the unresponded-to Motion raised prematurely
by Respondent be reconsidered or adjourned until after the
appeal is adjudicated.

Dated at Brantford on Jun 22 2023
For the Appellant/Respondent
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,

Jct: The problem is that Justice Laskin made his decision
without my response on incomplete information that would be
heard by the Appeal Court. Let's see what he does.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)