doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i just read here that it's only for the 4..what a drag!
i think i'll email Kirk and ask how we can get the same. it should be for everyone...dammit!
injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
i think i'll email Kirk and ask how we can get the same. it should be for everyone...dammit!
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i should say that i was wrong yesterday. i called John Turmel and asked him about Goldstars and he said that if we win, it's a win for everyone.
the reason for us all filing is so the courts hear our voices the more who file and make noise, the louder we are, the more they HAVE to pay attention
the reason for us all filing is so the courts hear our voices the more who file and make noise, the louder we are, the more they HAVE to pay attention
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i will call him later today and see what can be done@doingdishes see if you can get Turmel to do a section 56 application, have a group apply and when denied, judicial review
Yes hence my comment if freedom can be bought. Those who can afford the best mj legal representation are going seek releif from the scobc.... Good luck to them. Remember a win is a win is win. If it works for them it will work for us. Bc may have a huge influx in mmj users if this is a successful challenge. Removal of carry limits and ability to move gardens. Sounds good to me.
Can't we find one compassionate doctor that will run a long term study on Canadian mmj users that we can sign up for? Hc allows section 56 exemptions only for scienticefic study purposes. So let's start a legit study. The amount of participants would have to be limited just due to ability to supply a constant supply of meds. All it takes is one doctor and a few volunteers to grow and dispense the weed. Collect long term health data and see if any trends pop up... Sounds crazy but it could work with the right federal party in power.
TURMEL: Reply to Crown backroom move to nix Smith BENO Overturn
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
September 15 2015
Court of Appeal for Ontario Registrar
Dear Registrar:
Re: M45479 - John Turmel - Application to open new appeal
Rather than serve a Motion Record in Response, the Crown has
chosen to send a letter asking the Registrar to ask a judge
to dismiss the motion without a hearing on grounds it is
"truly frivolous and vexatious."
James Turner raised the new Smith BENO argument in his
motion to Quash his charge on Aug 4 2015. It was adjourned.
On Aug 10, the Crown got it adjourned. On Aug 17, the Crown
got it adjourned. On Aug 31, again unprepared, Crown Steven
White got it adjourned again.
Mr. White had 4 opportunities to ask a judge in open court
to have it dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and could
not. The Crown now takes the opportunity to ask for a
backroom ruling without a hearing or chance for my Reply
that worked so well against Mr. Turner. Ever heard of a
hearing before a "temporary Trial Judge" before the real
Trial Judge gets appointed? Mr. White gave Turner one.
Crown White mentions "this Court has repeatedly rejected the
type of argument Mr. Turmel again advances, coloquially
referred to as "Bad Exemption = No Offence" or "BENO" see:
R. v. McCrady et al, [2001] O.J. No. 5 935 (C.A.).
This is a different "type of BENO argument" with the Smith
Bad Exemption rather than the Hitzig Bad Exemption. It may
be the same artillery but it's new ammunition.
Mr. White opinion is that "the Supreme Court of Canada case
of R. v. Smith does not assist Mr. Turmel in any manner."
I need to hear that from a judge.
As to my opening a new appeal, not re-opening my old appeal,
there are other Appellants who do not have previous appeals
to which such argument do not apply.
_______________________________
John Turmel
Fax Cc: Steven White: 613-957-9043
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,
September 15 2015
Court of Appeal for Ontario Registrar
Dear Registrar:
Re: M45479 - John Turmel - Application to open new appeal
Rather than serve a Motion Record in Response, the Crown has
chosen to send a letter asking the Registrar to ask a judge
to dismiss the motion without a hearing on grounds it is
"truly frivolous and vexatious."
James Turner raised the new Smith BENO argument in his
motion to Quash his charge on Aug 4 2015. It was adjourned.
On Aug 10, the Crown got it adjourned. On Aug 17, the Crown
got it adjourned. On Aug 31, again unprepared, Crown Steven
White got it adjourned again.
Mr. White had 4 opportunities to ask a judge in open court
to have it dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and could
not. The Crown now takes the opportunity to ask for a
backroom ruling without a hearing or chance for my Reply
that worked so well against Mr. Turner. Ever heard of a
hearing before a "temporary Trial Judge" before the real
Trial Judge gets appointed? Mr. White gave Turner one.
Crown White mentions "this Court has repeatedly rejected the
type of argument Mr. Turmel again advances, coloquially
referred to as "Bad Exemption = No Offence" or "BENO" see:
R. v. McCrady et al, [2001] O.J. No. 5 935 (C.A.).
This is a different "type of BENO argument" with the Smith
Bad Exemption rather than the Hitzig Bad Exemption. It may
be the same artillery but it's new ammunition.
Mr. White opinion is that "the Supreme Court of Canada case
of R. v. Smith does not assist Mr. Turmel in any manner."
I need to hear that from a judge.
As to my opening a new appeal, not re-opening my old appeal,
there are other Appellants who do not have previous appeals
to which such argument do not apply.
_______________________________
John Turmel
Fax Cc: Steven White: 613-957-9043
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
Courts have granted them to people. I contacted someone in Ottawa and they said the only way they have given them to a individual is through courts. Otherwise you can get one for scientific studies and import/export.
I've filed for one using the scienticefic study application. No word back. Nothing. That was at the start of the summer. Can you elaborate on how to go about getting a personal section 56 exemption via court proceedings? Who and in what level of court do I need to file with?
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
Here is the application pre-mmar http://www.mmadstories.ca/index.php/compassion-club/8-legal-medical-cannabis-in-canada/3-section-56-exemption#cdsasection56
From what i understand you can create a cover letter and within have support from your doctor.
Here is a homemade application for sec56 exemption http://www.mmadstories.ca/forums/download/file.php?id=39
Mail all of this to
National Exemption Section
Office of Controlled Substances
Health Canada AL 3502B
123 Slater St
Ottawa ON K1A 0K9
@doingdishes this weekend if you got time il call you and we can do a run through of this and send it away @Gmack420 your welcome too.
It seems like this person may have been approved or denied after being asked this
"We will examine your request for a Section 56 Exemption, however, I'll need you to please print out your formal request, sign it and mail it to the address below. We require an application with original signature for all Section 56 Exemption applications."
1) Applicant information, name address, contact information
2) Location where activities will take place
3) The purpose and reason for the exemption
4) The activities you wish to conduct with the controlled substance, the more details the better
5) The supplier for the starting materials
6) The physical security in place to ensure controlled substances are not diverted for illegal purposes
Aslong as you can get a denial im sure you can proceed with a judicial review, this individual contacted many MPs. Im sure that stirred up alot.
I'm in! On a unrelated tax deduction note an illigal,dispensary just posted this link in my fb newsfeed for some reason. Maybe medpotnow really is owned by a lp....
http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/cra-says-you-can-claim-medical-marijuana-on-your-taxes
I'll fill that out and mail it off ASAP.
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
Confirm the address i posted, also use a tracking/signature.
Will do. How do I confirm the address lol? I can google map it. It seems to exist....
123 Salter Crescent, Ottawa, ON K2K
http://goo.gl/maps/sCzqP Seems to be residential so I'm skeptical. Oops spelling error give me a min lol
On further inspection using street view... The building in questions adreess isn't visible only blurs where you can see it was obscured. Also inside the building looks to be gov of canada looking signs that are also obscured. Must be the right place if they don't want us to know it exist or it's a gov of canada building even.... The old if they can't find us we don't have to deal with them routine eh?
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
I am IN!!!
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i look forward to your call. i am going to go over the forms. this might work very well!!
thank you very much
A win is a win is a win! If one can do it we all can do it. I'd much prefer a section 56 exemption to any other option the mmar or mmpr offer currently or in the past.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
we should check into this further and the ask for more patients from here and see who is on board. if we can get more people, i think they might be more swayed than a bunch of individuals