From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Response to Crown on dismiss Gold Star MedPot damages claims   
      
   JCT: Here are the written representations I served and filed   
   this morning that refute the Crown's motion to dismiss our   
   Gold Star claims.   
      
   At this stage, I'm going after BENO in a summary judgment   
   motion. You don't have to. Your only real concern is your   
   claim for damages.   
      
   The Crown asked and was granted permission to serve and file   
   their motion record by email but when I asked for us self-   
   represented Plaintiffs, I got no answer before deadline and   
   had to go to Toronto to serve and file by paper.   
      
   And Judge Phelan expects everyone else to have run around to   
   file a clone by today. Just making 300 sick people jump   
   through hoops he let the Crown avoid.   
      
   I told him I was going to a file a response to the motion to   
   all 300 and not to expect 300 identical responses. So the real   
   question is whether Phelan will do a dirty deed and knock out   
   everyone who didn't file a response on a technicality.   
      
   Then it will be worth doing a kit for appeals. So here is our   
   response to the Crown's cheap shot:   
      
                                               File No: T-488-14   
                           FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                        Applicant   
                                and   
                           JOHN C. TURMEL   
                                                       Respondent   
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   CR: Canada   
      
   MOTION IN WRITING   
      
   1. In other correspondence, Canada seeks to have all 310   
   applications dismissed in writing, this to prevent lesser   
   wordsmiths from being heard at a live hearing. Contemplating   
   the time spent by the filing clerks of the Justice Department,   
   the Court Registry, and time spent by self-represented   
   Plaintiffs, it would seem the most expeditious and least   
   expensive determination of the motion would be at a televised   
   hearing as before.   
      
   2. CR: An oral hearing of Canada's motion in these   
   circumstances would consume considerable judicial and party   
   resources and would post significant logistical challenges   
      
   3. An oral hearing of Canada's motion was easily handled at   
   the last live hearing. I think Canada insults the Registry to   
   suggest it can no longer perform its function as efficiently   
   as it did before.   
      
   4. CR:  including, in particular, the identification of a   
   hearing date that is mutually agreeable to all parties.   
      
   5. At the last April 29 2014 hearing, Justice Phelan didn't   
   need anyone's consent on mutual dates before fixing a time of   
   hearing. We were told when to show up. I would suggest the   
   Court avail itself of the same power to set hearing dates with   
   no concern about any desires, whether mutual or not, of the   
   parties.   
      
   CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE MOOTED BY ALLARD   
      
   6. Canada repeats several times that Plaintiff's Actions do   
   not allege "any facts capable of supporting the constitutional   
   challenge." "Absent these material facts, Canada cannot   
   meaningfully respond.. and this Court cannot properly consider   
   the Charter issues." "The claims also fail entirely to address   
   the material elements of the Charter causes of action   
   alleged." "nor any facts capable of supporting the   
   constitutional violations alleged."   
      
   7. Canada was granted a stay because "Federal Court (Crampton   
   C.J.) observed that the Allard injunction motion and "Turmel   
   Kit" claims raised "the very same issues.""   
      
   8. Canada now repeatedly argues that "the repeal of the MMAR   
   and striking-down of the MMPR has rendered the requested   
   declarations moot." So the Charter issue was settled by   
   Allard. Since the constitutional claim has been mooted by its   
   granting in Allard, there is no need to present facts to   
   establish Charter violations that are "very close, if not   
   identical," to theirs. With no Charter issue left, the Allard   
   Court handled the material facts for the group, did properly   
   consider the charter facts, the reason the Crown argued in   
   their stay we would not have to do it too. And now they plead   
   we don't have the facts to argue it again?   
      
   9. In Allard, Canada bore the costs of their loss. Now for our   
   claim "on the very same issues," Canada asks that we bear the   
   cost of our win. Respondent submits that Canada should bear   
   the costs associated with our successful claim for the   
   constitutional declaration.   
      
   10. CR: 26. In constitutional cases, the Supreme Court of   
   Canada has also called on courts to remain sensitive to their   
   role as the adjudicative branch in our political framework,   
   and to avoid pronouncing on matters that will not affect the   
   rights of the parties..   
      
   11. The rights sought in our applications have been determined   
   in Allard. No need for us to do it again. We want remedies for   
   the declaration of unconstutionality, not for another   
   declaration again.   
      
   12. CR: that may be seen as intruding into the role of the   
   legislative branch.   
      
   13. Judging whether Plaintiffs were damaged by past   
   legislation can not intrude into the role of Parliament in   
   future legislation.   
      
   OTHER REMEDIES NOT MOOTED   
      
   14. "Phelan J. noted the "substantial overlap" between the   
   Allard litigation and "Turmel Kit" claims, and that the claims   
   sought relief that was "very close, if not identical" to one   
   another. Substantial overlap means there was some not   
   overlapped. Not overlapped issues remain unresolved.   
      
   NO PROHIBITION ABSENT EXEMPTION   
      
   15. CR: "Judicial comity precludes the requested relief from   
   the CDSA.. barred as a matter of judicial comity, similar   
   relief having been recently considered and denied by this   
   Court in Allard." "19. In declaring the MMPR invalid, Phelan   
   J. noted that he had also considered suspending the CDSA   
   provisions which make it an offence to possess, produce and   
   distribute marihuana. However, he declined to do so, noting   
   that the reading-down of the CDSA was a "blunt instrument   
   which may not be necessary if a Charter compliant regime were   
   put in place or different legislation passed."   
      
   16. Allard Counsel Kirk Tousaw's impromptu request to strike   
   "marijuana from Schedule II" with no foundation was not denied   
   on merit. "Blunt may not be necessary if.." doesn't mean   
   "Blunt is not necessary!" So there is no actual decision, just   
   a question. Canada has repeated labelled a "may not be" as a   
   "decision" mooting our remedy. Yet, Canada does not raise   
   "stare decisis" to prevent argument over decided issues,   
   Canada instead raises judicial "comity:"   
       Webster: 1. Mutual courtesy, civility. 2. "Comity of   
       Nations" courtesy between nations as in respect shown by   
       one country for the laws and institutions of another.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)