From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: 3 Big events in one week. A triad of power plays!   
      
   I filed the Memorandum for the appeal of the 26 Plaintiffs   
   whom were denied interim exemptions by Justice Phelan   
   because he found their Permits insufficient evidence of   
   their medical need. Justice Phelan wanted to play doctor   
   and check up on the doctor's diagnosis in case he had a   
   different diagnosis. Har har har. No kidding.   
      
   So all 26 Appellants were consolidated into one appeal with   
   me as Lead Appellant. I asked the Crown to send a PDF copy   
   of the Appeal Book to each Appellant but Her Majesty   
   refused.   
      
   I'm not a desperate patient who wants to for a current   
   illness, I want it for prevention of what it's good for   
   before I get it and for benefits like more neurogenesis,   
   brain cells growth, something we're pretty sure judges and   
   lawyers haven't been growing. They have to be about as   
   deplete of brain cells a class of citizens we have. Can you   
   think of anyone less likely to have grown any new canna-   
   brain cells than lawyers, judges, police and politicians?   
   These are the most mentally-deficient classes in our society   
   and the results of control by the last brainy seem quite   
   evident.   
      
   So here is the Memorandum of the appeal of the Phelan   
   refusal to grant sick and dying patients their exemptions to   
   use marijuana as prescribed.   
      
                                             File No: A-342-14   
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                          JOHN C. TURMEL   
                                                      Appellant   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Respondent   
      
                      APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   1. In 2013 Health Canada announced the repeal of the MMAR on   
   April 1 2014 to be replaced by the MMPR which would no   
   longer license private production of marijuana. By April 1   
   2014, there were only 6 Licensed Producers unprepared to   
   supply tens of thousands of patients the prescribed   
   15,000Kg/month. The 26 Appellants in this consolidated   
   appeal are among numerous court-dubbed Self-Rep "Turmel Kit"   
   plaintiffs who filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court   
   seeking declaratory and financial relief for violations of   
   rights under S. 7 of the Charter by seeking 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 for loss of patient's   
   marihuana, plants and production site and future needs.   
      
   2. The grounds of the Action are:   
   a) "for MMAR Repeal" because of 16 identified constitutional   
   violations,   
   b) "for MMPR Repeal" repeal because of 20 identified   
   constitutional violations,   
   c) and, absent a viable medical exemption pursuant to R. v.   
   J.P., for repeal of the prohibitions by striking the word   
   "marijuana" from Schedule II of the CDSA.   
      
   4. We seek to have the MMAR and MMPR declared invalid by the   
   many constitutional flaws:   
   BOTH 1) Require recalcitrant doctor;   
   BOTH 2) Not provide DIN (Drug Identification Number);   
   BOTH 3) Require annual renewals for permanent diseases;   
   BOTH 4) Require unused cannabis to be destroyed;   
   BOTH 5) Refusal or cancellation for non-medical reasons;   
   BOTH 6) Health Canada feedback to doctors on dosages;   
   BOTH 7) Not provide instantaneous online processing;   
   BOTH 8) Not have resources to handle large demand;   
   BOTH 9) Prohibit non-dried forms of cannabis; * Allard a)   
   BOTH 10) Not exempt from CDSA S.5.;   
      
   5. Plaintiffs further raise 6 additional concerns with the   
   MMAR regime added to the first 10 in common with the MMPR to   
   have the MMAR condemned:   
   MMAR 11) Require a specialist consultation;   
   MMAR 12) Require conventional treatments be inappropriate;   
   MMAR 13) Prohibit more than 2 licenses/grower;   
   MMAR 14) Prohibit more than 4 licenses/site;   
   MMAR 15) Number of plants limit improper;   
   MMAR 16) Not allow any gardening help.   
      
   6. Plaintiffs further raise another 10 concerns with the   
   MMPR regime added to the first 10 in common with the MMAR to   
   have the MMPR condemned:   
   MMPR 11) ATP valid solely as "medical document";   
   MMPR 12) Licensed Producer may cancel for "business reason";   
   MMPR 13) Prohibit return of medical document to cancelee;   
   MMPR 14) Prohibit production in a dwelling; * Allard b)   
   MMPR 15) Prohibits outdoor production; * Allard c)   
   MMPR 16) Not protect rights to brand genetics;   
   MMPR 17) Not remove financial barriers;   
   MMPR 18) Not provide central registry for police check;   
   MMPR 19) Not enough Licensed Producers to supply demand;   
   MMPR 20) Prohibit processing > 150 grams. * Allard d)   
      
   7. On Apr 8 2014, filed a Notice of Motion in writing for   
   a stay of all Actions similar to that of John Turmel T-488-   
   14 pending the final decision in Allard v. HMTQ (T-2030-13)   
   on the basis that Plaintiff is "seeking relief which is   
   substantially similar to that being sought by the Allard   
   Plaintiffs" due to the 4 issues in common whose resolution   
   would "significantly narrow" the 20 issues raised herein.   
      
   8. The Allard action represents the concerns of the   
   Coalition "Against MMAR Repeal" who have Authorizations To   
   Possess while Applicant is "For MMAR Repeal" because of its   
   unconstitutional violations. Such polar opposite remedies   
   are not "substantially similar." They seek to declare the   
   MMPR constitutionally invalid only to the extent of striking   
   4 minor cosmetic flaws to leave the regime constitutional:   
   a) prohibition on non-dried forms of cannabis, MMAR-MMPR 9).   
   b) prohibition on production in a dwelling; MMPR 14).   
   c) prohibition on outdoor production; MMPR 15).   
   d) prohibition on possessing and dealing more than 150g;   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)