John Turmel
25 mins ·
TURMEL: Crown wants 300 Gold Stars' to file paper, not email
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
50 Brant Ave.,
Brantford, N3T 3G7,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122,
Cell: 519-717-5198
May 17 2016
VIA FASCIMILE
Registries of the Federal Court
90 Sparks St. 5th floor
Ottawa K1A 0H9
Dear Sir/Madam:
Re: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ T-488-14
CR: In his letter dated May 6 2016, the plaintiff requests
leave to serve Canada with future materials via email, as well
as dispensation from the proof of service requirements
contained in the Federal Court Rules. He purports to make both
requests on behalf of more than 300 plaintiffs.
JCT: Plaintiff seeks not dispensation with proof of service
but alternate proof of service by email header.
CR: Canada's email servers are subject to strict data size
limits,
JCT: What data size limit. Is 200-300 kilobytes too big?
CR: which would likely be quickly exceeded if the plaintiffs
were to begin serving materials by email.
JCT: Plaintiff Electrical Engineer doubts their unknown data
size limits would be exceeded by my 250k kilobyte email.
CR: Although Canada recently requested and was granted leave
to electronically serve motion materials on the plaintiffs,
Canada was able to do so via a single email to all plaintiffs
which did not count significantly toward the data size limits.
JCT: Plaintiff would like to do so via a single email back
too. As for the still unknown data size limits, why would the
limit be plural? Canada's Motion Record was 1.112 Megabytes.
My Motion Record would be 4 to 5 times smaller. So no matter
how much the Crown lawyers would like to believe that their
data size limits would "likely be quickly exceeded" if the
plaintiffs were to begin serving 250Kb materials by email, 300
times 250Kb is 75Mb total, hardly an insurmountable number.
With a 2 Terabyte commercial drive costing $130, 15 Gigabytes
per dollar, 150 Megabytes per cent, so 75Mb storage would cost
0.5 cents. Plaintiff submits Canada is overly concerned over a
half penny expense. And it's probably cheaper on a Justice
Ministry mainframe.
CR: By contrast, the plaintiff's request could result in
Canada receiving more than 300 emails, each attaching a
Responding Motion Record.
JCT: Plaintiff submits that receiving more than 300 paper
Motion Records and scanning them to PDF is more work for all,
including the Registry, than receiving them as PDFs?
CR: As the plaintiff has identified no reason why he cannot
serve Canada and prove service in accordance with the ordinary
rules, Canada requests that the Court not grant the leave
requested by the plaintiff.
JCT: Plaintiff claims the same reason as Canada for wanting to
use email , to avoid inconvenience and expense. What would be
the purpose of having 300 self-represented plaintiffs running
round delivering the same form 300 times when Canada has been
freed from such wasted expense? Canada has now set the
precedent, Plaintiffs seek the same cost-reduced service from
the court?
_________________________________
John C. Turmel
CC: Jon Bricker, Ministry of Justice Fax: 416-973-0809
For the Defendant.
JCT: Lawyers think half-a-penny's worth of storage could swamp
their servers! Har har har har har har har har har har har
har.
Don't worry, this is the Response no one else but me is
serving anyway. I'd just like to skip the trip to Toronto
since they skipped the trip to Brantford.
25 mins ·
TURMEL: Crown wants 300 Gold Stars' to file paper, not email
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
50 Brant Ave.,
Brantford, N3T 3G7,
Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122,
Cell: 519-717-5198
May 17 2016
VIA FASCIMILE
Registries of the Federal Court
90 Sparks St. 5th floor
Ottawa K1A 0H9
Dear Sir/Madam:
Re: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ T-488-14
CR: In his letter dated May 6 2016, the plaintiff requests
leave to serve Canada with future materials via email, as well
as dispensation from the proof of service requirements
contained in the Federal Court Rules. He purports to make both
requests on behalf of more than 300 plaintiffs.
JCT: Plaintiff seeks not dispensation with proof of service
but alternate proof of service by email header.
CR: Canada's email servers are subject to strict data size
limits,
JCT: What data size limit. Is 200-300 kilobytes too big?
CR: which would likely be quickly exceeded if the plaintiffs
were to begin serving materials by email.
JCT: Plaintiff Electrical Engineer doubts their unknown data
size limits would be exceeded by my 250k kilobyte email.
CR: Although Canada recently requested and was granted leave
to electronically serve motion materials on the plaintiffs,
Canada was able to do so via a single email to all plaintiffs
which did not count significantly toward the data size limits.
JCT: Plaintiff would like to do so via a single email back
too. As for the still unknown data size limits, why would the
limit be plural? Canada's Motion Record was 1.112 Megabytes.
My Motion Record would be 4 to 5 times smaller. So no matter
how much the Crown lawyers would like to believe that their
data size limits would "likely be quickly exceeded" if the
plaintiffs were to begin serving 250Kb materials by email, 300
times 250Kb is 75Mb total, hardly an insurmountable number.
With a 2 Terabyte commercial drive costing $130, 15 Gigabytes
per dollar, 150 Megabytes per cent, so 75Mb storage would cost
0.5 cents. Plaintiff submits Canada is overly concerned over a
half penny expense. And it's probably cheaper on a Justice
Ministry mainframe.
CR: By contrast, the plaintiff's request could result in
Canada receiving more than 300 emails, each attaching a
Responding Motion Record.
JCT: Plaintiff submits that receiving more than 300 paper
Motion Records and scanning them to PDF is more work for all,
including the Registry, than receiving them as PDFs?
CR: As the plaintiff has identified no reason why he cannot
serve Canada and prove service in accordance with the ordinary
rules, Canada requests that the Court not grant the leave
requested by the plaintiff.
JCT: Plaintiff claims the same reason as Canada for wanting to
use email , to avoid inconvenience and expense. What would be
the purpose of having 300 self-represented plaintiffs running
round delivering the same form 300 times when Canada has been
freed from such wasted expense? Canada has now set the
precedent, Plaintiffs seek the same cost-reduced service from
the court?
_________________________________
John C. Turmel
CC: Jon Bricker, Ministry of Justice Fax: 416-973-0809
For the Defendant.
JCT: Lawyers think half-a-penny's worth of storage could swamp
their servers! Har har har har har har har har har har har
har.
Don't worry, this is the Response no one else but me is
serving anyway. I'd just like to skip the trip to Toronto
since they skipped the trip to Brantford.
