From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-   
      
   turmel/sBTb35XzBDI   
   are the Written Representations in response to the Crown's   
   Motion to Strike. The tearing apart is quite bad. She got   
   caught in so many errors and misleading statements,   
   admitting and correcting them all would be an embarrassment.   
   For instance, she told the Court the S.56 Class Exemptions   
   changed from date doctor signed to date of issuance. Not   
   true. And in Kent Truman's case, she argues it clearly   
   states it does not apply to him.   
      
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-   
      
   turmel/7hPfPFL3D-w   
   Kent Truman was a victim of her lie. She even tells him that   
   it's clear that the S.56 exemptions do not apply to those   
   before March 22 but now argues the claims are settled by the   
   S.56 orders she argued elsewhere do not apply to him!   
      
   Think about that. She tells Kent that the S.56 Class   
   Exemption only applies to those after March 2, not to him,   
   while arguing all claims should be dismissed as mooted by   
   the S.56 Class Exemptions that applies to everyone. The S.56   
   mootens their need for relief in the main case but then does   
   not apply to him in the other! Har har har har har har har   
   har har har har har. And Kent's Reply got to point out the   
   details of how there was nothing in the S.56 orders that   
   applied to anyone since it did not strike down S.8.2b! Proof   
   positive the requirement in S.8.2b isn't gone when S,8.2b   
   has not been struck down.   
      
   Justice Brown had demanded in January that Health Canada   
   explain the back-dating in their Motion to Strike. Instead   
   of explaining, Crown Wendy Wright says some new S.56 Orders   
   solved everyone's problems so she doesn't have to explain   
   why Health Canada were short-changing the patients.   
      
   She tried to keep Cause of Action B out of their Motion   
   Record by substituting an outdated un-amended and unrelated   
   Statement of Claim without the back-dating Cause of Action   
   B for Lead Plaintiff Harris' Amended Statement of Claim that   
   she is challenging with both A and B. We objected and Judge   
   Brown ordered that she put in the Harris Amended claim and   
   that replace the out-dated claim with a more representative   
   claim containing Cause B and make any new arguments she   
   wanted.   
      
   By insisting that a claim with Cause B be included, Judge   
   Brown is still looking for an explanation for the short-   
   changing of the period. But in her supplementary Motion   
   Record, again, she ducks explaining:   
      
   May 23, 2018   
   VIA EMAIL   
      
   Allan J. Harris   
   Dear Sir:   
   Re: HARRIS, Allan v. Her Majesty the Queen (Turmel Kit)   
   Court File No.: T-1379-17   
      
   Please find enclosed the Attorney General of Canada's   
   Supplementary Motion Record served upon you in accordance   
   with the Direction of the Honourable Justice Brown dated May   
   16, 2018 and the Federal Courts Rules.   
      
   Mr. Justice Brown's May 16, 2018 Direction outlined that   
   Canada was to serve and file a supplementary motion record   
   including the Amended Statement of Claim in T-1379-18, dated   
   March 5, 2018 along with a copy of a representative   
   Statement of Claim that includes Remedy B regarding   
   renewals. Since there were two different versions of claims   
   which included the request for "Remedy B", I have included   
   an example of each in the Supplementary Motion Record: the   
   Statement of Claim in William Thomas Axtell v Her Majesty   
   the Queen, court file no T-l69-18, dated January 29,2018 and   
   the Statement of Claim in Charline Pelissier v Her Majesty   
   the Queen, court file no T-343-18, dated February 20, 2018.   
      
   I have amended Canada's Notice of Motion to reflect the   
   inclusion of the Amended Statement of Claim and the claims   
   in T-l69-18 and T-343-18. However, please note that I have   
   not made any amendments to my written representations on the   
   motion to strike, they stay the same as originally served   
   and filed. Yours truly, Wendy Wright Counsel   
      
   JCT: Though she had read Jeff's Reply shooting down her   
   cards, she had to stand pat on the same cards which we'd   
   already rebutted!   
      
   She had said she included the out-dated claim because it   
   showed that permits could be obtained in 6-8 weeks. It   
   actually said "6-8 weeks after expiry." So neither of the   
   included claims mentions it can be done in 6-8 weeks so you   
   have to wonder why they're being included at all if they   
   don't back up what she was using the outdated one to back   
   up.   
      
   And in May, there was only one version. Early on, both   
   Applications and Renewals had each their own template. By   
   May, they had both been combined into one template! But   
   she's not working with an updated May claim, is she? She's   
   working with again out-dated January and February ones.   
      
   There was the original Cause of Action A for a declaration   
   the delays due to short-staffing violated the right to life,   
   and damages in the value of the ungrown pot. (Later we added   
   the site rent and expenses lost.)   
   Then we added the short-changing of the permit period as   
   Cause of Action B and damages by restitution of the ripped-   
   off portion.   
      
   Got it? That's the case our 175 plaintiffs so far.   
   A) Short-staffing delays harmed me; want what's lost;   
   B) Back-dating harmed me, want restitution of time lost.   
      
   Jeff already pointed out the four extra amendments after his   
   first amendment adding Cause of Action B.   
      
   1) When the Crown pointed out we should have also claimed   
   the Rights to Liberty and Security, when Life didn't fit, so   
   later claims added them.   
      
   2) When the Crown was having a hard time understanding the   
   loss of value of pot not grown due to delay and mentioned   
   Harris had not sought any losses, so later claims added the   
   demand for lost site rent and expenses!   
      
   3) When the Crown argued correctly I had failed to state   
   which principles of fundamental justice were being violated   
   by the short-staffing, I hadn't known we had to not only   
   show the harm but why they should NOT be able to do it, with   
   lost of NOT principles of ACMPR S.8(2b) fundamental justice   
   to pick from.   
   Under the Quebec Charter of Rights, you prove that your   
   rights have been violated and they have to prove good   
   reason. Under the Canadian Charter, you have to prove your   
   rights have been violated but before they have to prove good   
   reason, you also have to say how they're harming you without   
   due process, in some way that's against the principles of   
   fundamental justice, "arbitrarily," "grossly   
   disproportionally," "conscience-shockingly." I added   
   "incompetently," and "malevolently" in later claims.   
   To say "this law is killing me" isn't enough, you have to   
   say "it's killing me in some unfair way." Of course, Quebec   
   is more efficient and I really never knew that we had to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)