Barrister & Solicitor Appeal for funding to fight for us for personal Growing URGENT

buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
John W. Conroy QC
Conroy and Company
Barristers and Solicitors
2459 Pauline Street
Abbotsford, B.C.
V2S 3S1
Tel: 604 852 5110
Fax: 604 859 3661
Email: [email protected]


Dear Friend:


I have inserted text from a formal LTE from the Coalition attorney. The same information will be posted on John Conroy's web-site. We have less time than originally thought to stop this MMAP from starting to come into effect. Keeping our option to cultivate and keep cost down while we go through the Canadian Supreme Court to truly change the pot laws in Canada in 60 days is a tough task.

If you would like to be added to the legal file I can take in legal information for this case and have it filed. A class action suit will be filed at some point at which time we need impact statements, legal first and last name, later for class action damages (once we know more) we will be in touch.

I guess what I am saying is please send in your legal first and last name so I can add it to your impact statement that will be before the courts if we get this case off the ground. Please see below written by John Conroy as to where we at legally.

If you’re interested in getting more ivolved given our time line is short let me know call or e-mail? We need to act fast!

Thanks,

Jason Wilcox

I assume you heard about me and have contacted me because you have become aware that a Coalition against the repeal of the MMAR(www.mmarcoalitionagainstrepeal.com)is being formed and organized by Jason Wilcox ([email protected] ) to consider the option of legal proceedings, either by way of a representative action before the new regulations become law in order to prevent some or all of them from becoming law and to maintain the status quo until reasonable access is assured for those having the section 7 Constitutional Charter right to access established by the Parker decision many years ago or alternatively a ‘class action’ for damages if they do become law and damages are suffered.

At present we are simply collecting names and stories or background information to determine the impact of the proposed new regulations on existing users and growers to determine what the facts are.

To be constitutional the new regime must be a "reasonable limit" on the right of access and not an unreasonable one. It may be that they are reasonable in some aspects and not in others. We have until February 21st, 2013 to make submissions to the government about them – 75 days from December 6th, 2012.The government plans to enact the new regulations March 31, 2013 and to run them concurrently with the existing MMAR until March 31st,2014 but will not accept new MMAR applications after October 1st,2013.Patients with MMAR Authorizations to possess(ATP’S) will be able to use them to apply to become a registered client of a Licensed Producer without the need for a new medical document until March 31st,2015.

We are also trying to raise money to obtain an official legal opinion on the constitutionality of the proposed changes and what legal options are available. While I have been involved in this type of litigation for some years and have my own opinion, I believe it is advisable to get an independent objective opinion, if we're going to proceed on behalf of the group. Consequently there is some urgency to do this before the end of March.

All funds should be sent to "Conroy and Company – in trust – for the MMAR – PPL/DGL Coalition". A record will be kept of all funds received and from whom. The initial target is $10,000CAD to get a written opinion from a large Canadian law firm such as Gowling’s in Ottawa who act as my agent when I have cases before the Supreme Court.

We are looking to see if there is a good Representative action to be taken to prevent the implementation of some or all of the new proposed regulations, and to maintain some or all of the status quo to ensure that constitutional rights are respected. Consequently, we would likely seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief as opposed to compensation by way of money damages.

However, if the new regulations should be implemented and individuals suffer damages, then certainly a "Class-action" will be considered which would be an action for compensation by way of money damages if it can be established that the government is liable for such damages.

If you are contacting the firm directly instead of through the Coalition I will need to know if I can forward your contact particulars to the Coalition and that you otherwise have no difficulty with your name, being known and shared amongst members of the Coalition initially and potentially becoming public if you were to participate in a coalition lawsuit. It is simply not practical and too costly to try and communicate with each of you on an individual basis.

If you want to be an individual client and not part of the group then go to www.johnconroy.com and you will see the firms standard retainer agreements and the retainers required depending on the seniority of the lawyer you wish to retain.

The contact information for Jason Wilcox is set out below, including the specific webpages for this Coalition.

The Cannabis in Canada Society
www.cannabisincanada.com
[email protected]
Office 604-685-6611
Fax 866-344-6983
Mobile: 604-562-7731
1062 Granville St
Vancouver, B.C.
Canada
V6P 4J2



MMAR PPL/DPL Coalition against Repeal
BC Regional Representative
www.mmarcoalitionagainstrepeal.com
[email protected]

Face Book Coalition Group www.facebook.com/groups/406440576091519/ www.facebook.com/groups/406440576091519

LinkedIn Coalition Group
www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=4714229&trk=hb_side_g

Main LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=105483424&trk=tab_pro
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
I've started this thread because here is THE opportunity we have all wanted. People super motivated have already gone and seen this legal team and they've said that before they start they want to go to the big boys that they know and see if we have a chance at defeating Health Canada with their new laws. This opinion seeking venture is the first part of the journey and it costs $10,000. I'm challenging every single medical user out there on roll it up to realize what's at stake here and to please cough up some money and send it to this legal team. I myself only have $600 to get me through January but I'm taking out $100 and sending it to them. If every reader here just sent in fifty bucks, we could have that 10K taken care of in a jiffy. The legal team only has 60 days to get a challenge into the courts so please take this as URGENT. The time for crying is over. Now it's time for war! Please come out of the woods and help us fight. This is the fight for personal growing. We need you to be part of this! Either put down your name or donate your money or do both!
 
Doobius1

Doobius1

Well-Known Member
If I can get my license renewed I will absolutely send some $ for the fight. No license then I will go back underground where I came from. Down there its every man for himself
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
You've got to be shitting me? Nobody else posting any comments? Guys you're about to lose your personal growing option and you
re not doing anything about it! Some people are doing more than just bitching. They've actually started legal action. C'mon guys, help them out. I have. Anyone else have a legitimate need and want to grow on your own? Sorry to be on my soap box but hey, get motivated Canada! Stop being such a bunch of stoners and help out. Please send these guys some of your money to we can fight harper in court!

Buckets
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
Garm:

You restore my faith in an idle community so thanks for helping out!

Have a good day.

Buckets
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
You're a big help Mr. Bloombastic. We all thank you if you follow through! Have a great day!

Buckets
 
D

ditrbag1

Member
I'll be donating very shortly, this is EXTREMELY important that as many of us get behind this as possible. I believe that every effort has to be made stop the conservative government from implementing their proposed MMAP program, and sadly enough, I feel that our current government is more fiscally motivated than anything else, as Stephen Harper is an economist first, and fore mostly. As a community we'll have to fight more with dollars and cents (via legislative challenges), than sheer public outrage, not to downplay any activism on our parts, the letter writing and petition barrage is undoubtedly effective, I just feel that at the end of the day it will come down to cost effectiveness in one way or another. However it ultimately plays out the balance sheet will be judge, jury, and, executioner. P.S. I didnt know this before but, John Conroy is a QC lawyer, that means queens council, basically it's given to lawyers that have outstanding performance by the bar association, so, I trust we are in good hands. My family had a friend who was a QC lawyer, he had some deep connections with politicians. Have a great day, and remember, if we don't stand up for ourselves, sure as hell, someone will be right at the doorstep to trample the success we have made, and set the movement back 20 years.
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
I agree with you 110% dirtbag1. Thanks for being part of raising money and awareness to this fight! Keep it going guys. We can't stand still as some of us might prefer to do.
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
Here is the exact writings by a lawyer in Ontario in case anyone is thinking of going to court on their own...taking this might help when you go to see the lawyer!
JCT: After much pre-trial discussions, I redrafted Mike's
Application for Constitutional Question and Factum for only
the points we have witnesses for and dropped a few others.
This will be the next constay.doc kit going up for the next
person to use.

File No.: 10948
SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO
Between
Michael K. Spottiswood
Applicant/Accused
- and -
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
Pursuant to S.8(2)(a) of the
Constitutional Question Act

TAKE NOTICE THAT on Jan 21 2013 or as soon as possible
thereafter will be heard the Application by the Accused at
the courthouse at London for an Order:

A) declaring the MMAR unconstitutional for:

a) Section 32(e) limiting exemptees per gardener;
b) Section 32(d) limiting gardeners per site;
c) S.65(1) forcing exemptees to destroy their medication
when Health Canada is late in renewing exemption;
d) "Not All" doctors participate
e) Delay in processing ATPs
f) Delays in ATP renewals
g) Delays in ATP amendments
h) Delays in RCMP criminal record checks for growers
i) Inability to exempt Canada's epileptic 400K population
j) No DIN (Drug Identification Number) for financial support
k) Unreasonable yearly renewals for permanently ill
l) Prohibiting removal of impurities
m) No bulk grow means no respite
n) Too much info on exemption card
q) Cash costs for doctor participation
r) 3% Health Canada strain not medicinal enough
s) No exchanging different strains for different pains
t) Number of plants as parameter
u) High-cost chemicals v. Low-cost herbals
v) Phone calls urging doctors lower dosages
w) Five million Canadians do not have family doctors
x) Stress from MMAR defects
z) Doctors as gatekeepers, patients decide

B) declaring the S.4(1) and S.7(1) CDSA prohibitions on
marijuana possession and cultivation of no force and effect
while the MMAR exemption is unconstitutional;

C) staying the charges against the accused.

AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to
form or content of the application, or for any Order deemed
just.

THE GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION:

A) THAT THE MMAR ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL are that:

a) just as Sfetkopoulos completely removed the limit on
Authorisations To Possess ("ATP") per gardener in MMAR
S.41(b.1) for being unconstitutionally limiting, so too,
raising the old limit of 1 to the new limit of 2 exemptees
per gardener in MMAR S.32(e) remains contemptuously as
unconstitutionally limiting;
b) just as Beren completely removed the limit on gardeners
per site in MMAR S.54(1) for being unconstitutionally
limiting, so too, raising the old limit of 3 to the new
limit of 4 gardeners per site in MMAR S.32(d) remains
contemptuously just as unconstitutionally limiting;
c) the forced destruction of the exemptee's medical supply
when Health Canada is late in renewals is an
unconstitutional threat to the right to life;
d) the opting out of an almost total majority of doctors is
an unconstitutional violation of Applicant's Right to Life;
e) the months and years it takes to process applications for
an exemption is an unconstitutional violation of Applicant's
Section 7 Charter Right to Life;
f) the weeks it takes to process ATP renewals is a violation
of the Right to Life;
g) the weeks delay for amendment processing violates the
Right to Life;
h) the 6-8 months for an RCMP criminal record check for
growers impedes supply and violates the Right to Life;
i) the for inability to exempt Canada's 400,000 epileptic
population means the MMAR was never workable violating all
their Right to Life;
j) failure to provide a DIN to enable the same financial
support as for any other prescribed medication violates the
Right to Life;
k) MMAR unreasonably compelling yearly renewals for those
with permanent diseases violates the right against arbitrary
treatment under S.15 of the Charter;
l) MMAR prohibiting the removal of impurities to obtain the
remaining hash and oil violates the right to the best
medicine;
m) no respite from growing full-time, can't grow and save
bulk, impedes supply violating the Right to Life;
n) Too much info on exemption card
q) Cash costs to get doctor to fill out MMAR forms impede
access violating the Right to Life;
r) Health Canada's 3% strain is recreational, not medicinal,
impeding effectiveness and violating the Right to Life;
s) No exchanging to find different strains for different
pains impeding effectiveness and violating the Right to
Life;
t) Different strains provide different yields making the
number of plants the wrong main limiting factor to impede
supply and violate the Right to Life;
u) Financial advantage lost by not getting patients off
high-cost chemical drugs onto low-cost herbal medications
impedes access by poor patients violating the Right to Life;
v) phone calls from Health Canada non-doctors to urge
doctors to lower dosages violates the Right to Primary;
w) Five million Canadians do not have doctors and cannot
avail themselves of the program when it might be most suited
violating their Right to Life;
x) stress caused by all these defects in the MMAR exemption
process violates the Right to Life.
z) Morgentaler, Parker, Krieger, all say the patient
decides, no gatekeepers.

B) THE GROUNDS THAT THE S.4 & S.7 PROHIBITIONS ON MARIHUANA
POSSESSION AND CULTIVATION ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL are that
pursuant to Parker and Krieger, the J.P. Court ruled
possession and cultivation offences are valid while there is
a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption in force and
not valid otherwise;

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES TO BE RAISED ARE WHETHER:

a) the new limit of 2 ATPs per gardener in S.32(e) is as
unconstitutionally limiting as the old limit of 1 in
S.41(b.1) that was declared unconstitutional in
Sfetkopoulos?
b) the new limit of 4 gardeners per site in S.32(d) is as
unconstitutionally limiting as the old limit of 3 declared
unconstitutional in Beren?
c) destroying exemptees store of medication when a renewal
is late violates exemptees right to life?
d) letting an almost total majority of doctors opt out is an
unconstitutional violation of Applicant's Right to Life?
e) the failure to provide a prompt Authorization is an
unconstitutional violation of the S.7 Charter Right to Life?
f) the failure to provide on-time renewals of ATPs is an
unconstitutional violation of the S.7 Charter Right to Life?
g) the failure to provide in-time online amendments of ATPs
is an unconstitutional violation of the S.7 Charter Right to
Life?
h) the long delay in getting a grower's RCMP criminal record
check is a violation of the S.7 Charter Right to Life?
i) the inability to exempt Canada's epileptic population
violates their Right to Life?
j) failure to provide a DIN to enable the same financial
support as for any other prescribed medication is another
bar to access violating S.7 Charter Right to Life?
k) unreasonably compelling yearly renewals for those with
permanent diseases violates the Charter?
l) prohibiting the removal of impurities to obtain the
remaining hash and oil violates the Charter?
m) no respite from growing full-time, cant grow and save
bulk, impedes supply violating the Right to Life?
n) Too much unnecessary info on the exemption card about how
much and where an exemptee stores the controlled substance
increases danger violating the Right to Life?
q) cash costs to get doctor to fill out MMAR forms impede
access violating the Right to Life?
r) Health Canada's 12% recreational strain is medicinal
enough impeding effectiveness and violating the Right to
Life?
s) no exchanging to find different strains for different
pains impedes effectiveness to violate the Right to Life?
t) different strains providing different yields making the
number of plants the wrong main limiting factor impedes
supply to violate the Right to Life?
u) Financial advantage lost by not getting patients off
high-cost chemical drugs onto low-cost herbal medications
impedes access by poor patients violating the Right to Life?
v) phone calls from Health Canada non-doctors to urge
doctors to lower dosages violates the Right to Primary?
w) Five million Canadians who do not have doctors and cannot
avail themselves of the program have their rights violated?
x) stress caused by all these defects in the MMAR exemption
process violates the Right to Life?
z) Patients does not decide with doctor as gatekeeper.

B) THAT THE S.4 & S.7 PROHIBITIONS ON MARIHUANA POSSESSION
AND CULTIVATION ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL because The Court in R.
v. J.P. ruled that the combined effect of Parker and Hitzig
meant there was no constitutionally valid marijuana
possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the
date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the
decision in Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of
Appeal's decision as creating a similar period of
retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3 2003, the
date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR."

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES TO BE ARGUED ARE that the
myriad of impediments to both access and supply in the
Marijuana Medical Access Regulations make the exemption
illusory and Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in J.P. that a
Bad Exemption means No Offence! BENO! Followed by Justice
Taliano in Mernagh. Applicant has shown plenty of Bad
Exemption and seeks the same declaration of No Offence.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR RULES APPLICANT RELIES ON:
Section 7 Charter of Rights.

IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT RELIES UPON:
- testimony of exemptees and expert witness affidavit of
John Turmel in odds of survival due to prohibition the
world's safest and most effective herbal medication.

THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS AN ORDER
A) declaring unconstitutional
a) Section 32(e) of the MMAR;
b) Section 32(d) of the MMAR;
c) Section 65(1) of the MMAR;
d) the whole MMAR for allowing an almost total majority of
doctors to opt out and the remaining 22 defects cited; when
Health Canada is late in renewing exemption;
e) Delay in processing ATPs;
f) Delays in ATP renewals;
g) Delays in ATP amendments;
h) Delays in RCMP criminal record checks for growers;
i) Inability to exempt Canada's epileptic 400K population;
j) No Drug Identification Number DIN for financial support;
k) Unreasonable yearly renewals for permanently ill;
l) Prohibiting removal of impurities;
m) No bulk grow means no respite;
n) Too much info on exemption card;
q) Cash costs for doctor participation;
r) 3% Health Canada strain not medicinal enough;
s) No exchanging different strains for different pains;
t) Number of plants as parameter;
u) High-cost chemicals v. Low-cost herbals;
v) Phone calls urging doctors lower dosages;
w) Five million Canadians do not have family doctors;
x) Stress from MMAR defects;
z) Doctors as gatekeepers, patients decide.

B) declaring the prohibitions on marijuana in S.4 and S.7 of
the CDSA to be invalid;

C) staying the charges against the accused.

THE APPLICANT MAY BE SERVED WITH DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THIS
APPLICATION AT 629 Oxford St. E., London ON N5Y 3J2,

Dated at London Dec 20 2012
__________________________________
For the Applicant/Accused:
Michael K. Spottiswood,
Email: [email protected]

TO: The Registrar of this court
AND TO: The Attorney General of Canada
AND TO: The Attorney General of Ontario

APPLICANT'S FACTUM

PART I - FACTS

1. In its losing Memorandum to the Supreme Court in
Sfetkopoulos v. HMTQ, Crown Sean Gaudet wrote:

"[33] The Court in R. v. J.P. ruled that the combined effect
of Parker and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally
valid marijuana possession offence between July 31 2001 and
Oct 7 2003, the date the MMAR were constitutionally
rectified by the decision in Hitzig. Courts may construe the
Federal Court of Appeal's decision as creating a similar
period of retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3
2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the
MMAR."

2. On Mar 4 2010, the Beren Court struck down both the limit
on patients to gardeners but also the S.54 limit of 3
gardeners per garden as too limiting.

3. On Jan 18 2011, Applicant was charged under with
marijuana offence under Criminal Code Section 7(1) & 5(2)
of the CDSA and asks the Court to construe those decisions
pursuant to the J.P. decision as creating a similar period
of retrospective invalidity dating back to December 3 2003,
the date that S.41(b.1) and S.54(1) were re-introduced into
the MMAR."

4. Despite those rulings that the caps on supply were too
constitutionally limiting, Health Canada enacted new limits
in MMAR S.32 on patients per gardener upped from 1 to 2 and
on gardeners per garden upped from 3 to 4. Big enough
difference?

5. Other failings in the MMAR are also being raised.

PART II - CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES TO BE RAISED

6. The constitutional defects in the MMAR raised are:
a) whether the new limit of 2 ATPs per gardener in S.32(e)
is as unconstitutionally limiting as the old limit of 1 in
S.41(b.1) that was declared unconstitutional in
Sfetkopoulos?
b) whether the new limit of 4 gardeners per site in S.32(d)
is as unconstitutionally limiting as the old limit of 3
declared unconstitutional in Beren?
c) whether destroying exemptees store of medication when a
renewal is late violates exemptees right to life?
d) whether letting an almost total majority of doctors opt
out is an unconstitutional violation of Applicant's Right to
Life?
e) whether the failure to provide a prompt Authorization is
an unconstitutional violation of the S.7 Charter Right to
Life?
f) whether the failure to provide on-time renewals of ATPs
is an unconstitutional violation of the S.7 Charter Right to
Life?
g) whether the failure to provide in-time online amendments
of ATPs is an unconstitutional violation of the S.7 Charter
Right to Life?
h) whether the long delay in getting a growers RCMP criminal
record check is a violation of the S.7 Charter Right to
Life?
i) whether the inability to exempt Canada's epileptic
population violates their Right to Life?
j) whether failure to provide a DIN to enable the same
financial support as for any other prescribed medication is
another bar to access violating S.7 Charter Right to Life?
k) whether unreasonably compelling yearly renewals for those
with permanent diseases violates the Charter?
l) whether prohibiting the removal of impurities to obtain
the remaining hash and oil violates the Charter?
m) whether no respite from growing full-time, cant grow and
save bulk, impedes supply violating the Right to Life?
n) whether too much information on card increases danger
violating the Right to Life?
q) whether cash costs to get doctor to fill out MMAR forms
impede access violating the Right to Life?
r) whether Health Canadas 12% recreational strain is
medicinal enough impeding effectiveness and violating the
Right to Life?
s) whether no exchanging to find different strains for
different pains impedes effectiveness to violate the Right
to Life?
t) whether different strains providing different yields
making the number of plants the wrong main limiting factor
impedes supply to violate the Right to Life?
u) whether Financial advantage lost by not getting patients
off high-cost chemical drugs onto low-cost herbal
medications impedes access by poor patients violating the
Right to Life?
v) whether harassing phone calls from Health Canada non-
doctors to urge doctors to lower dosages violates the Right
to Privacy?
w) whether Five million Canadians who do not have doctors
and cannot avail themselves of the program have their rights
violated?
x) whether stress caused by all these defects in the MMAR
exemption process violates the Right to Life?
z) whether forcing doctors to be recalcitrant gatekeepers
violates the patient's right to choose treatment.

PART III - ARGUMENTS

a) MMAR S.32(e) limiting exemptees per gardener
7. Applicant adopts the reasons from the Supreme Court of
Canada decisions in Sfetkopoulos and Beren to submit that
for Sfetkopoulos and Beren to completely strike down the
limit on authorisations To Possess ("ATP") per gardener in
MMAR S.41(b.1) for being unconstitutionally limiting and for
the government to re-impose in MMAR S.32(e) a new limit of 2
ATPs per gardener makes the regime again contemptuously
unconstitutionally deficient. While the cap was off, a
gardener could grow for as many Exemptees as was most
economical, perhaps 10 patients with 20 plants each rather
than only one! When you have an indoor garden that could
easily accommodate 200 plants, to be restricted to only 20
or 40 is a waste of expensive electrical resources. Lots of
that light goes to waste. The government imposing a new cap
of 2 where he could be more economically cultivating for 10
impedes supply as obviously as it did to the judges in
Sfetkopoulos and Beren.

b) MMAR S.32(d) limiting gardeners per site
8. Applicant adopts the reasons from in R. v. Beren at the
Supreme Court of Canada to submit that for Beren to
completely strike down the limit on both patients per
gardeners and gardeners per garden in MMAR S.54(1) for being
unconstitutionally limiting, and for the government to re-
impose in MMAR S.32(d) a new limit of 4 gardeners per garden
makes the regime again contemptuously unconstitutionally
deficient. While the cap was off, gardeners could share one
site as was most economical, perhaps a site with 10
gardeners rather than only 4. The government imposing a new
cap of where 4 the 10 could be more economically cultivating
together impedes supply as obviously as it did to the judges
in Beren. Arguing that bumping the limit by 1 resolved the
problem struck down by the courts seems contemptuous. Do the
courts not sense being laughed at when they order
unconstitutional limits struck down and the government
responds with a new caps plus one? Especially when Crown
Sean Gaudet admitted to the 2nd Bad Exemption No Offence
period: "Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision as creating a similar period of retrospective
invalidity dating back to December 3 2003, the date that
s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into the MMAR." After the caps
were struck and re-imposed plus 1, there is now a third
similar Bad Exemption No Offence period? How would this
court feel if it struck down the new cap of 4 and the
government re-imposed new cap of 5?

c) MMAR S.65(1) compelling exemptees to destroy medicine
9. Given Health Canada's notorious incompetence at getting
renewals to exemptees on time, S.65(1) which compels
exemptees to destroy their medication when Health Canada
fails to deliver the renewal on time is a clear violation of
the patient's right to life. Many witnesses will testify to
their renewals being late and having become outlaws for not
destroying their medicine pursuant to this irrational and
malevolent regulation. But no witnesses are necessary to
prove that the potential disaster is possible. It has
happened. Applicant has heard that someone called to ask
Health Canada if they had to destroy their medicine because
their renewal was late and were told not to; (what else
would H.C. say? destroy it?) But whether anyone was or
wasn't told how to cope has no bearing on the fact they had
to cope with an obvious threat posed by an irrational
regulation. If it's obvious enough that a court might await
evidence H.C. said not to destroy it, that proves the the
potential harm exists and Applicant seeks to have the threat
relieved by asking the court to strike down that regulation.
Exemption should remain valid until delivery of the new!
This isn't like waiting for a fishing license, it's waiting
for health care.

d) "Not All" doctors participate
10. Applicant submits that the opting out of an almost total
majority of doctors in Canada is an unconstitutional
violation of the Applicant's Right to Life. Doctors should
not be allowed to opt out of herbal treatments. In the
recent Mernagh decision, Justice Taliano has declared that
the participation of 1 in 20 doctors in the MMAR program
rendered it ineffective and declared a Parker-Mernagh BENO
period since the inception of the MMAR in 2001! Appellant
makes the stronger argument that allowing doctors to opt out
of the herbal rather than chemical treatments is the flaw.
Morgentaler, Parker, Krieger all make the argument that it
is Patient Decides. They can't do that if the doctor can
refuse to try herbal. With such good recent news about its
health results, it's an indictment of the medical
professional that they are recalcitrant rather than leading
the charge to legalize this non-toxic miracle herb.

11. Applicant attended the Mernagh appeal before Justices
Doherty, Simmons and Laforme and will testify that the first
issue raised by Crown Attorney Croft Michaelson, who had
been lead Crown Attorney in the Hitzig appeal was that the
same judges in Hitzig, Justices Doherty, Simmons and Goudge,
had already supported Justice Lederman's decision that 1 in
a 100 doctors was workable. How can Justices Doherty,
Simmons, Laforme overrule Justices Doherty, Simmons and
Goudge? And though the 3-judge Mernagh panel of Justices
Doherty, Simmons, LaForme might wish to over-turn the 3-
judge Hitzig panel of Doherty, Simmons and Goudge, the
necessary 5-judge panel to over-turn the 3-judge Hitzig
decision was not sought. Someone had to ask for 5 judges,
nobody did, so the Hitzig ruling that 1/100 doctors is
peachy fine has to stand against the new ruling that 1/20
doctors isn't peachy fine. So that was the very first thing
the Crown pointed out to Justices Doherty, Simmons, LaForme,
that Justices Doherty, Simmons, Goudge had already okayed
worse.

12. So how can a losing issue before an powerless panel over
what ratio of doctor participation is insufficient, not even
a discussion of what's sufficient, preclude my claim for
relief from harm by not all doctors offering the herbal
choice too. Patient Right doesn't mean doctor-shopping for
1/20!

JCT: This is the important part. Mernagh is a weak sister
argument that is doomed to lose and should not delay
anyone's else quest for justice.

e) Delay in processing of ATPs
13. In 2001, Federal Court Justice Rouleau ruled in Johnny
Dupuis or Robert Neron v. HMTQ that applicants could refer
to the court for judicial review if a 30-day ultimatum was
requested. There is now a 8-10 week promised turnaround,
often 4 weeks! Applications must have been successfully
deterred by busting the few doctors who signed many
prescriptions. Applicant submits that the months it takes
under the MMAR to get their medication to patients is a
violation of the Right to Life proven by the existence of
Health Canada's "DORMANTS" file for applicants who can no
longer be found alive. In 2002, there were 89 Dormants whose
doctors had applied but whose prescriptions were never
authorized. Marijuana could be delivered by Health Canada
the very next day by Priority Post from their Prairie Plants
supplier and there is no reason for weeks of suffering or
for Dormants (6 feet underground) while waiting for their
medicine. If insulin were authorized as readily as
marijuana, those patients would end up in a huge DORMANTS
file.

f) Delays in ATP renewals
14. Applicant submits that the renewals of documentation
sent out after exemptions have expired is an
unconstitutional violation of the Right to Life. Late
renewals compel the now non-exempted patient to destroy his
medication or become an outlaw. Renewals could be
accomplished online without the stress of the threat hanging
over the Exemptees' heads that it will be late and they'll
have to destroy their crops.

g) Delays in ATP amendments to documentation
15. Applicant submits that the weeks of delay for amendments
to MMAR documentation in an online world is a serious
dereliction of dutiful performance. Applicant's Driver's
License, Health Card information are all instantaneously
updatable online, why not the MMAR Exemption process? Not
mere technical incompetence, this again shows the malevolent
prohibitionist mind-set behind these regulations.

h) Delays in RCMP criminal record checks for growers
16. Applicant submits the 6-8 month delays in RCMP criminal
records checks for growers unconscionably impedes supply in
our online world. If an officer can obtain your criminal
record in an instant, why does it take half-a-year to get a
copy? An unconscionable auxiliary impediment so that the
requirement be struck down or provision of the record
accelerated.

i) Inability to exempt Canada's epileptic 400K population
17. Applicant submits that all of Canada's epileptic
population should be exempted and given the 2010 breakdowns
over 5,000 new applications, the MMAR is unconstitutionally
incapable of processing 400,000 epileptic applications at
once. Only abolition of prohibition. The point is that the
machinery of the regime isn't capable of delivery of
protection nor of medicine if all Canada's exemptees were to
join Terrance Parker in having their Right to Life protected
by the courts. That Parker could not comply with the
exemption requirements is testament to the success of the
regime at deterring obviously-exemptible epileptics from
even applying.

j) No DIN (Drug Identification Number) for financial support
18. Marijuana is the only medication for which there is no
financial support because the MMAR has not issued a Drug
Identification Number. Given the large number of illnesses
Health Canada had been forced to admit are helped by
marijuana, that its provision is not financially-supported
is a violation of poorer citizen's right to life. No Drug
Identification Number (DIN) inhibits financial support that
any other medication would receive; a patient might have to
pay more for their cannabis as they get on ODSP. Patients on
fixed incomes cannot access the program due to its high
costs. Coming regulations will be worse. No more friend
growing it cheaply. This impediment to financial support to
access the necessary medicine must be struck down.

k) Compel unreasonable yearly renewals for permanently ill
19. Health Canada's response explaining yearly exemption
renewals for permanently sick people so they could get
better at filling out forms is too inane to countenance and
does nothing more than impede and threaten the right to life
of all exemptees by constant delays of unnecessary renewals.
This best demonstrates the bad faith of the Health Ministry
constant successful attempts to impede access and supply.
Especially when they may yearly fear having to destroy their
crops if it's ever late! A waste of the doctor's time, a
waste of the patient's time. It could have been one
interview to fill out one form for a permanently ill
patient! But the doctor knows the forms are yearly! Signing
year after year, some doctors no longer take exemption
requests! Applicant has five Category 1 and four Category 2
illnesses and will be exempted for life, year after year
after year at Applicant's expense. Finally, Health Canada
now has to process 20,000 renewals every year mainly for
permanent diseases! Imagine if they had to process 400,000
epileptic applications and then 400,000 renewals every year
after? Compelling yearly renewals from the permanently ill
is lunacy whose only purpose is malevolent impediment.
"Oops, so many renewals like in 2010, we're late again."
Many witnesses will testify to getting their renewals late
several times and breaking the law by not destroying their
medicine.

l) Prohibiting removal of impurities
20. The prohibition on removal of plant impurities by
reduction to hash and oil shows the true lunatic malevolence
of the framers of the legislation. Given the common sense if
not common law mama taught us years ago that removal of the
worm from the apple makes for a better pie; removal of the
plant matter from the medicine makes for a better cure.

21. The removal of non-smoked cannabis for medical use
signifies that Health Canada only allows the least
medicinally beneficial method of cannabis ingestion. This
goes against all scientific and medical evidence, as well as
showing that the ultimate goal of the regulations is not "to
promote the health of Canadians" but to "satisfy the
absolute minimum legal requirements to trick the court into
believing the regulations are within constitutional bounds."
Cannabis extracts, concentrates, tinctures, ointments and
other preparations were known to have medicinal benefits
more than a century ago, yet are deliberately denied today
with demands for proof of past successful eras of medicinal
use, despite all the historical medical evidence in favor of
them. Denying the most medicinally beneficial means of
cannabinoid delivery deliberately limits medicinal benefits;
prohibiting the removal of possibly-dangerous plant matter
to make purer medicinal hash or oil, forcing people to
consume the impurities, contradicts the ministry's stated
aim to quality, again showing the malevolent prohibitionist
mind-set of these regulations.

22. Health Canada's web sites notes:
"On April 13, 2012, the Supreme Court of BC decision struck
down the word "dried" from the MMAR which allows for the
possession and production of manual and chemical extractions
of THC from marijuana, including hashish, hash oil, resin,
oil. This decision is applicable only in British Columbia
and not the rest of Canada."

23.We're told in Ontario, one can use the dried product but
it won't work if you want to apply it to the cancer on your
nose. That takes oil! In BC, there are no more people
walking around with dried herb on their noses. Applicant
seeks to have this prohibition struck down in Ontario too.

m) No bulk grow means no respite
24. The regime is tailored to keep production at the basic
minimum with no respite possible from constant gardening
chores rather than allow one bulk grow to bank the herb
every few years. This explains Accused's almost 200 viable
plants, trying to grow enough for a year or two rather than
have to keep running the risk of arrest full time. Why can't
exemptees order a year's supply from their grower who can
now economize on expenses? Exemptees with cancer can't be
expected to be growing until the end. And they can't be
expected to start paying top dollar when they no longer have
the health to do the gardening. What are they supposed to
do? Exemptees should be able to grow enough to bank some.

n) Too much info on exemption card
25. Accused's Exemption card issued on June 22 2011 contains
the following unnecessary information fields about the
location where exemptee's controlled substance can be found:
- Address: number street town
- Site production: same as residence
- Site storage: same as residence
- Mode production: indoor
- Maximum Number of plants: 49
- Storage Limitation: 2.205Kg

26. The only information an officer needs on the personal
card is Name and Legal Amount to carry. How much is stored
where is unnecessary data that should not be on the card.
This information does nothing to help an officer know the
person is exempted but can only help anyone else identify
the location of the Exemptee's Medicine Cabinet.

q) Cash costs for doctor participation
27. Evidence will show how Cash costs for exemptees to get
doctor to fill out MMAR forms impede access for poorer
Canadians violating the Right to Life. Consider also that
this is a yearly needless expense for the Applicant with
permanent illnesses! "I can't afford my medicine because I
spent all my money getting my doctor to sign the forms."

r) 3% Health Canada strain not medicinal enough
28. Health Canada's contracted strain claims to have 10% but
actually has only 3% THC whereas marijuana grown by the
Vancouver Compassion Society was reported over 12%. This
makes the Health Canada strain not a medicinal one but a
recreational one at best. As well, to get to 3% potency,
plant matter had to be added to the bud to bring the blend
down to 3%. At the same time that Health Canada adds
impurities to debase its product, it also bans the removal
of those very impurities it itself added, thus impeding
effectiveness and violation the Right to Life.

s) No exchanging different strains for different pains
29. Health Canada provides one hybrid strain and no
exchanging strains with other exemptees is a hindrance to
finding different strains for different pains. The selection
by Health Canada/PPS of a single hybrid strain of cannabis,
predominantly indica, removes the ability of an individual
with specific conditions that respond better to other
strains, is akin to your doctor and/or pharmacist saying
"Take two aspirin for whatever ails you." Since it is widely
known that some cannabis strains work well for some people
and not as well for others, and different conditions,
diseases or syndromes are affected in different ways by the
differing cannabinoid profile of specific strains, but not
others, and it is also known that different people have
higher or lower tolerances, greater or lesser medicinal
need, the single strain selected by Health Canada/PPS seems
to be deliberately designed to limit the potential range of
applications, rather than addressing the widest range of
conditions with the greatest number of potential options;
the exact opposite of the pharmaceutical model. Exemptees
may not trade seeds, product or clones. These are serious
limitations on exchanging to find different strains for
different pains which impede effectiveness to violate the
Right to Life and must be struck down.

t) Number of plants the wrong parameter
30. Since every strain of sativa, indica, ruderalis, and all
hybrids created therefrom (and there are HUNDREDS!), produce
different yields per plant, the "number of plants"
restriction is arbitrary, and has no basis in fact unless
patients grow the SINGLE strain offered by "Health Canada",
which has proven to be of little value to most medical
cannabis patients; the number of plants is the wrong main
limiting parameter that impedes supply to violate the Right
to Life. It should be the stored amounts and daily dosage,
like any other medicine.

u) High-cost chemicals v. Low-cost herbals
31. Witnesses will testify to the incredibly high costs of
their former chemical drug regimens that have been reduced
when they substituted low-cost home-grown medicine to save
the government a substantial amount which could he spent
furthering even better services now denied because of the
waste on needless pharmaceuticals. Our taxes would go down.
Chemical medical costs are far greater than herbal medical
costs and could save everyone a bundle.

v) Phone calls urging doctors lower dosages
32. Health Canada's long telephone calls to doctors urging
lower dosages is a violation of the Exemptee's right to
privacy. What are they doing discussing dosages with the
doctor? urging the change in prescription. How dare they?
During all the delays in 2009 and 2010, Health Canada were
spending their resources calling doctors to challenge them
on the dosages being too high and urging all patients be
restricted to their Health Canada Pharmacist-recommended 5
grams for everyone. The new regulations now coming out in
March 2014 will cut everyone down to that 5-gram per day
maximum they had been recommending to Canada's doctors!
Applicant's doctor received such a recommendation on
prescription and told them to keep out of his diagnosis.

w) Five million Canadians do not have family doctors
33. Five million Canadians who do not have doctors and
cannot avail themselves of the MMAR program have their Right
to Life violated. The MMAR has not provided access to this
cheap medication for 5 million Canadians. This failure
should be reason enough to declare the MMAR as a failed
regime.

x) Stress from MMAR defects
34. The stress caused by all these defects in the MMAR
exemption process violate Canadians' and Exemptees' Right to
Life. After having read of all the malevolent regulations to
impede access and make exemptees worry, surely the stress of
living with such a regime must impact on health. Exemptees
are dealing with a prohibitionist lunatic in charge and the
stress is incredible. And the lunatic is now coming out with
new legislation to make things even worse. Living with the
prohibitionist lunatics in charge is stressful.

z) Doctors as Gatekeepers
35. Most of the witnesses will testify how many doctors
refused to be gatekeepers for their access to herbal
medicine. Health Canada making doctors the gatekeepers of
this non-toxic therapy violates the patient's right to
decide. Doctors should not be able to deny a patient his
right to the treatment of his choice. The MMAR does that and
should be struck down in its entirety for that.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT:

36. On all these grounds pursuant to Parker and Krieger
invalidations of the S.4 and S.7 prohibitions on possession
and cultivation due to the Hitzig finding in 2003 that the
MMAR was flawed, the recent Sfetkopoulos, Beren and Mernagh
rulings of flaws in the MMAR, Applicant seeks an Order
declaring that the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations are
unconstitutionally flawed in so many ways that pursuant to
the JP decision, the Section 4(1) and Section 7(1) offences
in the CDSA are of no force and effect with respect to
marihuana while the MMAR exemption is unconstitutional.

Dated at London on Dec 20 2012


_____________________________________
For the Applicant/Accused:
Michael K. Spottiswood,
Tel/fax: 519-488-5466.
Email: [email protected]

JCT: So that's the challenge against the MMAR flaws. The
hope is to overwhelm the judge with the stink of it all. All
is set and ready to go.





​
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
Just received a thank you note for my donation of $100 from Jason Wilcox. I was wondering if any other people out there would be kind enough to donate money to this worthy legal cause?/?The intent is to have conroy and company (our guys) get an injunction approved through the courts against the new regulations. Jason Wilcox has started this but he needs people to donate some money. Please help you as well as everyone else here out by giving up some moola. Cheers everyone! And post here that you did it! Motivate people to get off their ass and do something!
 
Garm

Garm

Active Member
buckets said:
Just received a thank you note for my donation of $100 from Jason Wilcox. I was wondering if any other people out there would be kind enough to donate money to this worthy legal cause?/?The intent is to have conroy and company (our guys) get an injunction approved through the courts against the new regulations. Jason Wilcox has started this but he needs people to donate some money. Please help you as well as everyone else here out by giving up some moola. Cheers everyone! And post here that you did it! Motivate people to get off their ass and do something!
Click to expand...
I see that the cheque I sent was cashed so I will wait and see if I get a reply...
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
You've got to contact them bro. Not the other way around. I'm sure they - the law firm would appreciate your statement. Write to them. Call them. Donate to the cause. Maybe even join the lawsuit! But you gotta make the effort to contact them...I sent in money as an example and so have others.
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
Who else will man up and send in some money to help with this case research? This legal team needs money to help pay for the research needed to fight Harper. I believe they're looking for 10 grand so anything anyone can send in would be so helpful. This is our fight people. Come out of the basement and help us fight Harper with your donations. Send in your money and tell us that you did something to help the cause - right here on this thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top