From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: We all know that Justice Phelan stayed the 300 Gold   
   Stars' actions without leave of the court.   
      
   Now that the Allard case has lost so much, I'm not going to   
   let it lose us more without having our gripes heard.   
      
   Yesterday, I filed my Motion for Leave for Summary Judgment   
   on the Bad Exemptions needing a declaration of No Offence.   
      
                                           File No: T-488-14   
                         FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                        JOHN C. TURMEL   
                                                   Applicant   
                              and   
      
                     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                  Respondent   
                         NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on _____________ 2015 at ________ set by   
   the Trial Coordinator or as soon thereafter as can be heard   
   the Plaintiff's motion by telephone conference call before   
   the Case Management Judge.   
      
   THE MOTION SEEKS leave to have the hearing of the Motion for   
   Summary Judgment on the Amended Statement of Claim that was   
   retained in the Registry on Jan 5 2015 expedited.   
      
   THE GROUNDS ARE THAT our motion for repeal must be heard in   
   order to end the violation of Right to Life imposed on the   
   Allard group of patients by Federal Court rulings.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging any time for service or amending   
   any error or omission which this Honourable Court may allow.   
      
   Dated at Brantford on Oct 23 2015.   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
                            AFFIDAVIT   
      
   I, John Turmel, residing at 50 Brant Ave, Brantford Ontario   
   make oath as follow:   
      
   1. With over 300 other self-represented "Turmel Kit"   
   Plaintiffs, I have sought 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.;   
      
   2. We 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.   
      
   3. Plaintiffs further raised 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)   
      
   4. Applicants further sought repeal of prohibition by   
   striking "marijuana" from Schedule II of the CDSA.   
      
   5. On Mar 10 2014, our Actions challenging the MMAR and MMPR   
   were stayed pending the decision in Allard v. HMTQ [T-2030-   
   13] challenging only the MMPR on the basis that Plaintiffs   
   are "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 MMPR issues raised herein.   
      
   6. 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;   
   or for extension of the MMAR and its associated privileges.   
      
   LEFT-OUTS & KNOCKED-OUTS   
      
   7. Robert Roy's permits were expiring on Mar 18 2014, the   
   very day of the Allard Injunction hearing and would have   
   suffered no disruption at all if the MMAR were extended. But   
   Justice Manson reserved his decision! So the next day,   
   Robert Roy's permits expired and he became an outlaw for not   
   destroying his grow as he waited for the judge's decision on   
   the extension.   
      
   8. On Mar 21 2014, 3 days later, Justice Manson ruled the   
   medically-qualified group had the right not not to be   
   deprived of their medicine while the MMPR was unready and   
   grandfathered everyone's grow permits back to Oct 1 2013.   
   But not their Possess Permits, only those holding currently   
   valid permits were extended! And a Grow Permit is no good   
   without a Possess Permit! So, by only 3 days, Robert Roy was   
   Left Out of the relief with Stephen Burrows and the other   
   half of the 36,000 exemptees whose permits had expired.   
      
   9. And no more amendments to permits, if your Designated   
   Grower dies, your permits die with him.   
      
   10. Upon a motion to expand the relief to all, the Federal   
   Court of Appeal sent it back for an explanation of why   
   Manson had granted all in the group Right but then Beemish   
   and Hebert the remedy granted to others. Judge Manson   
   refused to expand the remedy to all nor allow any permit   
   changes in order to protect the commercial viability of the   
   MMPR regime! He had cited the viability of the regime five   
   times in his reasons but the Court of Appeals seems not to   
   have noticed it at all.   
      
   11. John Conroy, attorney for Beemish and Hebert, filed an   
   Appeal against the Manson refusal to expand the remedy but   
   did not move for interim expansion of remedy pending the   
   appeal. Then, on April 30 2015, John Conroy discontinued the   
   appeal of the Manson refusal above in order to apply to vary   
   the remedy before an equivalent judge below which Court   
   ruled no power to vary Manson's "carefully-crafted" Order.   
      
   150 GRAM ERROR   
      
   12. Without our challenge to the 150g limit, Justice Manson,   
   in an interim injunction in Allard, cited actual average   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)