From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown tries to dismiss new damages claims with old.   
      
   JCT: Letter from the Crown to some new filers for damages:   
      
   Federal Court Registries   
      
   Dear Sir or Madam,   
      
   Re: Darren Roy MacDonald v. HMTQ No. T-1111-16   
   Jacey Joseph Edward Careme v. HMTQ No. T-1112-16   
   Robert James Woolsey v. HMTQ No. T-1239-16   
      
   On behalf of the Defendant, I am writing to request that these   
   matters be made subject to the motion to strike filed by   
   Canada in several related matters on April 26 2016.   
      
   Plaintiffs in T-1111-16 and T-1117-16 are also plaintiffs T-   
   1531-15 and T-1528-15. Those seek damages for the alleged loss   
   ofmedical marijuana, plants and production sites whednthe   
   prior personal marihuana production regime embodiedby the MMAR   
   was repealed on March 30 1014 and succeeded by the MMPR.   
   OnApril 26, Canada filed a motion in writing tostrike these   
   and several related claoims on thegrounds that it was plain   
   and obvious  that they did not disclose a reasonable cause of   
   action. With respect to the claim for damages, Canada's motion   
   also asserts that damages are unavailable for unconstitutional   
   legislation absent conduct that was clearly wrong, in bad   
   faith, or an abuse of power, none of which is pleaded by the   
   plaintiffs. The above-noted plaintiffs once again seek damages   
   for the loss of their marijuana, plants, production sites when   
   the MMAr were succeeded by the MMPR. The new claims should be   
   dismissed for the same reasons as the previously filed claims.   
   The new claims contain virtually no facts concerning the   
   plaintiff's personal medical circumstances   
      
   JCT: Keep forgetting our Affidavit comes after their Statement   
   of Defence which they haven't yet filed.   
      
   or any facts capable of supporting the constitutional   
   violations alleged.   
      
   With respect to the requests for damages, although the   
   plaintiffs now baldly assert that the MMPR were enacted in bad   
   faith, they have provided no particulars of this allegation.   
   For example, the claims fail entirely to identify a public   
   official or officials said to have held acted in bad faith. It   
   is plain and obvious that the claims cannot succeed in these   
   circumstances. Canada therefore requests that the claims be   
   made subject to its previsouly filed motion to strike.   
      
   The plaintiffs in the matters T-1111-16 and T-1117 have been   
   previously served with Canada's motion materials in support of   
   the motion to strike and proof of this service has been   
   previously filed.   
      
   With respect to the plaintiff in the matter with File T-1239-   
   16 please find enclosed an Affidavit of Service confirming   
   that Canada's motion materials have now also been served on   
   this plaintiff.   
      
   JCT: Okay, so two had already filed Actions for damages linked   
   to Allard while only one filed for pure damages without   
   seeking the Allard declaration of invalidity. Wonder why he   
   shouldn't get his claim heard? Oh right, it's "plain and   
   obvious" what he didn't explain was "plain and obvious."   
      
   The worst that can happen is they get lumped in with the old   
   Gold Stars. And having the newbie attached can't hurt either.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)