From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Jeff Harris filed the argument all seven could have   
   filed. Here's the Crown's final Reply:   
      
                  WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS IN REPLY   
      
   CR: 1. Of the Plaintiffs in these seven proceedings, only one   
   - the plaintiff in Allan Harris v. HMTQ No. T-1194-16 - has   
   opposed Canada's motion to strike. Although this plaintiff   
   appears to suggest that he opposes Canada's motion on behalf   
   of his co-plaintiffs, his co-plaintiffs have not indicated   
   agreement with his position and, not being a solicitor, the   
   plaintiff is not authorized to represent them.   
      
   A. THE MOTION SHOULD PROCEED IN WRITING   
      
   2. The plaintiffs in these seven claims are located in British   
   Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario. In light of the number of parties   
   and the logistical challenges and judicial resources likely   
   tobe involved in attempting to schedule and conduct an oral   
   hearing for seven plaintiffs in three different provinces,   
   Canada brought its motion in writing.   
      
   JCT: On April 29 2014, the Court managed to conduct an oral   
   hearing for 270 plaintiffs in 10 provinces in 12 courthouses.   
   And now they're stumped by 7 plaintiffs in 3 provinces? Har   
   har har har har har.   
      
   CR: 3. Although the plaintiff now requests an oral hearing of   
   Canada's motion, he has not identififed a substantial reason   
   why Canada's motion should proceed in that manner.   
      
   JCT: At a live hearing, you can ascertain the judge isn't   
   blind.   
      
   CR: Although he suggests that the motion concerns a "life-and-   
   death issue," the plaintiff has provided no evidence of this,   
   nor has he explained why that issue cannot be adequately   
   addressed in writing.   
      
   JCT: Can't tell that the judge isn't blind.   
      
   CR: The issues raised by the motion are not overly complex or   
   novel, and do not turn on witness credibility or other factors   
   that are best addressed orally. This motion should accordingly   
   proceed in writing.   
      
   JCT: Best in writing because... Oh, he forgot to include a   
   reason other than it's what he wants.   
      
   CR: B. THE FACTS PLEADED ARE INSUFFICIENT TO GROUND THE CLAIMS   
      
   JCT: Wonder if he comes up with a reason.   
      
   CR: 4. The plaintiff suggests that the material facts to his   
   claim have already been established in R. v. Parker [2000] and   
   R. v. Smith and argues that the plaintiffs therefore "don't   
   have to prove it again." However, his claim also fails   
   entirely to address the subsequent legislative enactments that   
   have attempted to address the concerns raised in those cases.   
   For example, the claim contains no facts concerning any   
   attempts by the plaintiff to access cannabis derivatives from   
   commercial licensed producers, who are expressly authorized   
   under the current Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes   
   Regulations to produce and sellcannabis derivatives to   
   medically authorized individuals.   
      
   5. To the extent that facts may be required, the plaintiff   
   further submits that these facts will be provided in "upcoming   
   affidavit evidence." This statement ignores the fundamental   
   role of pleadings in framing the issues between the parties.   
   It is not sufficient for a party to plead a cause of action   
   will be revealed later.   
      
   JCT: Notice that the Action was cloned in the identical   
   format for the Allard Statement of Claim.   
      
   CR: Facts capable of supporting each element of a cause of   
   action must instead be clearly pleaded in advance. the   
   plaintiff having failed to plead these material facts, the   
   proper course is for this court to strike his cliam, without   
   leave to amend.   
      
   JCT: Gee, the only fact mentioned in the Action was that the   
   plaintiff would prove he was licensed for the right to juice   
   and there is no access to juice. They have to argue against   
   not getting any juice by ignoring there is none to demand what   
   attempts were made to obtain from no source.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)