From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   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       MMAR until March 31, 2014 when the MMAR will be repealed   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)