From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   Department of Justice   
   May 5 2016   
   VIA FASCIMILE   
      
   Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar   
   Supreme Court of Canada   
   301 Wellington St. Ottawa K1A 0J1   
      
   Mr. Registrar:   
      
   RE: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ No." 36937   
      
   Please accept this letter as the response of the Respondent   
   Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada ("Canada"), to the   
   application for leave to appeal and within request for interim   
   relief in the above-noted matter. Canada submits that the   
   proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public importance   
   and that the within request seeks relief that is not   
   available. The application request for interim relief should   
   therefore be dismissed.   
      
   A. Background   
      
   Since February 2014, more than 300 self-represented   
   plaintiffs, including the applicant, have filed virtually   
   identical claims in the Federal Court. The claims seek   
   declarations that the MMAR, which were repealed on March 31   
   2014, # and the MMPR which succeeded the MMAR, are   
   unconstitutional.   
      
   JCT: Not. and omit MMPR unconstitutional   
      
   CR: In the course of their actions, several plaintiffs,   
   including the appellant, brought motions for "interim   
   constitutional exemptions" from the CDSA for "Personal Medical   
   Use" of marijuana pending trial of their actions. By Order   
   dated June 4, 2014, (amended July 9, 2014), the case-   
   0management judge in Federal Court (Phelan J.) dismissed their   
   motions. IN so doing, the Court held that the requested relief   
   was inappropriate #   
   and that the evidence concerning each plaintiff's personal   
   medical circumstances was insufficient in any event to warrant   
   the requested relief.   
      
   JCT: Judge shouldn't be playing doctor. None of his business.   
      
   CR: The applicant appealed the July 9 2014 Amended Order. By   
   Order dated January 13 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal   
   dismissed his appeal with costs. In so doing, Federal Court of   
   Appeal noted that the decision below was discretionary   
      
   JCT: And only showed that it was a genocidal decision   
      
   CR: and could be set aside on appeal only if it was the result   
   of an obvious, serious error of law or legal principle.   
      
   JCT: And dead people isn't a serious error. Cutting off   
   peoples' medicine by an unqualified judge playing doctor is   
   not   
      
   CR: The Court found that the appellants had not demonstrated   
   such error and that the decision below was supportable on the   
   evidentiary record.   
      
   JCT: Actually, lack of evidentiary record is what play-doctor   
   Phelan ruled,   
      
   CR: The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the Federal Court   
   of Appeal decision.   
      
   JCT: Should be able to appeal before there are too many more   
   corpses generated in the Federal Court.   
      
   B. The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public   
   importance.   
      
   JCT: These decision cutting off medicine to Canada's sickest   
   patients have killed people but that's not of public import.   
      
   CR: The application does not raise an issue of public   
   importance or of a nature of significance that warrants   
   consideration by this Court.   
      
   JCT: I'm sure how the judges feel too.   
      
   CR: The proposed appeal concerns a motion for an interim   
   exemption from the CDSA for the applicant's own personal   
   medical use of marihuana pending trial. The issues in the   
   underlying motion do not transcend the dispute between the   
   parties.   
      
   JCT: Continued denial of medicine to formerly-legal patients   
   over a bureaucratic consideration to enhance the viability of   
   the new regime sure seems genocidal and I want 3 of Canada's   
   top judges to sign off on it with the genociders below.   
      
   CR: Nor does the Federal Court of Appeal decision give rise to   
   issues of public importance.   
      
   JCT: He must be talking about the "public" who are still   
   getting their medicine.   
      
   CR: In affirming the decision below, the Court of Appeal   
   relied on the well settled case law concerning appellate   
   review of interlocutory discretionary decisions   
      
   JCT: even if they're killing people...   
      
   CR: and held that the decision below did not include any   
   errors that would warrant appellate intervention.   
      
   JCT: The fact David Shea died while his claim for relief was   
   stayed by Phelan does not warrant intervention. If not judges,   
   who else should have discretion to condemn patients to death?   
      
   CR: Although the applicant now alleges that the Federal Court   
   of Appeal erred, he does not identify a specific error in its   
   decision that would warrant intervention by this Court.   
      
   JCT: The FCA let Phelan get away with murder but that's not   
   specific enough of an error.   
      
   CR: Canada therefore requests that the leave application be   
   dismissed.   
      
   C. The request for interim relief should be denied.   
      
   JCT: These former patients shouldn't get their meds while they   
   fight.   
      
   CR: The leave application also requests an interim exemption   
   from the CDSA for the applicant's "Personal Medical Use"   
   pending trial of the action. However, the leave application   
   contains no evidence as to the applicant's personal medical   
   circumstances nor any explanation as to why his medical needs   
   cannot be met under Canada's existing medical marihuana   
   regulatory regime.   
      
   JCT: Federal Court just ruled it was unconstitutional. It   
   isn't working.   
      
   CR: This court has previously dismissed several motions for   
   similar relief. Canada requests that the applicant's request   
   be similarly dismissed.   
      
   D. Costs.   
      
   Canada requests that the leave application be dismissed with   
   costs of $500. This is the second leave application brought by   
   the applicant, one of nine applications for leave to appeal   
   the same decision of the Federal Court of Appeal,   
      
   JCT: Different Court of Appeal judge   
      
   CR: and one of 22 leave applications filed in the course of   
   the underlying Federal Court proceedings and related   
   proceedings. To date, each of these applications has been   
   dismissed. Canada submits that the applicants have   
   persistently brought leave applications against Canada that   
   are clearly without merit.   
      
   JCT: Maybe no merit but probably plenty of corpses.   
      
   CR: A costs award would be appropriate in these circumstances.   
      
   Yours truly,   
   Jon Bricker.   
      
   Christopher Rupar, Agent for the Respondent   
      
   JCT: I've got until May 16 to reply and if I keep it under 2   
   pages, I can fax a letter in response like the Crown just did.   
      
   It is not compulsory to file a Reply to have your file sent up   
   for adjudication. But I'll submit a reply since it will apply   
   to all of us regardless.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)