Discussion:
TURMEL: Crown wants Harris 2nd motion disallowed
(too old to reply)
johnturmel
2018-07-05 15:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
TURMEL: Crown wants Harris 2nd motion disallowed

JCT: On Jun 27 Wendy Wright updated Judge Brown that Jeff
Harris' permit was still being processed the day after it
had been issued on Jun 26 and was no longer being processed!
Looks like OMA Director Michael McGuire didn't tell her
before she misled the Court.

But McGuire snail-mailed it out 3 days later on Jun 29 after
Judge Brown issued his judgment that afternoon.

But Jeff beat the mail-man by filing a motion by email for
immediate processing before the permit could be delivered to
mooten the issue.

Here's Wendy's Response to his new motion which sounds like
McGuire hasn't yet told her the permit she's still defending
not issuing has already been issued! Har har har:

Wendy Wright
CR: July 4 2018
VIA FAX

The Honourable Justice Brown
Ottawa

Re: HARRIS, Allan v. HMTQ (Turmel Kit)

Please place this letter before His Honour Mr. Justice
Brown.

I received a new notice of motion in the above-mentioned
proceeding. Among other things, the notice of motion asks
this Court to issue an order of mandamus that "Health Canada
immediately verify whether the last box on the Plaintiff
form has been signed" and complete the processing of the
Plaintiff's application forthwith."

JCT: It's the same remedy sought in his original similar
request that 2 months was too long to process his
application (which they didn't tell him was incomplete)
whereas his new request grounds are that 2 weeks to check
the last box was too long. Who says you can't seek a similar
remedy on different grounds? It even said so right in the
motion:
15. It is not that processing the application is taking
too long but that verifying that the last box was signed
is taking too long.

CR: It is Canada's position that this notice of motion is
improper, as it is an attempt to re-litigate the issues
decided in the Plaintiff's earlier Motion for interim
relief, which was dismissed by this Court on June 29 2018.

JCT: She may not yet know that the only reason it was
dismissed and not mooted is because she misled the court
that it was still being processed when it was no longer
being processed.

CR: In the event that the Plaintiff wishes to dispute this
Court's decision to dismiss his earlier motion, the proper
course would be to bring a Notice of Appeal, rather than to
collaterally attack the Court's decision by way of a second
motion, which essentially seeks the same relief as the
first.

JCT: Appealing the dismissal of the motion seeking remedy on
an incompleted application is not the smart way to go. And
he's not collaterally attacking the judgment when he agrees
there was nothing else the judge could do. Without a
complete application, the judge couldn't be expected to do
anything, could he?

But right now only Jeff and McGuire know it was issued on
Jun 26. Time to inform the Court and Wendy in the the Reply
letter:

Thursday July 5 2018
VIA EMAIL

The Honourable Justice Brown
Ottawa

Re: HARRIS, Allan v. HMTQ (Turmel Kit) T-881-18

Please place this letter before His Honour Mr. Justice Brown
and let it be Plaintiff's Reply if yesterday's letter dated
July 4 2018 be deemed the Defendant's Response.

The Crown has written:
It is Canada's position that this notice of motion is
improper, as it is an attempt to re-litigate the issues
decided in the Plaintiff's earlier Motion for interim
relief, which was dismissed by this Court on June 29
2018.

The Applicant wishes to inform the court that he did receive
his permit later on the afternoon of July 3 after filing the
motion in the morning. It had been issued a week earlier on
Tuesday Jun 26th and mailed out Friday night after the
court's June 29th judgment.

The only reason the motion was dismissed and not mooted was
because the Crown's Jun 27 Reply misled the Court into
believing that the permit was still "currently being
processed" when it was no longer being processed at all but
had already been already issued; and that information
withheld from the court for 3 days.

In the event that the Plaintiff wishes to dispute this
Court's decision to dismiss his earlier motion, the
proper course would be to bring a Notice of Appeal,
rather than to collaterally attack the Court's decision
by way of a second motion, which essentially seeks the
same relief as the first.

Appealing the dismissal of the motion seeking remedy on an
incompleted application would seem to be a waste of time
while Applicant was seeking a similar remedy on different
grounds, not that the processing of the application took
undue time but that the verifying that the last box was
signed took undue time; and getting it to Canada Post took
undue time.

Now that I have informed the Court that the motion had been
mooted all along, I would also point out that if the
Defendant had told the Court that the permit had been
issued, no judgment would have been pronounced to be
collaterally attacked.

With the issue of both motions now mooted by delivery of the
remedy, the only remaining issue is whether Applicant should
be awarded punitive costs for the Defendant having misled
the Court into writing a redundant judgment.

Dated at Burnaby on July 5 2018
Jeff Harris

JCT: So, Judge Brown is finding out this morning how McGuire
tricked him into writing a judgment on a mooted issue.
Again. Wouldn't it be nice if Judge Brown asked why he
wasn't told? Wendy can only dump on McGuire.

The ass-hole who thinks he's above the law deserves it.



joeturn
2018-07-06 16:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnturmel
TURMEL: Crown wants Harris 2nd motion disallowed
JCT: On Jun 27 Wendy Wright updated Judge Brown that Jeff
Harris' permit was still being processed the day after it
had been issued on Jun 26 and was no longer being processed!
Looks like OMA Director Michael McGuire didn't tell her
before she misled the Court.
But McGuire snail-mailed it out 3 days later on Jun 29 after
Judge Brown issued his judgment that afternoon.
But Jeff beat the mail-man by filing a motion by email for
immediate processing before the permit could be delivered to
mooten the issue.
Here's Wendy's Response to his new motion which sounds like
McGuire hasn't yet told her the permit she's still defending
Wendy Wright
CR: July 4 2018
VIA FAX
The Honourable Justice Brown
Ottawa
Re: HARRIS, Allan v. HMTQ (Turmel Kit)
Please place this letter before His Honour Mr. Justice
Brown.
I received a new notice of motion in the above-mentioned
proceeding. Among other things, the notice of motion asks
this Court to issue an order of mandamus that "Health Canada
immediately verify whether the last box on the Plaintiff
form has been signed" and complete the processing of the
Plaintiff's application forthwith."
JCT: It's the same remedy sought in his original similar
request that 2 months was too long to process his
application (which they didn't tell him was incomplete)
whereas his new request grounds are that 2 weeks to check
the last box was too long. Who says you can't seek a similar
remedy on different grounds? It even said so right in the
15. It is not that processing the application is taking
too long but that verifying that the last box was signed
is taking too long.
CR: It is Canada's position that this notice of motion is
improper, as it is an attempt to re-litigate the issues
decided in the Plaintiff's earlier Motion for interim
relief, which was dismissed by this Court on June 29 2018.
JCT: She may not yet know that the only reason it was
dismissed and not mooted is because she misled the court
that it was still being processed when it was no longer
being processed.
CR: In the event that the Plaintiff wishes to dispute this
Court's decision to dismiss his earlier motion, the proper
course would be to bring a Notice of Appeal, rather than to
collaterally attack the Court's decision by way of a second
motion, which essentially seeks the same relief as the
first.
JCT: Appealing the dismissal of the motion seeking remedy on
an incompleted application is not the smart way to go. And
he's not collaterally attacking the judgment when he agrees
there was nothing else the judge could do. Without a
complete application, the judge couldn't be expected to do
anything, could he?
But right now only Jeff and McGuire know it was issued on
Jun 26. Time to inform the Court and Wendy in the the Reply
Thursday July 5 2018
VIA EMAIL
The Honourable Justice Brown
Ottawa
Re: HARRIS, Allan v. HMTQ (Turmel Kit) T-881-18
Please place this letter before His Honour Mr. Justice Brown
and let it be Plaintiff's Reply if yesterday's letter dated
July 4 2018 be deemed the Defendant's Response.
It is Canada's position that this notice of motion is
improper, as it is an attempt to re-litigate the issues
decided in the Plaintiff's earlier Motion for interim
relief, which was dismissed by this Court on June 29
2018.
The Applicant wishes to inform the court that he did receive
his permit later on the afternoon of July 3 after filing the
motion in the morning. It had been issued a week earlier on
Tuesday Jun 26th and mailed out Friday night after the
court's June 29th judgment.
The only reason the motion was dismissed and not mooted was
because the Crown's Jun 27 Reply misled the Court into
believing that the permit was still "currently being
processed" when it was no longer being processed at all but
had already been already issued; and that information
withheld from the court for 3 days.
In the event that the Plaintiff wishes to dispute this
Court's decision to dismiss his earlier motion, the
proper course would be to bring a Notice of Appeal,
rather than to collaterally attack the Court's decision
by way of a second motion, which essentially seeks the
same relief as the first.
Appealing the dismissal of the motion seeking remedy on an
incompleted application would seem to be a waste of time
while Applicant was seeking a similar remedy on different
grounds, not that the processing of the application took
undue time but that the verifying that the last box was
signed took undue time; and getting it to Canada Post took
undue time.
Now that I have informed the Court that the motion had been
mooted all along, I would also point out that if the
Defendant had told the Court that the permit had been
issued, no judgment would have been pronounced to be
collaterally attacked.
With the issue of both motions now mooted by delivery of the
remedy, the only remaining issue is whether Applicant should
be awarded punitive costs for the Defendant having misled
the Court into writing a redundant judgment.
Dated at Burnaby on July 5 2018
Jeff Harris
JCT: So, Judge Brown is finding out this morning how McGuire
tricked him into writing a judgment on a mooted issue.
Again. Wouldn't it be nice if Judge Brown asked why he
wasn't told? Wendy can only dump on McGuire.
The ass-hole who thinks he's above the law deserves it.
I like your title and of course what ever the Crown wants,the crown gets.
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/the-british-crown-still-owns-america/
Loading...