From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Response to Nathan Salandy Interim Motion   
      
   JCT: Nathan Salandy waited 6 weeks to have his Authorization   
   registered and then filed a Statement of Claim. They didn't   
   hop to it so 5 days later, he filed a motion for interim   
   relief. So the Crown had to file a response with no way to   
   mooten it by getting him his permit before it hit Judge   
   Brown's desk! Har har har har har har.   
      
   So they're not hopping to it!@ Health Canada decided to take   
   a stand, like they did when they thought Heidi Chartrand   
   hadn't given them enough time with 2 weeks. Then hopped   
   within 18 days.   
      
   Michael McGuire who is responsible for Igor Mozajko waiting   
   11 months before filing his claim and then hopping to   
   deliver his permit decided to tell Nathan he'd just have to   
   wait. Har har har. Slow-poke has told the judge that Nathan   
   was just going to have to wait maybe another 9 months! Fun   
   times in Federal Courtland.   
      
   T-144-18   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                          NATHAN SALANDY   
                                      Plaintiff (Moving Party)   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                        Defendant (Respondent)   
      
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
           OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA   
      
                         PART I-OVERVIEW   
      
   JCT: Wendy Wright copied much of the text from the Heidi's   
   Response so I've included it because I also had a copy to   
   input. From:   
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-   
      
   turmel/6bAmaLkAujk   
      
   WW: 1. On February 9, 2018, Health Canada received the   
   plaintiff's application for registration to produce cannabis   
   for his personal medical use. Rather than wait for the   
   outcome of this application,   
      
   JCT: How long should he wait before filing? Igor Mozajko   
   waited 11 months before filing his claim and motion. Wait   
   just another 9 months says Mr. Slow Process?   
      
   WW: the plaintiff now brings the present motion for an   
   interlocutory injunction allowing him to produce cannabis,   
   or for an order compelling Health Canada to grant his   
   application.   
      
   JCT: Misrepresentation A   
   Nowhere in the plaintiff's application does he ask the court   
   to order Health Canada to "grant his application." Applicant   
   asked that the Court mandate Health Canada do its duty to   
   process the application, not grant it. It's not the first time   
      
   the   
   Defendant has thus misrepresented the remedy sought. But   
   since Wendy misrepresented what Heidi sought, why not   
   misrepresent what Nathan is seeking? Except, this time, it's   
   going to cost her a lot more brutality. This shows a   
   pathology for lying or even contempt for the court it must   
   hope will forget the truth and fall for their lie given the   
   constant hypnotic repetition   
      
   WW: 2. The motion should be dismissed. With respect to the   
   request for an injunction, the plaintiffs claim does not   
   raise a serious issue, the plaintiff has provided no   
   evidence that he would be irreparably harmed in the absence   
   of an injunction,   
      
   JCT: Misrepresentation B   
   The medical document is not evidence he needs his meds   
      
   WW: and the balance of convenience favours denying the   
   requested relief. With respect to the request for mandamus,   
   the requested relief is unavailable in an action and on an   
   interlocutory basis, and the plaintiff has in any event not   
   established that he is entitled to registration.   
      
   JCT: Misrepresentation C   
   Plaintiff does not claim entitlement to registration but   
   entitlement to processing. Derives from the same lie that   
   we're asking the Court to "grant" what they're "entitled"   
   to.   
      
   WW: PART II- STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   3. On Feb 9 2018, Health Canada received the plaintiff's   
   application for registration to produce cannabis for his   
   personal medical use.   
      
   4. Rather than wait for the outcome of this application,   
   approximately 7 weeks later, the plaintiff filed this urgent   
   motion for a personal constitutional exemption from the CDSA   
   pending the outcome of his application, or in the   
   alternative, an order in the nature of mandamus requiring   
   Health Canada to grant his application for registration.   
      
   JCT: Misrepresentation A again. Despite the constant   
   misrepresentation, the Court can check the Notice of Motion   
   to ascertain that the Defendant is lying about the relief   
   sought. Better, I'll reproduce it as I did for Heidi and   
   show the lie. But being caught in the same lie a second time   
   now looks worse.   
      
   WW: 5. By Direction dated Mar 22, the court directed Canada   
   to respond to this motion by Mar 29 2018.   
      
   PART III - POINTS IN ISSUE   
      
   6. The issue on this motion is whether the Court should   
   grant the plaintiffs requests for either   
   (a) an interlocutory injunction either exempting her from   
   the CDSA or extending her expired registration, or   
   (b) an order in the nature of mandamus requiring Health   
   Canada to grant his renewal application.   
      
   JCT: Misrepresentation A a third time. Repeating the same   
   lie three times, the Defendant must be hoping that the   
   constant repetition might make the court forget the truth,   
   which would seem to be quite contemptuous of the   
   intellectual capacity of the court.   
      
   WW: PART IV - SUBMISSIONS   
      
   A. AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE   
      
   7. The well-known test for interlocutory injunctive relief   
   is set out in RJR MacDonald v. Canada. The party seeking an   
   interlocutory injunction must prove that:   
   a) there is a serious issue to be tried;   
   b) irreparable harm would result if the injunction was not   
   granted; and   
   c) the balance of convenience favours granting the order.   
   The plaintiff has not met any of these requirements.   
      
   a) No serious issue to be tried   
      
   8. The threshold for establishing a serious issue is low.   
   The party seeking injunctive relief need only establish that   
   their claim is not destined to fail or that it is "neither   
   frivolous nor vexatious." The plaintiffs claim fails to meet   
   even this low threshold.   
      
   9. A pleading is frivolous and vexatious if it is so bereft   
   of facts that the defendant cannot know how to answer or the   
   Court cannot effectively regulate the proceedings.   
      
   JCT: Just because defendant cannot answer doesn't mean there   
   are insufficient facts. Just that they have no answer.   
      
   WW: In the present case, the plaintiff alleges that "the   
   long processing time" for registration and the "back-dating"   
   of registration violate section 7 of the Charter, but the   
   claim contains virtually no material facts to support this   
   conclusion.   
      
   JCT: "Virtually no material facts" is not bereft of facts.   
   And again, she can't cite the facts that happen to be there.   
   Nice to have a contradiction to play with.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)