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.

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