From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: A few posts back, I parsed the Crown's Written   
   Representations trying to get the juice/oil actions dismissed   
   due to insufficient facts for a reasonable cause of action.   
   Here is the Written Representations Jeff Harris is filing in   
   response for all of the Plaintiffs.   
      
                                           File No: T-1194-16   
                            FEDERAL COURT   
   Between:   
                            ALLAN HARRIS   
                                                Plaintiff   
                               AND   
                     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                Defendant   
      
                   PLAINTIFF'S RESPONDING RECORD   
      
   For the Plaintiff:   
   Allan Harris   
      
   For the Respondent:   
   Jon Bricker   
      
                PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   0.With issues responded to in the same order, CR: -> Canada   
      
   NO MEDICAL PLEAD   
   1. CR: 1... and fail to so much as plead that the plaintiffs   
   are medically authorized to use cannabis.   
      
   2.The Statement of Claim states:   
       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.   
      
   3. CR: 8. The claims allege that the plaintiffs suffer from   
   various medical conditions, allege have established a medical   
   need by obtaining permits to use marijuana for medical   
   purposes under the MMAR but provide no further details   
   regarding each plaintiff's medical status, use of marijuana,   
   or any attempts by the plaintiffs to access cannabis or its   
   derivatives for medical purposes.   
      
   4. In the first paragraph, Canada said Plaintiff's fail to so   
   much as plead they are medically authorized and now points out   
   their illness and permit numbers proving such are the facts   
   they rely on. Upcoming affidavit evidence will establish the   
   allegation that juice and oil were not available,   
      
   NO FACTS   
   5. CR: 1... The present claims.. contain virtually no material   
   facts to support that allegation, provide no details..   
      
   6. Despite containing "virtually no material facts," they do   
   contain sufficient material facts to establish medical need   
   and failure of the Exemption regime to provide access to juice   
   and oil pursuant to the right established in R. v. Smith 2015   
   with no further detail necessary.   
      
   7. CR: By contrast, the pleadings in Allard included   
   considerable detail concerning each plaintiff's medical   
   circumstances, experiences with medical marijuana, and how   
   each plaintiff was affected by the MMPR.   
      
   8. Sufficient detail to claim medical need is offered that the   
   MMPR did not allow them to access juice. What more do they   
   need to know? There is no legal supply of fresh juice for any   
   other growing your own fresh plants.   
      
   ADDRESS PARKER ISSUES AGAIN   
   9. CR: 21. The claims also fail entirely to address the   
   material elements of the cause of action charge. Although the   
   claims appear to rely on S.7 of the Charter, they do not   
   explain how the impugned CDSA provisions deprive the   
   plaintiffs of life, liberty, or security of the person, or   
   identify a principle of fundamental justice that is engaged by   
   that deprivation. Absent facts capable of supporting these   
   material elements of the Charter cause of action, Canada   
   cannot meaningfully respond to the claims and this Court   
   cannot properly consider the Charter issues. Indeed, the   
   claims are so bereft of material facts as to be frivolous and   
   vexatious.   
      
   10. Parker [2000] settled how the impugned provisions were   
   affected by the absence of viable medical exemption and   
   explained how it deprived Parker of his Right to Life, liberty   
   and security of the person. We don't have to prove it again.   
   Prohibition Invalid Absent viable Exemption is already won.   
      
   NO CAUSE OF ACTION   
   11. CR: 2. Indeed, this Court recently struck a virtually   
   identical claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of   
   action. The statements of claim are identical in all material   
   respects to that filed in another matter, Raymond Lee Hathaway   
   v. Her Majesty The Queen No T-983-16 ("Hathaway"). By order   
   dated Aug 17 s016, this Court (Zinn J.) granted a motion by   
   Canada to strike the Hathaway claim on the grounds that it was   
   plain and obvious that the claim did not disclose a reasonable   
   cause of action. The test on such a motion is whether it is   
   "plain and obvious" that the claim does not disclosed a   
   reasonable cause of action.   
   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."   
      
   12. JCT: That the exemption was illusory won for Hitzig, why   
   does it not apply to Plaintiff? Hitzig argued that having the   
   right but being hampered in supply by onerous rules made the   
   exemption illusory. And won. Isn't having the right to juice   
   and being hampered in supply by the same rules make the   
   exemption illusory too? A cause of action was plain and   
   obvious when Allard was filed in this Federal Court also   
   asking for a similar declaration when the exemption wasn't   
   working.   
      
   SMITH RULING FALSE   
   13. CR: 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.   
      
   14. Smith did not decry prohibiting patients from possessing   
   marijuana for medical purposes, that was the Parker decision.   
   Smith ruled the exemption unconstitutional because it   
   prohibited the use of any but "dried" form.   
      
   ALLARD RULING FALSE   
   15. CR: 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)   
       [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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)