From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Jeff Harris Time-Table for Delayeds MedPot Grow Permits   
      
   JCT: Jeff Harris is Lead Plaintiff for over 70 Plaintiffs in   
   Federal Court for Cause of Action A claiming damages from   
   short-staffing that has caused unconscionable processing   
   delays in obtaining their medication.   
      
   The Statement of Claim has been upgraded so that later   
   Plaintiffs seek restitution of the time subtracted from   
   their prescriptions by back-dating the registration as a   
   second Cause of Action B. So Jeff moved to amend the   
   Statements of Claim of early Plaintiffs with only Cause of   
   Action A (Too-Long Time) to that of the later Plaintiffs   
   with also Cause of Action B (Back-dated time).   
      
   He asked that early Statements of Claim be deemed to have   
   been amended to those of later ones. I didn't want all   
   earlies to have to file a new document too. So Judge Brown   
   ruled that only Jeff should file an officially Amended   
   Statement of Claim since his remedies would apply to   
   everyone else too. Makes sense that at least the Lead File   
   be upgraded officially. Not sure of the rules, I'll check,   
   but in other courts, you have to underline the extra parts   
   in red and underline any deleted parts in black so it's easy   
   to see all amendments. Probably going to be very similar.   
      
   As for the scheduling of the documentation, Canada had   
   already filed the motion to dismiss Cause A. I had blown a   
   deadline on responding and needed to ask the Court for an   
   extension of time. Crown suggested I file the response   
   before getting the extension of time. Har har har. We'd   
   suggested they amend their motion to strike Cause A to   
   include Cause B and we'd respond to both; or file a   
   supplementary motion to strike Cause B and we'll respond to   
   both separately. His decision, together:   
      
       March 1 2018   
                                  ORDER   
       UPON motion filed February 13, 2018 by the Plaintiff for   
       an Order amending the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim and   
       related relief;   
      
       AND UPON the Defendant consenting to the Plaintiff's   
       motion for leave to amend and extend time provided that   
       the Plaintiff's amendments will be limited to those   
       expressly set out in his Notice of Motion dated February   
       13, 2018 and provided that the Defendant is permitted to   
       file additional submissions on its motion to strike in   
       order to properly address the amendments;   
      
       AND UPON reviewing the proposed timetables, and hearing   
       from counsel for the Defendant and from the Plaintiff   
       personally;   
      
       THEREFORE THIS COURT ORDERS that:   
      
       1. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and extend   
       time is granted.   
      
       2. The Plaintiff's amendments are limited to those   
       expressly set out in his Notice of Motion dated February   
       13, 2018, without leave to further amend.   
      
       3. The Defendant is permitted to file additional   
       submissions on its motion to strike in order to properly   
       address the amendments.   
      
       4. The timeline for remaining steps in this proceeding   
       are revised as follows:   
      
       A. The Plaintiff will serve and file his amended   
       Statement of Claim by March 7, 2018;   
      
       B. The Defendant will serve and file additional   
       submissions on her motion to strike by March 12, 2018;   
      
       C. The Plaintiff will serve and file his Responding   
       record by March 19, 2018;   
      
       D.  The Defendant will serve and file her Reply record   
       by March 26, 2018,   
      
       5. Costs in the amount of $200.00 are ordered in the   
       cause.   
      
      
   Of interest, in the Terry Johnsgaard hearing, Judge Brown   
   ordered them to explain the back-dating of permits. After   
   all, he knows Igor Mozajko's permit was back-dated so far,   
   it expired before he could get it! Har har har. Nice for our   
   judge to have personally witnessed all these abuses, isn't   
   it?   
      
   Again, in this hearing, he asked Wendy Wright how the back-   
   dating worked. She didn't know. He asked why the form   
   couldn't have a spot where the doctor can determine when the   
   period starts or why it didn't last 1 year from the   
   date of issuance! Like under the MMAR? That's the question   
   we want them to answer too. Why did they change from the old   
   way to the new way? And who changed it? So the judge has   
   grasped the loss patients suffer from back-dating and by   
   suggesting a fix, it implies an acceptance that it needs to   
   be fixed!   
      
   Again he repeated his concern for people whose exemptions   
   were allowed to expire without renewal leaving them stuck   
   with illegal poundage, it infringes on rights they were   
   already granted!   
      
   Finally, Justice Brown wondered why only 1 year limit? Guess   
   he may not find much sense in patients with permanent   
   illnesses having to go through what he's seen every year.   
   Gee, that's one of our constitutional torts that Justice   
   Phelan had said he'd fixed when he struck down the MMPR!   
   Guess Justice Phelan didn't do such a good job.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)