TURMEL: Crown Motion to Stay Gold Star Claims, go for Repeal anyway
JCT: The Crown has written a letter to 300 Gold Stars who
filed Statements of Claim:
The Plaintiff claims declaratory and financial remedy
for violations of rights under S. 7 of the Charter for
an Order:
A1) that the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR)
that came into force on Jul 30 2001 and the Marihuana
for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) that came into
force on June 19, 2013, (and run concurrently with the
MMAR until March 31, 2014 when the MMAR will be repealed
by the MMPR) are unconstitutional and not saved by S.1
of the Charter in that the s. 7 Charter constitutional
right of a medically needy patient to reasonable access
to his/her medicine by way of a safe and continuous
supply consistent with the S.7 Charter right is
unreasonably restricted by the impediments to access
and/or supply in the MMAR and/or MMPR;
A2) And that, "absent a constitutionally acceptable
medical exemption," the prohibitions on marihuana in the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) are invalid
and the word "marijuana" be struck from Schedule II of
the CDSA.
B) In the alternative, pursuant to S.24(1) of the
Charter, for a permanent Personal Exemption from
prohibitions in the CDSA on marihuana for the
Plaintiff's personal medical use.
C) Or, alternatively, damages in the amount of
$______________ for loss of patient's marihuana, plants
and production site.
JCT: Got that?
A1) Regimes didn't work, declare Absent Exemption; or
A2) Permanent Medical Exemption;
B) Bad Exemption means No Offence so strike "marijuana" from
Schedule II;
C) Damages for being shut down by faulty regime.
Our actions were stayed in 2014 until the Final Disposition
of Allard which also sought to declare the MMPR
unconstitutional though Conroy didn't seed remedies B) nor
C). The MMPR was declared unconstitutional with effect
suspended 6 months.
So Allard won A1) so our Gold Star claims for A2) mooted;
Now on to B) repeal and C) damages. But Crown says:
Department of Justice
March 30 2016
VIA FASCIMILE
Registries of the Federal Court
90 Sparks St. 5th floor
Ottawa K1A 0H9
Dear Sir/Madam:
RE: In the matter of numerous filings seeking a
declaration pursuant to S.52(1) of the Charter
On behalf of the defendant Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of Canada ("Canada"), I am writing to advise of
Canada's intention to bring a motion to strike the
proceedings listed at Appendix A to this letter, and to
request the Court's direction concerning this motion.
By Orders dated May 7 and June 4 (amended July 9),
2014, the Federal Court stayed the above-noted matters
pending final disposition of Allard et al v. Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of Canada (Court File Number T-2030-
13 ("Allard").
The Court issued a trial decision in Allard on February
24, 2016 and the time to appeal has now passed without
an appeal. The stay of the above-noted matters having
therefore expired, Canada now intends to bring a motion
in writing to strike these matters. The basis for
Canada's motion is that Allard has rendered these
matters moot and that the pleadings fail in whole or in
part to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
JCT: Get that? Allard mooting A) also moots B) and C)! Why?
Because Jon forgot those claimed remedies, government
lawyers can be forgiven, or chose to omit them. But that's
his case, since Allard disposed of A), that also disposes of
B) and C)! Har har har har har har. What fun. But it gets
better.
CR: In light of the large number of claims, and in
accordance with Rules 3 and 55 of the Federal Court
Rules, Canada hereby requests a direction providing it
with leave to prepare a single motion record applicable
to all 310 proceedings and to electronically serve the
plaintiffs at the email addresses provided in their
Statements of Claims.
JCT: The Keystone Krowns strike again! Har har har. Notice
they want the motion done "in writing" without a public
hearing. Does the Crown really want to have over 300
individual Responding Motion Records served and filed when
they don't want to serve and file 300 individual Motion
Records themselves? Imagine the documentary avalanche if
everyone has to file their own! Har har har. It'll flood the
Registry at the Crown's request. The only way to avoid that
is another Big Event where not only those who do file Motion
Records in Response (with their own damages information just
to force Phelan to have to sign off on tons of distinct
records) but also those who do not file responses may
witness the outcome of their hearing.
Imagine, over 300 explaining the damages done to them for
which they want cash. Har har har har. Has the Crown ever
opened up a Pandora's box:
"Please help us avoid having to file 300 Motion Records do
let us insist they file 300 Response Records!" Har har har.
CR: Canada also proposes the following timetable for its
motion:
Canada's Motion Record - 20 days from the Court's
direction
Plaintiffs'/Applicant's Responding Records - 20 days
from filing of Canada's motion record.
Canada's Reply - 10 days from filing all responding
motion records
Jon Bricker
JCT: I'm not even going to bring it up. See if anyone
notices that they're only cutting the Registry's work in
half if they avoid 300 Motion Records but elicit 300
Response Records. Let's see what the Directing Judge says.
Har har har har.
But get ready to flood the Crown and Registry with in one
20-day period! Won't the clerks have a hopping time. Maybe
they'll earn over-time.
And you can bet it'll be an easy kit? Grounds:
Allard didn't win our B or C remedies? Why should they be
mooted because Allard won our A for us?
Actually, I find it incredibly stupid. But when you have no
cards. Anyway, surprise coming up.
But they think they can stall it 2 months, maybe have
decision before or after the new Regs come in to then argue
we're mooted again, I don't think so. I can let them go on
an organize the avalanche of documentation while go for the
gold:
Tomorrow, while I'm Toronto for my Ontario Court of Appeal
hearing for an extension of time to appeal my 2006
conviction because of Smith-Allard, I'll be filing a Motion
for Summary Judgment on Remedy B alone!!
See my reports on how previous motions for Summary Judgment
were stalled but now that the stay is expired, it can't be
stopped. Except, A is won, C damages (not much) I'm
abandoning for simplicity of motion, and going only for B:
Strike for Repeal.
So tomorrow, I file motion for Summary Judgment for Repeal.
And I hope to get it on the April 20 and it should only be a
20 minute hearing on BENO.
And just as Allard said it would save time to have Allard
deal with the A remedy first, I can now argue it would save
time to have Turmel deal with the B remedy next. And then
the 300 others only have to deal with the C remedy for
damages they suffered, the actual part where they are
needed.
So Allard got rid of the 1st legal question, I'm going for
the second, with only cash for damages left for each other
Gold Star.
And mine's going to be heard before the Crown can even get
their documentation in on their dismiss motion. Guess they
thought bluffing for a dismissal might deter me from still
going for the jugular as soon as I can. Har har har har har
har. NOT.
lol
