• TURMEL: Court asked for Quadruple MedPot Appeal Hearing

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Wed Mar 13 07:34:55 2019
    From: johnturmel@gmail.com

    TURMEL: Court asked for Quadruple MedPot Appeal Hearing

    JCT: Four Plaintiffs who got separate decisions from Justice
    Brown filed appeals. I want them all heard together.

    The Crown's last letter mentioned how they wanted Igor
    Mozajko's similar appeal heard apart in Toronto. His answer:

    IGOR MOZAJKO:

    Monday March 11 2019

    VIA FACSIMILE

    Court Administrator:
    Federal Court of Appeal
    180 Queen St. W. #200
    Toronto, ON, M5V 3L6
    Fax: 416-973-2154

    RE: Mozajko v. HMTQ No: A-339-18

    In the Requisition for hearing - Appeal in Allan J. Harris
    v. HMQ A-258-18, the Defendant Canada wrote:
    In addition to the present appeal, the Court is
    currently seized of Her Majesty The Queen v. Igor
    Mozajko, Court File No. A-339-18 (the "Mozajko appeal")
    which raises similar issues. Canada proposes that these
    appeals be heard separately as the present appeal is
    farther advanced and the parties have requested hearings
    in different cities (Vancouver and Toronto,
    respectively) owing to the locations of the self-
    represented plaintiffs. However, Canada wishes to call
    the Court's attention to the similar issues in the event
    the Court wishes to consider this in scheduling or
    assigning a panel to hear these matters.
    Yours truly, Jon Bricker

    Could you bring it to the court's attention that I am also
    one of the plaintiffs below for whom Allan J. Harris is Lead
    Plaintiff and will be arguing issues raised in my appeal.

    Harris and I both seek to overturn dismissal of our claims
    for restitution of the shorted period of time. Canada seeks
    to overturn the dismissal of both their motions to strike
    our delay damages claims. His appeal speaks for all the
    others including me. My own appeal adds only repetition.

    Because the Harris appeal is more advanced than mine, with
    an opportunity to be heard, I am prepared to accept the
    decision handed down on the issues that apply to both of us
    and would ask that my appeal be heard at the same time as
    the Harris appeal.

    Assigning a second panel in Toronto to hear arguments he
    will be raising in Vancouver would be a waste of time and
    resources.

    I would like to attend by telecommunication.
    ____________________________
    Igor Mozajko


    KENT TRUMAN

    JCT: There is also the appeal of Kent Truman, so:

    Wilfred Kent Truman

    Monday March 11 2019

    VIA FACSIMILE

    Court Administrator:
    Federal Court of Appeal
    180 Queen St. W. #200
    Toronto, ON, M5V 3L6
    Fax: 416-973-2154

    Re: Kent Truman v. HMTQ A-176-18

    In the Requisition for hearing - Appeal in Allan J. Harris
    v. HMQ A-258-18, the Defendant Canada wrote:
    In addition to the present appeal, the Court is
    currently seized of Her Majesty The Queen v. Igor
    Mozajko, Court File No. A-339-18 (the "Mozajko appeal")
    which raises similar issues. Canada proposes that these
    appeals be heard separately as the present appeal is
    farther advanced and the parties have requested hearings
    in different cities (Vancouver and Toronto,
    respectively) owing to the locations of the self-
    represented plaintiffs. However, Canada wishes to call
    the Court's attention to the similar issues in the event
    the Court wishes to consider this in scheduling or
    assigning a panel to hear these matters.
    Yours truly, Jon Bricker

    Could you bring it to the court's attention that I am also
    one of the plaintiffs below for whom Allan J. Harris is Lead
    Plaintiff and he will be arguing issues raised in my appeal.

    My claim is that the Class Exemptions issued on March 2 2018
    did not mooten my motion for interim remedy. The Harris
    appeal will argue against the effect of the Class
    Exemptions.

    Because the Harris appeal is more advanced than mine, with
    an opportunity to be heard, I am prepared to accept the
    decision handed down on the issues that apply to Harris's
    plaintiffs and would ask that my appeal be heard at the same
    time as the Harris appeal.

    Assigning a second panel in Toronto to hear arguments he
    will be raising in Vancouver would be a waste of time and
    resources.

    I would like to attend by telecommunication.
    Dated at York, Ontario on June 14 2018
    ___________________________
    Kent Wilfred Truman


    ARTHUR JACKES

    JCT: And finally, Art Jackes has an appeal with all
    documentation done and asking for a Requisition for Hearing
    too:

    Arthur Jackes

    Monday March 11 2019

    VIA FACSIMILE

    Court Administrator:
    Federal Court of Appeal
    Registries of the Federal Courts
    180 Queen St. W. #200
    Toronto, ON, M5V 3L6
    Fax: 416-973-2154

    RE: Jackes v. HMTQ No: A-294-18

    In the Requisition for hearing - Appeal in Allan J. Harris
    v. HMQ A-258-18, the Defendant Canada wrote:
    In addition to the present appeal, the Court is
    currently seized of Her Majesty The Queen v. Igor
    Mozajko, Court File No. A-339-18 (the "Mozajko appeal")
    which raises similar issues. Canada proposes that these
    appeals be heard separately as the present appeal is
    farther advanced and the parties have requested hearings
    in different cities (Vancouver and Toronto,
    respectively) owing to the locations of the self-
    represented plaintiffs. However, Canada wishes to call
    the Court's attention to the similar issues in the event
    the Court wishes to consider this in scheduling or
    assigning a panel to hear these matters.
    Yours truly, Jon Bricker

    Could you bring it to the court's attention that I am also
    one of the plaintiffs below for whom Allan J. Harris is Lead
    Plaintiff and will be arguing issues raised in my appeal.

    My claim is for damages due to delay by rejection on a false
    premises of original signatures. Harris' appeal speaks for
    others claiming damages from delay due to improper rejection
    as "not original" signatures and I would like my appeal
    seeking to get me back with them to be heard with them.

    The Harris appeal is only slightly more advanced than mine
    though with all our Memoranda having been filed, I am filing
    my Requisition for Hearing - Appeal too.

    Given Harris will be raising the issues I am raising, I
    would ask that my appeal be heard at the same time as the
    Harris appeal.

    Assigning a second panel in Toronto to hear arguments he
    will be raising in Vancouver would be a waste of time and
    resources.

    I would like to attend by telecommunication.
    ____________________________
    Arthur Jackes

    JCT: Art also tried to file the same Requisition for Hearing
    that the Crown in Harris just did.

    File No: A-294-18
    FCC: T-1654-17
    FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
    BETWEEN:
    Arthur Jackes
    Appellant
    And
    Her Majesty The Queen
    Respondent

    REQUISITION FOR HEARING - APPEAL

    THE APPEALLANT REQUESTS that a date be set for the hearing
    of this appeal with that of Harris in A-258-18 in Vancouver.

    THE APPELLANT CONFIRMS THAT:

    1. The requirements of subsection 356(1) and (5) of the
    Federal Court Rules have been complied with.

    2. There is no requirement fo serve a notice of
    constitutional question under s.56 of the Federal Court Act
    in this appeal.

    3. The hearing should be held in Toronto or video or
    teleconference from Vancouver.

    4. The hearing of my issue should last no longer than 15
    minutes.

    5. The representatives of all parties to the appeal are:

    a) on behalf of the appellant, Arthur Jackes
    Arthur Jackes

    b) on behalf of the respondent:
    Jon Bricker

    6. Parties are available any time between March 1 and June
    30 except: March 1-22, April 4-12, 8, 25-26, May 3, 6-15-22,
    June 3-14

    7. The hearing will be in English
    Dated at Oakville, Ontario on March 12 2019

    ___________________________
    For the Appellant
    Arthur Jackes

    For the Respondent:
    Jon Bricker/ Wendy Wright

    JCT: The clerk said that the requisition was late and could
    not be accepted. But Art faxed in the letter asking that his
    appeal be heard since it's ready to go. So the Court of
    Appeal has almost two Requisitions for Hearing of Appeals
    related to the same original claims. So Jeff Harris now puts
    it all together

    ALLAN J. HARRIS

    Tuesday March 12 2019

    VIA FACSIMILE

    Court Administrator:
    Federal Court of Appeal
    box 10065, 701 West Georgia St.
    Vancouver, BC., V7Y 1B6
    Fax: 604-666-8181

    RE: Harris v. HMTQ No: A-258-18

    In the Requisition for hearing - Appeal in Allan J. Harris
    v. HMQ A-258-18, the Defendant Canada wrote:
    In addition to the present appeal, the Court is
    currently seized of Her Majesty The Queen v. Igor
    Mozajko, Court File No. A-339-18 (the "Mozajko appeal")
    which raises similar issues. Canada proposes that these
    appeals be heard separately as the present appeal is
    farther advanced and the parties have requested hearings
    in different cities (Vancouver and Toronto,
    respectively) owing to the locations of the self-
    represented plaintiffs. However, Canada wishes to call
    the Court's attention to the similar issues in the event
    the Court wishes to consider this in scheduling or
    assigning a panel to hear these matters.
    Yours truly, Jon Bricker

    Igor Mozajko's letter dated March 11 2019 was faxed to the
    Court Administrator requesting that with identical issues,
    his appeal A-339-18 be heard with mine.

    Kent Truman's letter dated March 11 2019 was faxed to the
    Court Administrator requesting that with similar issues, his
    appeal A-176-18 be heard with mine.

    And Art Jackes' letter dated March 12 2019 will be served
    with his Requisition for Hearing of his appeal A-294-18
    requesting his be heard with mine.

    Igor Mozajko's issues are identical to mine. Judge Brown
    made the same ruling in both motions to strike on identical
    Statements of Claim.

    Kent Truman's issue relates to whether the March 2 2018
    Class Exemptions mooted our actions for restitution of the
    time off the period of exemption which is now under appeal.
    It would make sense that since I am arguing the Class
    Exemptions did not mooten our claims, his appeal that the
    same Class Exemptions did not mooten his motion should be
    heard at the same time.

    Art Jackes is filing his own Requisition for hearing of
    his appeal with mine. The memoranda are filed. His issue
    relates to damages due to delay from rejection of original
    signatures as not original which is the reason I will
    highlight Plaintiff Donald Cote seeking damages for the 4
    rejections on non-originality over 8 months.

    All four appeals stem from the same damages claims and it's
    up to me to make the cases of those who did not benefit of
    the Class Exemptions with that of Kent Truman, of those delayed

    by
    improper rejection of originals with that of Art Jackes, and
    of those improperly delayed for an unconscionable
    amount of processing time due to short-staffing with that of
    Igor Mozajko and myself. All made the same claims, all
    should end up being treated the same way.

    Assigning three more panels in Toronto to hear arguments I
    will be raising in Vancouver would be a waste of time and
    resources when the Appellants are all willing to he heard
    together.

    They want to attend by telecommunications. In order that the
    proceedings of the four Appellants may be heard by the 250
    Plaintiffs below, I would cite:
    a) Video-conference as done before Justice Phelan on April
    29 2014 for over 300 self-represented plaintiffs in 12
    Federal Courthouses in 10 provinces or
    b) Tele-conference number where listeners can call in. ___________________________________
    Allan J. Harris,
    CC: Jon Bricker Fax: 416-973-0809

    JCT: So we want the Quadruple MedPot Appeals viewed by the
    over 250 plaintiffs who are also depending on them? We know
    they can video-conference between provincial court-rooms
    because they did it before below and that would be the best
    show.

    Making a phone number available where they can call and
    listen is the only other way.

    Or they can order just Vancouver and Toronto be wired, so
    why not the other provincial capitals where plaintiffs
    reside?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)