From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Great Eight Juice/Oil Claim filers with Ray Hathaway:   
   Allan Jeffery Harris & wife   
   Cheryle Hawkins   
   Robert James Woolsey   
   Arthur Jackes   
   Jacey Careme   
   Darren Roy MacDonald   
      
             WRITTEN REPRESENTATION'S OF THE DEFENDANT   
                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
      
            MOTION IN WRITING TO STRIKE THE PROCEEDINGS   
      
   JCT: Notice they've asked for no live hearing, as usual.   
   Always back-room hearings.   
      
   CR: 1. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently recognized a   
   constitutional right to access cannabis derivatives for   
   medical purposes. The present claims allege that cannabis   
   derivatives remain inaccessible despite that decision, but   
   contain virtually no material facts to support that   
   allegation, provide no details concerning any attempts by the   
   plaintiffs to access cannabis derivatives, and fail to so much   
   as plead that the plaintiffs are medically authorized to use   
   cannabis.   
      
   JCT: So here's the JuiceOil Statement of Claim:   
      
   THE PARTIES   
   2. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to   
   S.24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a patient   
   who suffers from [MEDICAL REASON] and has established medical   
   need by obtaining an exemption permit number [NUMBER]   
   to use marijuana for medical purposes but who still cannot   
   be lawfully provisioned with cannabis juice or oil for   
   treatment.   
      
   JCT: FACT: The Claim states the Plaintiff's illness and   
   current valid permit number as basis to be medically   
   qualified. Crown says Jeff et al (and others) failed to "so   
   much as plead that the plaintiffs are medically authorized to   
   use cannabis?"   
      
   Get used to this. This is how our government attorneys do   
   their lawying. They just ignore it and say "nothing there."   
   Much like the judges who repeat: See nothing too.   
      
   CR: 2. Indeed, this Court recently struck a virtually   
   identical claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of   
   action.   
      
   JCT: It's not reasonable for Plaintiff to complain a right is   
   illusory when access doesn't work? After all, he has the   
   right. But the judge's decision was "I do not see."   
      
   CR: There is no reason for this Court to depart from that   
   conclusion in the present case. On the contrary, the doctrine   
   of judicial comity requires that the present claims be   
   similarly dismissed.   
      
   JCT: If one judge failed to see how no access to rightful   
   medicine is a reasonable cause of action, all judges should   
   fail to see from now on. Of course, if the judge who first   
   failed to see has more than "I don't see," we might have a   
   problem. Let's see why the judge said not being able to get   
   what you have a right to isn't a reasonable cause of action.   
      
   CR: PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS.   
      
   4. On Jun 11 2015, the Supreme Court in R. v. Smith declared   
   CDSA S.4 (possession) and 5 (trafficking) unconstitutional and   
   of no force and effect to the extent that they prohibit   
   persons with medical authorizations from possessing cannabis   
   for medical purposes.   
      
   5. More recently, in Allard et al, v. HMTQ similarly declared   
   the MMPR unconstitutional and of no force or effect, in part,   
   because they provided medically authorized individuals with   
   access only to dried marihuana, but not to other cannabis   
   derivatives. The Court suspended its declaration for six   
   months in order to provide Canada time to enact a new medical   
   marihuana regulatory regime. (para 11)   
      
   JCT: They make it sound like "only dried" was the reason for   
   the Allard decision, don't they? but it was citing the Smith   
   decision only:   
       [11] That decision reaffirms the connection between s 7   
       rights and the restrictions on the use of marihuana and   
       disposes of the question of the methods of consumption   
       issue raised as one of the numerous issues in this trial.   
       The restriction to dried marihuana under the MMPR is void   
       for the same reasons it was held to be void under the MMAR   
       in Smith.   
      
   JCT: So the judge does not rely on "dried only" to grant   
   Allard, he only cited Smith on "dried." So by lawying that   
   Allard was based on the "dried only" win, it lets them avoid   
   getting into the real reasons why it did win. Isn't lawying   
   neat?   
      
   CR: 6. Canada responded to the Smith and Allard decisions with   
   new regulations which took effect on Aug 24 2016. The Access   
   to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations ("ACMPR") provide   
   for the production of cannabis, including oil, by commercial   
   licensed producers, and for the sale of those derivatives to   
   medically authorized patients./ The ACMPR also provide for the   
   personal production of cannabis derivatives by medically   
   authorized individuals or individuals designated by them.   
      
   JCT: Sure, using fresh juice is allowed, but it's not there.   
   Lawyers just don't seem to get the difference. If it's   
   allowed, it must be there. Duh.   
      
   CR: Individuals whose previously Health Canada-issued   
   production licenses are preserved by this Court's Mar 21 2014   
   injunction order in Allard (the "Allard injunction") may also   
   continue to produced cannabis derivatives, including oil, in   
   accordance with the terms of that injunction and their   
   previously-issued production licenses.   
      
   JCT: Notice how not all individuals who had their production   
   licenses preserved got to use them. They omit mentioning the   
   Left-Out growers whose grow were permits were useless without   
   a Possess Permit whom Judge Manson cut off by making their   
   Possess Permits validity dependent on their dates "to ensure   
   the viability of the MMPR regime." That was about half the   
   36,000 grow permits the court extended that patients could not   
   use. And the Left-Outs who applied to get back in to the   
   injunction were denied for failure to satisfy Justice Phelan's   
   curiosity about their medical conditions behind their previous   
   permits. The deaths from such draconian and genocidal rulings   
   to cut off cheap medication to the most seriously-ill patients   
   would seem plain and obvious to anyone with their eyes open.   
   But the Left-Outs have been covered over and written out of   
   the story. We'll make sure to point out the murderous court   
   rulings. Tom Kennedy and David Shea might not have had to die   
   had it not been for Justice Manson committing the act and   
   Phelan abetting it.   
      
   CR: B. THE PRESENT CLAIMS   
      
   7. The plaintiffs now bring the present claims in which they   
   allege that cannabis derivatives remain inaccessible, and that   
   the right recognized in Smith and Allard to access cannabis   
   derivatives for medical purposes is therefore "illusory."   
      
   JCT: That the exemption was illusory won for Hitzig, why   
   shouldn't it win for us? Hitzig argued that having the right   
   but being hampered in being supplied by onerous rules made the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)