From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Steve Vetricek MedPot Permit Motion mooted by 23-day delivery   
      
   JCT: Background:   
   Steve Vetricek Motion for MedPot Permit after a year!   
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-turmel/yAN0TkqUc78   
      
   JCT: Steve applied lost his DG after waiting for his   
   registration in Oct 2017 months and had to submit an   
   amendment in May upon losing his DG after 7 months of   
   waiting. After 9 months, in July, he filed a Statement of   
   Claim and then a Motion to see the judge for an interim   
   permit until his permit is processed.   
      
   Steve Vetricek Motion accepted with Metadata Service   
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-turmel/iNu1Dz89Gmo   
      
   JCT: The judge gave the Crown until Aug 27 to file their   
   Response explaining why he hadn't been processed in 9   
   months. Steve has a week to Reply.   
   Wendy Wright   
   Department of Justice   
      
   August 27 2018   
      
   VIA INTEROFFICE POUCH   
      
   The Honourable Justice Brown   
      
   Dear Justice Brown:   
      
   Re: Steve Vetricek v. HMTQ T-1371-18   
      
   WW: Further to the Direction of the Court dated August 21   
   2018, please accept the following as the response of the   
   defendant to the plaintiff's motion for interim relief.   
      
   The plaintiff requests a "personal constitutional exemption"   
   from the CDSA pending the outcome of his application for   
   registration to produce cannabis for his personal medical   
   use, as well as an order in the nature of mandamus for   
   Health Canada to grant his application.   
      
   JCT: Again, she mis-states the request for something the   
   Court cannot do instead of what the court can do. We asked   
   to order "Health Canada to immediately do its duty by   
   processing" his application. The Court may mandate that HC   
   process the application, a duty, but cannot mandate it grant   
   the application. She's mis-stated this corruption of the   
   motion many times but if she wants to keep repeating it,   
   we'll get to keep correcting her corruption of the true   
   request. Har har har har har har.   
      
   WW: As detailed in the enclosed Affidavit of Michael   
   McGuire, the plaintiff's initial application was received by   
   Health Canada in July 31 2018. On August 22, 2018, Health   
   Canada granted the application. The plaintiff is thus   
   currently authorized to produce cannabis for his personal   
   medical use. Copies of the documents confirming this renewal   
   have been sent to the plaintiff by Canada Post Xpresspost.   
   The plaintiff's motion is accordingly moot.   
      
   JCT: So, they say they got his application on July 31 2018   
   though he filed his Statement of Claim July 18 about his   
   permit he mailed in last October. And they granted his   
   registration on Aug 22 s,a mere 23 days after getting it!   
   What's going on?   
      
   WW: On Friday of last week, I wrote to advise the plaintiff   
   that his registration has now been issued and to request   
   that he abandon his motion.   
   Yours truly, Wendy Wright   
      
   JCT: And he did not abandon his motion and she had to file   
   this response explaining to the judge how they hopped to it   
   to get him his permit in 23 days. Here's the attached   
   affidavit:   
                   AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL MCGUIRE   
      
   7. I am informed Jennifer Tolgyesy, Program Officer of the   
   PRC, and do verily believe, that on August 22 2018, she   
   reviewed the electronic database for entries related to   
   Steve Vetricek and provided the following information and   
   documents:   
   a) On July 31st 2018, Health Canada received a revised   
   application from Steve Vetricek.   
   b) On Aug 22nd, 2018, Health Canada issued the registration   
   certificate to Steve Vetricek.   
      
   JCT: Great work. But there's something they didn't want to   
   tell the judge. It was actually 10 months since last   
   October. How can they boast 23 days to process his revised   
   application.   
      
   You'd think the revised application was the one with   
   amendment for the Designated Grower gone but it's not. There   
   was another revised application that had to be sent in.   
      
   After the Claim and Motion were filed, they informed him   
   that his original October application had an incomplete box.   
   So he rushed in the revision which got to them on July 31.   
   So they're talking about the period of 23 from when he   
   submitted a completed application and ignored the period of   
   9 months to tell him he had an omission. After regular   
   status calls with no information, 9 months later they tell   
   him he missed a box! Then it took 23 more days!   
      
   So now Steve gets to Reply to mention how he was hoping they   
   would have explained what took so long but since they only   
   started the report after he sent his amended form, guess   
   they wanted to leave out the 9 months while they did   
   nothing.   
      
   So accept that the motion has been mooted by delivery of his   
   permit but also let the judge note that his claim for cash   
   because of the 8-month extra delay from the 4-week process   
   he'd have gotten under the MMAR is worth of a lot of pot not   
   grown.   
      
   Simple, right. If they'd processed his original in under a   
   month, he'd have fixed it and would then have gotten it in 2   
   months rather than 10 months. So he's owed 8 months for the   
   delay in informing him he needed to fix something.   
      
   What's a gram per day for 240 days at LP prices worth?   
   $2,400? Now multiply by your dosage.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)