From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: The Crown has filed a Response to David Butler's upcoming   
   Charter Challenge against S.7 production offence in Shelburne   
   Nova Scotia on Mar 14 2017.   
      
   CR: Feb 16 2017   
      
   Honourable Justice Pierre L. Muise   
   Supreme Court of Nova Scotia   
      
   My Lord:   
      
   Re: R. v. David Lewis Butler, Charge under S.7(1) CDSA   
   Constitutional Application - Hearing Date Mar 14 2017 @ 9:30am   
   in NSSC in Shelburne   
      
   On December 9, 2016, the parties were present before this   
   Honourable Court for the hearing of this Application. At that   
   time, the Applicant was granted an adjournment to March 14   
   2017 and was directed to file the following, on or before Jan   
   21 2017, in furtherance of the directions given by Justice   
   Patrick Duncan on October 7 2016:   
        1. An amended Notice of Application, one that focused the   
   issues being raised by the Applicant, and in particlar, that   
   referred to the proper Regulations that are relevant to this   
   proceeding.   
        2. The evidentiary basis in support of the Application,   
   by way of sworn Affidavits of individuals with first-hand   
   knowledge, relevant to this matter, and,   
        3. A Brief, outlining the Applicant's position with   
   respect to this Application.   
      
   The Applicant has not filed an Amended Notice of Application,   
      
   JCT: No, he'll have a completely brand new one.   
      
   CR: nor has there been any evidentiary basis provided in   
   support of the Application.   
      
   JCT: Most of the torts are inherently obvious.   
   - Yearly  renewals for permanent diseases. What evidence does   
   he want us to present to show it hurts?   
   - Limiting patients to growers when a grower could provide   
   cheaper product if he could grow the max. Sfetkopoulos again.   
   - Limiting growers to site when growers could provide cheaper   
   product if they could use the whole lot to the max. Beren   
   again.   
   - Forced destruction of last month's surplus when new supply   
   arrives. It would be nice to have someone that stupid testify   
   they actually destroyed their pot but a witness who'll admit   
   to breaking the law by not destroying his surplus would also   
   be helpful, though not actually necessary. The rule is   
   challenged for expected harm, not how much it did harm.   
   - No DIN for insurance. Sure, we need witnesses for our big   
   issue, the "Mernagh Plus Why" issue to testify to non-medical   
   reasons used by doctors. Lots of points do not need personal   
   evidence. S   
   ome grower issues.   
      
   CR: In the Applicant's Brief, there is vague reference to   
   anticipated evidence that the Applicant intends to tender at   
   the hearing; however, the Brief primarily focuses on   
   anticipated evidence that will simply replicate the evidence   
   tendered in another case decided over 5 years ago in another   
   province,   
      
   JCT: No, it's going to involve new evidence of the non-medical   
   reasons that the other case failed to raise.   
      
   CR: involving a different Regulatory framework than what is   
   seen in the case at bar.   
      
   JCT: The fact flaws in the MMAR for Mernagh and MMPR for   
   Allard were adopted in the new ACMPR is our point.   
      
   CR: The Brief then goes on to summarize alleged constitutional   
   violations involving three different Regulatory frameworks,   
   with no focus given whatsoever to this proceeding.   
      
   JCT: The issue of the validity of the exemption regimes stands   
   alone with no focus on this proceeding necessary. J.P. ruled   
   that Parker meant CDSA Prohibitions Invalid Absent Exemption.   
   It doesn't say once.   
   I mention all three regimes to show the antecedents to the   
   torts we're raising in the ACMPR, that's all. The Notice   
   doesn't say we're trying to strike down the MMAR or MMPR, it   
   aims purely at the ACMPR. But if they want to make the point   
   an Accused was charged before the ACMPR, like David Butler,   
   it's covered!   
   Sure, we've shown that sections of the MMAR and MMPR were the   
   basis of the sections in the ACMPR we are challenging. Duh.   
   Since he was charged before the ACMPR, shouldn't he be   
   challenging the sections that were directly affecting him? But   
   then they won't strike down a gone legislation. So I've sought   
   to strike the torts that are current.   
      
   CR: In short, the Applicant's submissions to this Honourable   
   Court have only raised more ambiguity, and more questions, as   
   to the actual nature of the Application that the Crown must   
   respond to.   
      
   JCT: The nature of the application is analogous to that of   
   Krieger's S.7 challenge. S.7 Prohibition Invalid Absent   
   Exemption. All I have to do is show the exemption is deficient   
   as Hitzig did but in far more ways.   
      
   CR: It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant has not   
   filed anything that the Crown can respond to in a meaningful   
   way.   
      
   JCT: I'll help him. He could take each point:   
      
   1) MMAR S.4(2)(b); MMPR S.119 and ACMPR S.8(1) require a   
   medical document from recalcitrant or not-available family   
   doctors.   
      
   Just explain how doctors refusing for non-medical reasons   
   ensures the health of the patient.   
      
   2) The three regimes failed to provide DIN (Drug   
   Identification Number) for affordability and insurance   
   coverage.   
      
   Just explain how no DIN for insurance coverage ensures the   
   health of the patient.   
      
   3) MMAR S.13(1), S.33(1), s42(1)(a); MMPR S.129(2)(a) and   
   ACMPR S.8(2) require annual renewals for permanent diseases.   
      
   Just explain how yearly renewals benefits the patient and   
   doctor.   
      
   4) MMAR S.65(1); MMPR and ACMPR compel exemptees to destroy   
   unused cannabis before receipt of new batch with no refund.   
      
   Just explain the benefit of a patient who has had a good month   
   and underused his prescription having to destroy the surplus   
   so a later bad month will cause him to run short?   
      
   5) MMAR S12.(1)(b), S.32(c), S.62(2)(c), S.63(2)(f); MMPR   
   S.117(1)(c) and ACMPR S.43(1), S.46(1), S.184(d) allow the   
   Ministry to revoke the patient's permits for non-medical   
   reasons.   
      
   Explain why revoking prescriptions for non-medical reasons   
   ensures the patient's health.   
      
   6) MMAR, MMPR and ACMPR fail to exempt patients from the   
   CDSA  S.5(1) prohibition on trafficking for trading and   
   sampling  different strains for different pains and gains in   
   production.   
      
   Explain how making it illegal to access different strains   
   ensures patient health.   
      
   UNDER THE MMAR AND ACMPR   
      
   7) MMAR S.32(e) and ACMPR S.184(b) prohibit more than 2   
   licenses/grower.   
      
   Since the 1-patient per grower limit was struck in   
   Sfetkopoulos, explain how a 2-patient cap has helped ensure   
   affordability.   
      
   8) MMAR S.32(d) & S.63(1) and ACMPR S.184(c) prohibit more   
   than 4 licenses/site.   
      
   Since the 3-grower per site limit was struck in Beren, explain   
   how a 4-grower cap has helped ensure affordability.   
      
   9) MMAR S.30(1) and ACMPR S.190 limits the number of plants   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)