[continued from previous message]

31 Coote v Canada, 2021 FCA 150, paras 3, 6, 13; see also
Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company v Coote, CFN T-312
(Order of Hughes J, dated June 13, 2013), paras (b) and 1,
BOA, Tab 4; Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company v Coote,
2013 FC 643 ["Coote FC 2013 reasons"], aff'd 2014 FCA 98

27. The purpose of s. 40 is well known. The resources of the
Federal Courts are finite, and every moment devoted to a
vexatious litigant is a moment unavailable to deserving
litigants. While access to the courts is fundamental in our
society, regulation is sometimes necessary to ensure that
vexatious litigants cannot consume court resources in a
manner that effectively limits access for everyone else, or
repeatedly target innocent parties or the Crown with
unmeritorious proceedings.32
32 Canada v Olumide, 2017 FCA 42, paras 18-21 ["Olumide"];
Hughes v Canada, CFN T-1315-18 (Order of Barnes J., dated
October 6, 2021), para 9, BOA, Tab 3

28. The central question in each s. 40 application is
whether the litigant's ungovernability or harmfulness to the
court system is so great as to justify a leave-granting
process.33
33 Bernard v Canada, 2019 FCA 144, para 16, leave to appeal
refused [2019] SCCA No 432; see also Olumide, para 27

While no single factor is determinative, the Federal Courts
have identified several common indicia of vexatiousness,
including persistently bringing meritless proceedings and
appeals; bringing proceedings for an improper purpose;
attempting to re-litigate previously decided issues; making
unsubstantiated or intemperate remarks regarding the court
or other parties; disregard for court orders, rules or
timelines; and the failure to pay costs of prior
proceedings.34
34 Olumide, paras 22, 32, 33, Canada v Fabrikant, 2019 FCA
198, para 26 ["Fabrikant"]; Potvin v Rooke, 2019 FCA 285,
para 5 ["Potvin"]; Coote FC 2013 reasons, paras 23-25;
Tonner v Lowry, 2016 FC 230, para 20; Mazhero v Fox, 2011 FC
392, para 40 ["Mazhero"]

29. In weighing these factors, the Court should have regard
to the whole history of the litigant's proceedings, and not
only whether the proceedings originally disclosed a good
cause of action.35
35 Coote FC 2013 reasons, para 25

It may also consider the litigant's proceedings in other
courts, their conduct out of court, and any role played by
the litigant in proceedings brought by others.36
36 Mazhero, para 13; Canada Post Corp v Varma, [2000] FCJ No
851, para 23; Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd, 2019 FC 504,
para 22 [Badawy]; Canada v Ubah, 2021 FC 1466, para 30
["Ubah"]

B. MR. TURMEL IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

30. Mr. Turmel bears several hallmarks of a vexatious
litigant. He and his kit users have brought numerous
meritless proceedings, motions and appeals, and frequently
bring them for an improper purpose. He routinely tries to
re-litigate previously decided issues, and uses pleadings
and social media to make scandalous and intemperate
statements about the Crown and the Courts. He often refuses
to follow court orders, rules and timelines, and has
numerous costs awards that remain unpaid.

31. Taken together, these factors reveal a wholly
ungovernable litigant for whom a leave requirement is
warranted to ensure that he cannot continue to abuse the
process of the Federal Courts.

1. Mr. Turmel persistently brings meritless proceedings and
appeals

32. As detailed above, courts have to date dismissed
virtually all of the proceedings brought by Mr. Turmel and
his kit users. While the reasons for dismissal have varied,
common reasons include that the claims lacked sufficient
material facts to disclose a reasonable cause of action,37
37 M.Affidavit, paras 144, 167, 191, 213, 232, 237,
277, 287, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 45, 56, 63, 68-69, 74, 76, 91-
92, 95

JCT: And judges can close their eyes any say they fail to
see anything. Remember every judge who failed to see that
getting zero broadcast time was not equitable quantitatively
or qualitatively. Every judge failed to see.

CR: were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of
process,38
38 M.Affidavit, paras 11, 59, 85, 95, 97, 148, 233,
277, 287, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 14, 24, 30-32, 48-49, 75, 91-
92, 95

JCT: And after failing to see, said it was because the
actions were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of
process. But remember, they failed to see.

CR: or were supported by little or no evidence.39
39 M.Affidavit, paras 36, 59, 71, 74, 80, 158, AR,
Vol 1, Tab C, p 19, 24, 26-29, 52

JCT: Insufficient evidence is another great judicial cop-
out.

CR: 33. The Federal Courts have also repeatedly expressed
concern about the boilerplate nature of the template
statements of claim developed by Mr. Turmel. For example, in
striking the Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR claims, Phelan J. noted
that the statements of claim contained vague generalizations
and hyperbole, but virtually no detail concerning each
plaintiffs personal circumstances or how the impugned
regulatory provisions engaged their individual Charter
rights.40
40 M.Affidavit, paras 101, 115, 117, 148, AR, Vol
1, Tab C, p 33, 37-39, 47-49

JCT: It wasn't enough that their doctor had prescribed it,
Judge Phelan wanted to see their medical files. Many
appealed him wanting to stick his nose into where he wasn't
qualified.

CR: The Federal Court of Appeal and this court have echoed
this concern in subsequent cases.41
41 M.Affidavit, paras 191, 232, 277, 287, AR, Vol
1, Tab C, p 63, 74, 91-92, 95; Fudge costs decision, para
18, BOA, Tab 2

JCT: Yes, other unqualified appellate judges agreed he
should have been shown their medical files. We might have
known it if only he'd come to the hearing with his
stethoscope.

CR: 34. In the course of their proceedings, Mr. Turmel and
his kit users frequently bring motions for interlocutory
relief, often for orders exempting them from the
constitutionally impugned legislative provisions pending the
underlying proceeding.42
42 M.Affidavit, paras, 58-59, 70, 75, 78, 84, 94-
101, 157-58, 162-63, 284 and Exhibit 132 (para 11), AR, Vol
1 (Tab C, p 24, 26-33, 52, 54, 94), Vol 5 (Tab C132, p 1435)

JCT: Notice the distortion. They mainly filed motions to
start growing their while they waited for Health Canada to
proecss their doctor's prescription. I think that so many
motions were mooted by hop-to-it delivery of the permits is
an important point.

CR: This includes more than 89 motions in the course of the
Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR claims, and 11 in the course of the
Turmel Kit motions for extensions of time to appeal the
Allard injunction decision. Like the underlying proceedings,
each of these motions was ultimately dismissed, many of them
on grounds that they were unsupported by any evidence
concerning each plaintiff's circumstances or why interim
relief was required.43
43 M.Affidavit, paras 104, 108, 110, 117, 121-22
and Exhibit 132 (para 49), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 34-36, 38-
40), Vol 5 (Tab C132, p 1447)

JCT: No, most were dismissed for being mooted by delivery of
the relief requested. Imagine trying to distort their losses
into our losses. Lucky for me, I've done reports on all the
hop-to-it motions.

CR: 35. Mr. Turmel appeals virtually all of his litigation
losses, sometimes even bringing multiple appeals from the
same decision.44
44 M.Affidavit, paras 12, 17, 23, 28, 31, 33, 53, 60, 66,
85, 90, 108, 119, 126, 139, 150, 272, 280, 282, AR, Vol 1,
Tab C, p 15-18, 22, 24-25, 30-31, 35, 39, 41, 44-45, 50, 90,
93

When these appeals are dismissed, he routinely seeks leave
to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada where, once leave
is inevitably denied, he often seeks reconsideration.45
45 M.Affidavit, paras 13, 15, 23, 32, 49, 54, 60,
67, 79, 81, 86-88, 92, 128, 140, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 15-16,
18, 22-24, 26, 28-31, 42, 45

JCT: I want to get as many judges as possible on record
refusing righteous requests.

CR: He also frequently prepares appeal materials for others
to file, and encourages them to appeal.46
46 M.Affidavit, paras 118, 129, 131, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 39,
42-43

Since 2014, kit users have responded with 40 appeals to the
Federal Court of Appeal, 19 applications for leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court of Canada, and five motions for
reconsideration by that court.47
47 M.Affidavit, paras 108, 110, 119, 122, 127, 132,
162-63, 184, 186, 207, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 35-36, 39-41, 43,
54, 61, 67

JCT: I'll leave it to posterity to see if lots of judges end
up on the Wall of Shame.

CR: 36. While Mr. Turmel appears to take pride in his
appellate experience - he has noted in recent social media
posts that "I appeal all my cases to the Supreme Court" and
that "Most of my cases end up at the top"48
48 M.Affidavit, paras 257, 270, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 82, 88

- courts have consistently dismissed his and his kit users'
appeals, leave applications and reconsideration motions.49
49 M.Affidavit, paras 13-14, 17-18, 23, 32-33, 49,
53-54, 60, 66-67, 80, 87, 90, 92, 108, 121-22, 124, 127,
130, 140, 151, 163, 191, 203, 219, 237, 265-66, AR, Vol 1,
Tab C, p 15-16, 18, 22-26, 28-30, 35, 40-42, 45, 50, 54, 63,
66, 70, 76, 85-86

JCT: And zero time must be equiable because so many courts
have dismissed them.

CR: In doing so, courts have often noted that Mr. Turmel or
his kit users failed to so much as identify an arguable
error in the appealed from, and invited the appellate court
instead to simply reweigh evidence and reach a different
conclusion from the court below.50
50 M.Affidavit, paras 151, 219, 266 and Exhibit 44
(paras 18, 20), AR, Vol 1, (Tab C, p 50, 70, 85-86), Vol 3
(Tab C44, p 771)

JCT: To disagree with a righteous request is to err.

2. Mr. Turmel attempts to re-litigate previously decided
issues

37. Courts in at least seventeen proceedings have observed
that Mr. Turmel or his kit users attempted to raise
previously decided issues.51
51 M.Affidavit, paras 27, 30, 36, 40, 59, 65, 75,
77, 84, 86, 95, 97, 99, 142, 148, 232, 287, AR, Vol 1, Tab
C, p 17-20, 24-25, 27-33, 45, 74, 95

JCT: The more judges who get it wrong in public, the better.
Why should I stop putting righteous requests to them just
becaue they keep getting them wrong?

CR: 38. In the elections context, Mr. Turmel has brought
five applications in this court for mandamus to compel the
CRTC to address broadcasters' allocation of free political
broadcast time or Mr. Turmel's omission from debate
broadcasts, and three more for applications restraining the
broadcasters themselves from airing election broadcasts
without him.52
52 M.Affidavit, paras 21, 25, 29, 35, 39, 45 (see
also paras 33, 42, 47), AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 16-22

JCT: And every judge found that my omission from debate was
getting a quantitatively and qualitatively equitable share
of the free broadcast time.

CR: The court has consistently dismissed these applications
on the grounds that the CRTC was under no public duty to
address these issues, and that the broadcasters were not
federal boards, commissions or tribunals subject to the
court's jurisdiction.53
53 M.Affidavit, paras 22, 26-27, 30, 36-37, 40, 46
(see also paras 33, 43, 48), AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 16-21

JCT: All the judges failed to see that it is the CRTC's duty
enforce its rules on quantitative and qualitative
equitableness sharing or broadcast time on the air-waves
they regulate and the broadcasters were usually sued with
the CRTC, rarely alone.

In dismissing two of these applications in 1987, Joyal J.
observed that the court had followed these principles "in
successive and unsuccessful applications before this court
by the same applicant in the years 1980, 1983 and 1984," and
that "[t]he applicant admits to having had many runs at the
cat on this point."54
54 M.Affidavit, para 40, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 20

JCT: Yes, every time I got cheated, I complained to the
CRTC and when they did nothing, dragged them before the
court.

CR: 39. In the cannabis context, Mr. Turmel brought two
separate civil applications in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in 2002 and 2003 for declarations that the CDSA
marihuana provisions were unconstitutional, and after the
first of these applications was dismissed, he filed a motion
in that application for essentially the same relief.55
55 M.Affidavit, paras 73-77, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 27-28

Criminal courts have also noted the tendency of Mr. Turmel
and his criminal kit users to bring numerous applications
for interlocutory relief, and to continue bringing them long
after identical applications have been dismissed.56
56 M.Affidavit, paras 59, 84, 86, 95, 97, 99, 101,
AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 24, 29-33

JCT: No, criminal kit users only brought motions to quash
the charges and constitutional motions to strike. The point
is that the arguments were so powerful that many Crowns
chose to offer sweet deals or withdrawals so why not keep
making the same arguments.

CR: 40. Mr. Turmel has repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought
judicial recognition of a constitutional right for healthy
individuals to use cannabis for preventive medical
purposes.57
57 M.Affidavit, para 74, 80 and Exhibit 34 (Reasons
for Order, para 23), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 27-29), Vol 3 (Tab
C34, p 684)

JCT: Actually, I only sought the right to use what's good to
cure the illness to prevent the illness. And only one court
ruled that there was no proof that it could prevent what it
could cure. Har har h ar har har har. Judges Doherty, Goudge
and Simmons who also say they resurrected the prohibitions
by fixing the exemption when the Interpretation Act said
only Parliament could to that once it was dead. But all the
judgeschose to obey the Ontario Court of Appeal's Hitzig
decision rather than Parliament's Interpretation Act. Many
many more judges on the wall of shame.

CR: In 2017, this court struck the Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR
challenges, which alleged that the 150-gram limit on
possession of cannabis for purposes, the requirement for
annual medical authorization to use cannabis, and the
production-site requirements for personal producers, were
unconstitutional.58
58 M.Affidavit, para 148 and Exhibit 22 (Statement
of Claim, p 3, 5, 7), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 47-49), Vol 2 (Tab
C22, p 466, 468, 470)

JCT: Actually, Judge Brown dismissed the Crown motion to
strike the action against the cap and granted the Lead
Plainitff the same 10-day supply granted in the B.C. Garber
case. http://johnturmel.com/150cn1j.pdf But the Federal
Court of Appeal overruled it.
http://johnturmel.com/150fcaj.pdf

CR: Despite this decision, Mr. Turmel has continued to
develop new template claims concerning these same issues.59
59 M.Affidavit, paras 221-22, 224-25, 241-42, AR,
Vol 1, Tab C, p 70-72, 77

He also personally filed a Turmel Kit juice and oil claim
long after several identical claims were struck,60
60 M.Affidavit, paras 167-69, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 56-57

and has continued to distribute and promote the Turmel Kit
processing-time claims long after the Federal Court of
Appeal and this court struck hundreds of these claims.61
61 M.Affidavit, paras 191, 200, 203-04, 211, AR,
Vol 1, Tab C, p 63, 65-67

JCT: Igor Mozajko had to file an action against the delay in
processing his change of address and they hopped to it to
mooten his hearing. Gisele Pilon had to fild an action
against the delay in processing her permit and they hopped
to it to mooten her claim. So Health Canada is still making
people wait for their permits and the kits are still useful
to those victims.

CR: 41. In May 2022, this court struck Mr. Turmel's
constitutional challenge to Canada's vaccination
requirements for air travellers. In doing so, Prothonotary
Horne observed that the claim included "the same lengthy
diatribes, and unsubstantiated allegations of cover-ups and
conspiracies" as Mr. Turmel's previously struck challenge to
federal COVID-19 mitigation measures, and challenged some of
the same provisions while his appeal of the decision
striking that claim was still outstanding, which the court
concluded was an abuse of process.62
62 M.Affidavit, para 287 and Exhibit 173 (paras 9,
11-12), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 95), Vol 7 (Tab C173, p 1866-67)

JCT: Go read it to find out that there is not one wrong
thing in it. http://smartestman.ca/c19scjct.pdf Just lots
the judges faiked to see. Remember, to them, WHO comparing
covid CFR to flu IFR is not a fact. They can fail to see
anything they want.

3. Mr. Turmel brings proceedings for an improper purpose

42. Mr. Turmel often brings proceedings for an improper
purpose.

43. In 1981, Mr. Turmel brought an application in this court
for an order compelling the provincial Crown to prosecute
retailer Simpsons-Sears for selling decks of playing cards,
which Mr. Turmel alleged were gaming devices. In dismissing
the application, Walsh J. explained that it followed Mr.
Turmel's own conviction for keeping gaming devices, and that
Mr. Turmel's stated purpose in bringing the application was
"to drag someone really big down with me" who could better
defend the charge, which Mr. Turmel hoped would lead to the
gaming-devices offence being repealed, amended or no longer
enforced.63
63 M.Affidavit, paras 56-57, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 23

JCT: Them charging me with possession of a gambling device
because it's still on the books is okay but me charging
Simpson Sears with the same thing is improper.

CR: 44. In social media posts, Mr. Turmel has described his
development and distribution of litigation kits as part of
an intentional strategy to overwhelm the courts and the
Crown. He invites plaintiffs to "clog up," "flood," "swamp,"
"semi-paralyze" or "ream out" the Federal Court registry
with a "tidal wave" or "avalanche" of claims or requests for
documents.64
64 M.Affidavit, paras 118, 146, 160-61, 165, 173, 257, 270,
285-86, 288, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 39, 46-47, 53-58, 82-83,
88, 94-95

JCT: Sure shows the anger without clogging up the streets!

CR: 45. In a July 2016 post promoting the Turmel Kit juice
and oil claims, Mr. Turmel explained that "The real winning
power is once again what freaked out both the Crown and the
Registry last time, the volume." In a December 2018 post
concerning a proposed challenge to the Criminal Code drug-
impaired driving provisions, he similarly explained that
"There is only [one] way to fight back and that's through
mass action in the courts."65
65 M.Affidavit, para 252, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 80

JCT: Don't tell me 400 people complaining about the same
thing doesn't get their attention better than in the
streets.

CR: 46. In other posts, Mr. Turmel uses militaristic or
violent language to characterize his litigation strategy. He
describes himself as a "guerrilla lawyer" and invites his
kit users (whom he has described as an "army of goldstars,"
in reference to the gold-coloured seal placed on Federal
Court claims) to "sap the defences" of the court and Crown
and file claims and "get in on the kill."66
66 M.Affidavit, paras 106, 112, 165, 168, 182, 218,
257, 270, 290, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 35, 37, 54-57, 61, 70,
82, 89, 96

JCT: Get proof you asked for justice even if you don't get
it. And usually don't.

CR: 47. In still other posts, Mr. Turmel acknowledges that
his kit proceedings lack merit,

JCT: I have never said that my actions lack merit.

CR: but explains why he nevertheless brings them. In a 2014
post, he acknowledged that his challenge to the Marihuana
Medical Access Regulations had been rendered moot by the
repeal of those regulations, but explained that he was
proceeding with his challenge "to smear [Health Canada] with
their own dirt. These are malevolent government gremlins and
I'm about to really light a fire under their asses."67
67 M.Affidavit, para 111, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 36

JCT: Our constitutional motion detailed flaws in the MMAR
with many retainied in the MMPR. So the question was whether
to continue challenging the MMPR and not mention the same
torts in the MMAR. I decided I was going to keep mentioning
that the torts complained of were retained from the MMAR to
smear the bad guys who kept them in. That's all.

CR: 48. In another post concerning the Turmel Kit 150-gram
claims, Mr. Turmel explained that "People ask me why I keep
fighting so many loser fights. It's because I love ruining
the careers of the judges and Crowns who get added to the
History Wall of MedPot shame."68
68 M.Affidavit, para 236, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 75

JCT: So I keep presenting righteous arguments and force the
judges to "fail to see" and add them to the Wall of Shame.

CR: After this court struck the Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR claims,
Mr. Turmel similarly used social media to announce that he
would appeal, noting that "Sure, the chances are slim but I
enjoy exposing judicial failures to their bosses."69
69 M.Affidavit, para 149 (see also paras 131, 264),
AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 42, 49-50, 85

JCT: Does exosing the judicial failures to their higher ups
sound like I think I'm presenting loser arguments?

CR: 49. While Mr. Turmel openly boasts about having brought
proceedings for improper purposes, courts have expressed
concern with this aspect of his litigation.

JCT: No I don't bring proceedings for improper purposes.
They always seek righteous justice even if I don't get it.

CR: Courts in criminal proceedings have noted Mr. Turmel's
use of "legal warfare" language, and described Mr. Turmel's
and his kit users' interlocutory applications as obvious
tactics to delay and frustrate proceedings.70
70 M.Affidavit, paras 59, 97, 101, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 24,
32-33

JCT: No, they're tactics to win withdrawals or sweet deals.

CR: 50. This court has recently expressed similar concerns.
In awarding costs against several plaintiffs in the Turmel
Kit vaccination-requirement claims, Prothonotary Horne
observed that the claims were identical in substance to Mr.
Turmel's claim and that the plaintiffs' objective appeared
to be to "clog the registry with redundant actions, and vex
the defendant with needless filings."71
71 Fudge costs decision, paras 18-19, BOA, Tab 2

JCT: Better than clogging the streets. Judge Horne didn't
like angry plaintiffs trying to warn people against the
suicide shot over a false alarm.

CR: 4. Mr. Turmel makes unsubstantiated and intemperate
remarks against other parties and the courts

JCT: Let's see if he can cite one.

CR: 51. Mr. Turmel frequently uses pleadings to make
unsubstantiated and intemperate remarks about other parties,
and when courts dismiss his proceedings, uses social media
to crudely insult the judges involved.

JCT: No, I use social media to point out the blood on their
hands.

CR: 52. In pleadings and argument, he has described Bank of
Canada interest policies and various aspects of Canada's
medical cannabis regulatory regime as "genocidal."72
72 M.Affidavit, paras 10, 71, 74-75, 117, 233 and Exhibit 17
(Superior Court of Justice decision dated January 9, 2003,
para 63; Superior Court of Justice decision dated February
7, 2003, paras 1, 7), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 14, 27-28, 38,
75), Vol 2 (Tab C17, p 263, 282-83)

JCT: The judges all failed to see that putting farmers out
of work in a world that's starving is genocide. Do you see?

CR: He has alleged that the public possession and shipping
limits for medical cannabis and federal COVID-19 measures
are the result of "statistical fraud,"

JCT: I caught Health Canada fudging the stats and I happen
to be accredited expert in math by Federal Tax Court of
Canada. The judges who fail to see are not.

CR: and suggested that COVID-19 itself is an "imaginary
plague," deaths from which greatly exaggerated by an "evil
cabal" that includes the WHO, with the support of global
media.73
73 M.Affidavit, para 233 and Exhibit 147 (Statement of
Claim, paras 37, 39, 46, 71, 89-90, 104, 117, 120), AR, Vol
1 (Tab C, p 75), Vol 6 (Tab C147, p 1538-39, 1542, 1552,
1556-57, 1561, 1566-67)
Courts have repeatedly struck these allegations as
scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.74
74 M.Affidavit, paras 148, 233, 277 and Exhibit 17
(Superior Court of Justice decision dated January 9, 2003,
para 81; Court of Appeal for Ontario decision dated October
7, 2003, para 6), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 48-49, 75, 91-92), Vol
2 (Tab C17, p 266, 289)

JCT: The cabal tricked the world into lockdown and forced
vax to escape over a false alarm. Can't get more evil than
that. And the deaths statistics are now being revealed.
Christine Anderson (German MP) - EU Parliament called the
vaccine " The Biggest Crime Ever Committed on Humanity" https://odysee.com/@SolacoMan:c/The-Biggest-Crime-Ever-Committed-on-Humanity-(Covid-Vaccines)-Christine-Anderson-(German-MP)-EU-Parliament-05-July-2022-(3-min-video):0
Many doctors are now calling it a genocide but cannot be
taken seriously because they have had their licenses
suspended for saying so.

CR: 53. In social media posts, Mr. Turmel insults the
intelligence or integrity of the judges who dismiss his and
his kit users' proceedings, referring to them as "imbeciles"
or otherwise suggesting that they lack intelligence.75
75 M.Affidavit, paras 239, 269-70, AR, Vol 1, Tab
C, p 76, 87, 89

JCT: Para270: who will doubt whom posterity will rule to be
the imbecile in the matter, (me or the judge?)
So I didn't call any judge an imbecile, I said posterity
might one of us an imbecile though you know whom I'm betting
on. But distortion.

CR: He has suggested that the judges who dismissed his
cannabis or COVID-19 kit claims have "blood on their hands"
or "deserve death row for what they have done."76
76 M.Affidavit, paras 131, 149, 208, 264, 275, 279,
AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 43, 49-50, 68, 85, 91-93

JCT: Will telling them they deserve death row for what
they've done get reconsideration? If they let people die who
would not have died if they had been warned, sure, they
deserve death row.

CR: 54. In January 2017, after Phelan J. struck the Turmel
Kit MMAR-MMPR claims for lack of material facts,

JCT: Remember, he thought the doctor's prescription wasn't
fact enough to prove the patient needed the medication. He
wanted to see the medical file for himself.

CR: Mr. Turmel explained in a social media post that one of
the plaintiffs had cancer and was medically authorized to
use cannabis, but that "Judge said that's not enough. Wanted
to see her X-rays, maybe give her a feel for those tumors
before Doubting Thomas would believe."77
77 M.Affidavit, para 149, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 49

JCT: Says it all. It was none of the unqualified judge's
business to be looking into their medical files, the doctor
had already done that. But magbe the doctor was wrong and
the judge could correct the doctor?

CR: 55. In a further comment concerning a Federal Court of
Appeal stay decision in the Turmel Kit public possession and
shipping limit claims, Mr. Turmel observed "I feel sad for
what [Near J.A.] has done to punish 7,000 sick people.
Because that's the number who will benefit when we strike
the cap. God'll get him."78
78 M.Affidavit, para 236, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 75

JCT: I do feel sad for the low-tech judges who now have the
agonies and deaths of many on their tab. And acknowledge
they'll get away with it in this life but not in the
afterlife. I'm a believer that Heaven can be Hell.

CR: 56. In yet another social media post after this court
struck his Turmel Kit COVID-19 claim, Mr. Turmel suggested
to readers that:
If you took the jab but wouldn't have if you'd known
that Covid was a hoax, maybe you should send
Prothonotary Aylen a message telling her that her you
wouldn't have taken the experimental vaccine if she
hadn't suppressed that the virus was a hoax. And if
someone near you dies of a blood clot, let her know she
did it to them.
Ottawa girl thought she'd shut down that Ottawa
eccentric Turmel and now she'll have the blood of
millions on her hands. Har har. Looks good on her. Not
so good on her victims.79
79 M.Affidavit, para 279, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 93

JCT: All true. Who out of the 3 billion would have taken the
experimental gene therapy if she hadn't suppressed that the
Covid Mortality was a Hundrefdold Hyped false alarm? Most of
the 3 billion. So all the adverse effects are on her tab.

CR: 5. Mr. Turmel shows disregard for court orders, rules
and timelines

57. Mr. Turmel often disregards court orders, rules and
timelines. In 2002, he was convicted of contempt for
knowingly posting material to the Internet in violation of a
publication ban issued in the course of his brother's
criminal trial for marihuana offences.80
80 M.Affidavit, paras 69-71, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p
26-27

JCT: That's not often. And I don't disregard non-cost
orders, rules and timelines. The 2002 contempt conviction
was to let everyone know they were stalling people to death
and calling them "dormants." Notice that that once is all
they have.

CR: 58. In the various Turmel Kit proceedings in this court,
Mr. Turmel has attempted to file impermissible materials
such as summary-judgment motions in a stayed or simplified
action, and an appeal from a direction.81
81 M.Affidavit, paras 113, 115, 117, 138-39, AR, Vol 1, Tab
C, p 37-38, 44-45; Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, s 297
["Federal Courts Rules"]; Aga Khan v Tajdin, 2012 FCA 238,
para 4

JCT: I was improperly advised by the Registry to file my
action as "simplified" and when I found out I could not file
the motion, I asked the court to change it and it was.

CR: In 2015, nineteen of his kit users also filed or
attempted to file motions for extensions of time to appeal
the Allard injunction decision, although the applicants were
not parties in Allard and therefore lacked any standing to
appeal.82
82 M.Affidavit, paras 158-59, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 52

JCT: They were affected by the Allard decision that took
away their grow-ops but had no standing!

59. On at least three occasions, Mr. Turmel has failed to
pursue his appeals at all, leading the Federal Court of
Appeal to dismiss them for delay or as abandoned.83
83 M.Affidavit, paras 28, 31, 53, AR, Vol 1, Tab C,
p 17-18, 22

JCT: Three times in many dozens where I didn't complete the
appeal. Not quite regularly..

CR: On several other occasions, Mr. Turmel and his kit users
have missed filing deadlines, sometimes by several months,
but brought motions for extensions of time.84
84 M.Affidavit, paras 53, 81, 108, 126, 150, 181,
190, 218, 266, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 22, 29, 35, 41, 50, 60,
63, 70, 85-86

JCT: Usually granted because there were good reasons for the
missed deadline. Several times out of dozens more.

CR: While the courts have granted extensions in many of
these cases, they have denied extensions in others, often on
grounds that the applicants failed entirely to explain their
delay.85
85 M.Affidavit, paras 82, 151, 158, 219 and Exhibit
155 (p 2), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 29, 50, 52, 70), Vol 6 (Tab
C155, p 1662)

JCT: How many others? Three?

CR: 60. In 2015, Mr. Turmel missed a court-ordered deadline
to serve and file an appeal book agreement in several
consolidated appeals in which he had been designated lead
appellant. Although the Federal Court of Appeal granted his
motion for an extension of time, in doing so Ryer J.A. noted
Mr. Turmel's "seeming indifference towards compliance with
the order of Boivin J.A.," and awarded costs to Canada
despite Mr. Turmel's success on the motion.86
86 M.Affidavit, paras 125-26, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 41

JCT: Once.

CR: 61. Mr. Turmel often attempts to make legal submissions
on behalf of others despite multiple reminders from this
court that, as a non-solicitor, he is not permitted to do
so.87
87 M.Affidavit, paras 99, 114, 123, 145, 147-48,
202, 262, 301, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 33, 37, 41, 46-47, 66,
84-85, 100; Federal Courts Rules, s 119

JCT: Never without asking. I don't ever remember being
granted. So never.

CR: He also frequently uses social media to provide his kit
users with advice on the conduct of their proceedings, or to
suggest that he can obtain relief on their behalf.88
88 M.Affidavit, paras 115-16, 197, 206, 261, AR, Vol 1, Tab
C, p 37-38, 65, 67, 84

He has served and files materials for others, apparently
including a deceased person in one case, and has suggested

[continued in next message]

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