TURMEL: Crown Response to Supreme Court Covid False Alarm Aylen appeal

JCT: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19scjct.pdf is my original
Statement of Claim to declare-+id Mortality Hyped
Hundredfold a false alarm. Who cares about vaccine safety
and effectiveness if the threat is a hoax?

http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a3sc.pdf is my Application for
Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the decision
of Federal Court Judge Mandy Aylen to strike the action to
declare the Covid False Alarm on the basis of comparing
Apple to Orange, CFR to IFR to hype the threat a
hundredfold! I've been blaming her for all the excess
deaths due to the clot shot. Every time I read of another
sudden excess death, I share it to my gab.com/johnturmel and librti.com/johnturmel Turmel News pages asking if they'd
have taken the killer shot if she had let me warn them the
threat was a false alarm.

But the threat from the vaccine was not. As an engineer, I
had studied fluid mechanics to know that programming our
cells to produce spikes would disrupt laminar flow in
capillaries to cause turbulence and blood clots.

http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a3tlc.pdf is the Crown's Response I
got from the Ministry of Justice:

Department of Justice Canada
Ontario Regional Office
National Litigation Sector
120 Adelaide Street West Suite #400
Toronto, ON M5H 1T1
Telephone/Tiliphone: (416) 347 8754
Email/Courriel: james.schneider@justice.gc.ca

VIA EMAIL

January 23, 2023

Ms. Chantal Carbonneau, Registrar
Supreme Court of Canada, 301 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1
Email: registry-greffe@scc-csc.ca

Dear Registrar:

Re: TURMEL, John v His Majesty the King, File No. 40520

JCT: It's weird to see His Majesty the King after my whole
life against Her Majesty The Queen.

CR: Please accept this letter as the response of His Majesty
the King in Right of Canada ("Canada"), to the application
for leave to appeal in this matter. The proposed appeal does
not raise an issue of public importance, and Canada
accordingly requests that the application be dismissed, with
costs.

JCT: So finding out how Canadians were tricked into
lockdowns and then coeerced to get the clot shot to escape
or keep their jobs isn't an issue of national importance.
But that's what we'll say when the Court doesn't let it in.
Didn't think it was important enough.

CR: A. Background

In 2021, the applicant, John Turmel ("the applicant") filed a
statement of claim in the Federal Court ("FC") seeking
declarations related to the federal government. Among other
things, the applicant sought a declaration that "COVID-
mitigation restrictions" violated his rights under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and sought an order
pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter for an injunction
prohibiting any COVID-mitigation restrictions not used to
control the flu.1
- 1 Turmel v Canada, Order of Case Management Judge Mandy
Aylen dated July 12, 2021, T-130-21 ["Prothonotary Order"]
at para 11, Application Record, Tab 2, p 7
http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19cnj.pdf

JCT: Notice there is no mention of a false alarm by
hundredfold exaggeration of the mortality threat less than
the flu. Because there is no threat restrictions are
unreasonable, because there is no reason for restrictions.

CR: A Prothonotary of the FC struck the applicant's claim
without leave to amend, finding that the statement of claim
failed to plead the material facts necessary to satisfy the
individual elements of any specific Charter infringement and
did not particularize how the applicant's Charter rights had
been infringed.2
- 2 Prothonotary Order at para 25, Application Record, Tab
2, p 11

JCT: Standard judicial ploy. I don't see the facts (proving
2 plus 2 is 4). I am insufficiently shown that 2+2=4. I have
seen insufficient facts thast 2+2=4. A judge can close his
eyes to anything and just say "Not enough." It's the only
way to dismiss 2+2=4!

The point is she knew the threat was a hundredfold-hyped
false alarm. A statistical trick. And she has a degree in
Economics. And she didn't grasp the trickery in comparing
Apple to Orange?

CR: The Prothonotary also found that the claim was an abuse
of process as it contained bare assertions that the
Defendant could not know how to answer,

JCT: Am I supposed to be bothered that the Respondent can't
answer? You were suckered by an Apple Orange comparison,
What kind of answer can there be? Of course, they can't
answer. Condemning my claim because they cannot answer seems
very Alice-in-Wonderland-ish.

CR: and was replete with lengthy diatribes, and scandalous
and extreme allegations.

JCT: I have never been accused of being overly-lengthy. The
Ontario Court of Appeal once let me speak for 7 Appellants
because I could tell their story the quickest (McCrady et
al) and it came in under half an hour. I talk fast and say
it once. Same with my Statement of Claim. The Engineer's
KISS: Keep It Super Simple.

And the fact I explained France's Didier Raoult gave his
patients 1 gram of HCQ to lose under 1% while the Bill Gates
Oxford test overdosed the patients with 9.6 grams to lose
25.7%, 32 times more. I didn't have to call Bill Gates a
scandalous name after showing all the deaths he deliberately
caused to get an Emergency Use Authorization for his vaccine
by discrediting HCQ. Yes,http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19scjct.pdf
is replete with scandalous and extreme allegations. But
true.

CR: The applicant unsuccessfully appealed the Prothonotary's
decision to a single judge of the Federal Court3,
- 3 Turmel v Canada, 2021 FC 1095, Application Record, Tab
3, p 17
http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a3n2j.pdf

and then to the Federal Court of Appeal4.
- 4 Turmel v Canada, 2022 FCA 166, Application Record, Tab
4, p 28
http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a3aj.pdf

CR: The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the Court of
Appeal's decision.

B. The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public
importance

If you close your eyes and nose to the corpses, sure. But
the corpses are starting to show up recently.

CR: The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public
importance.

JCT: What is that, third time?

CR: In striking the claim, the Prothonotary relied on well-
established principles concerning the elements of proper
pleadings, and in affirming her decision, the Courts below
correctly identified and applied the appellate standard of
review.

JCT: Notice we reach the end of his response and it doesn't
mention the issue: she should have set the precedent of
allowing a claim to a declaration that any restriction for a
false alarm was unconstitutional. She said there was no
precedent so she couldn't let it in to warn Canadians that
they were being forced into lockdowns and clot clot on a
deliberate false alarm.

I identified her error in that she should have set the
precedent of declaring "any restrictions on a false alarm
unconstitutional" and not waiting to have a specific
restriction to strike.

While the applicant now alleges that it would be more "just"
for his claim to proceed, so that Canadians can be alerted
to the COVID-19 "false alarm," he does not identify any
specific errors in the decisions below, let alone any errors
that give rise to issues of public importance.

JCT: Sorry, refusing to set a precedent that would have
saved lives had to be an error. A judge can do anything that
is just and then defend the decision. Was it going to be
hard to allow the challenge top any and all restrictions
when that had never been done without a specific restriction
before.

CR: In any event, even if the applicant could identify
errors, the proposed appeal would serve no purpose.

JCT: It would alert Canadians that they should stop
poisoning their children and themselves and now focus on
saving them.

CR: As the Motions Judge observed, the only federal COVID-19
measures specifically identified in the claim were the pre-
flight testing and 14-day quarantine requirements for
travellers entering Canada by air.5
- 5 Prothonotary Order at para 25C-D , Application Record,
Tab 2, p 13

JCT: We were looking for a declaration that "any restriction
for a false alarm was unconstitutional."

CR: However, the testing and quarantine requirements in
place at the time of the applicant's claim set out in the
Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil
Aviation Due to COVID-19 were repealed on September 30,
2022.6
- 6 Order Repealing the Interim Order Respecting Certain
Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No 73

The applicant has correspondingly failed to identify any
live issue of public importance. Canada therefore requests
that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed, with
costs.

JCT: They repeated 4 times it's of no national importance
and I'll repeat 4 times finding out how they tricked us is.

Best,
James Schneider, Counsel
National Litigation Sector
cc John Turmel, Applicant
Christopher Rupar, Agent for the Respondent

JCT: So I have until Monday to prepared my 2-page Reply and
get it served and filed. It's going to have force them to
call a stop to the mass murder. Quite the aim.

And after months of delays, things are finishing. And Feb 7
I have my Covid Protest $880 Ticket Trial on at #1 102
Wellington St. Brantford N3T2M2 for attending a protest.

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