From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Link Spottiswood 1-year with 150-gram challenges?     
      
   JCT: We now have several different Claim:    
   - "delsc" Statement of Claim for damages from processing    
   delay due to short-staffing group of claims with 250    
   plaintiffs     
   - "150sc" Statement of Claim to Strike 150-gram max and keep    
   30-day supply with 6 plaintiffs;   
   - "juicesc" Statement of Claim to Strike prohibitions for    
   impeding juice supply with me. Everyone can file this one.    
   - "yearsc" Statement of Claim to strike the 1-year max    
   forcing terminally ill to pay the doctor every year.    
   - "dpsc" is for Designated People to grow for more people by    
   striking the 2-patient/grower and 4-patients/site caps.    
   - "harsc" is for damages for those who had their    
   prescriptions affected by harassing calls to their doctors    
   from Health Canada and Medical Associations.    
      
   Those are the names of the different torts we're complaining    
   about. Note how many we had raised of the 20 in the 2014    
   Gold Star Statements of Claim that Judge Phelan says he    
   settled when he struck the MMPR because of 4 Allard torts.    
      
   Since he didn't deal with them, he didn't really settle them    
   since we've back complaining about them still.    
      
   Justice Brown has issued a Direction on November 6, 2018:     
       "The Court is considering adding this action to be    
       managed along the same timelines as Hathaway (T-1716-   
       18), Harris (T-1765-18), Jackes (T-1784-18), Harris (T-   
       1822-18), if the Crown intends to move to strike."    
      
   The Crown wrote a letter:     
   Department of Justice    
   Nov 9 2018    
   Re: Mike Spottiswood v. Her Majesty the Queen, T-1913-18    
      
   Further to the oral direction dated November 6 2018 (the    
   "November 6 Direction"), I am writing to advise that the    
   Defendant, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada    
   ("Canada") will be moving to strike this claim.    
      
   Canada will move to strike the claim on the grounds as the    
   Hathaway (T-1716-18) and Harris (T-1765-18) claims, namely    
   that it is an attempt to re-litigate issues have already    
   been decided by this and other courts, and that the claim    
   fails to disclose a cause of action.    
      
   JCT: Notice how the Crown is twisting the court not having    
   to deal with our beefs into dismissals having he had dealt    
   with them! Lawying to the limit. Claiming Judge Phelan    
   settled the 1-year beef somewhere in his decision.    
      
   Har har har har har har. Think about that. Nowhere in his    
   decision does he discuss the question of whether    
   permanently-ill people should pay for a doctor's letter    
   every year. Can't produce it, it's not there. But that's    
   their claim, that it has been litigated before Judge Phelan    
   because we asked and it was dismissed on the merits when it    
   was actually dismissed for being mooted once the MMPR was    
   struck down with no costs. Sleazy, eh? But they're now out    
   on a limb having to produce evidence that the issue is    
   mooted. Har har har.    
      
   CR: In light of the similar issues on the motions, and in    
   the underlying actions, Canada proposes that this action be    
   case-managed together with the Hathaway and Harris actions,    
   and seeks leave to file one set of motion materials    
   addressing this action and the Hathaway and Harris actions.    
      
   I didn't want Mike's case to be lumped in with the cases of    
   those wanting to strike the 150-gram limit though I don't    
   mind them being heard at the same time. So he responded    
   today   
      
   Mike Spottiswood   
   Nov 12 2018    
   BY EMAIL    
      
   JCT: Quick explanation of how email service has evolved with    
   Justice Brown's okay:    
   Mike made a PDF of the letter of Response.    
   He sent an email to Wendy Wright.    
   He opened his email to Wendy Wright in his sent folder and    
   copied and pasted the metadata Date: To: From: Subject lines    
   to another document, saved it as a PDF named "service" and    
   then downloaded the metadata letter to sign and ask the    
   judge to authorize the metadata from the email service he    
   has permitted instead of a sworn affidavit of service.    
   Then those 3 documents are uploaded to the court efiling    
   system in a few minutes. Someday, the court will grant the    
   email metadata service and not need the other letter asking    
   Judge Brown to okay it as he has to do now.   
      
   You have no idea how getting replacing those affidavits of    
   service with the email metadata has simplified things. No    
   printing out a paper copy, finding a notary, even paying for    
   one to commission the oath, then scan it all into a PDF. Now    
   you only need a JPG of your signature to insert into the    
   documentation and it's done. Except for the Affidavit in a    
   Motion Record but not the second "Affidavit of Service."    
      
   So Mike's Letter of Response served by email and filed with    
   the court's own efiling system.    
      
   MS: Please place the Plaintiff's letter of response to the    
   Defendant's letter dated Nov 9 2018 before Judge Brown.    
      
   The Defendant Canada says it will    
       move to strike the claim on the same grounds as the    
       Hathaway (T-1716-18) and Harris (T-1765-18) claims,    
       namely that it is an attempt to re-litigate issues have    
       already been decided by this and other courts, and that    
       the claim fails to disclose a cause of action.    
       In light of the similar issues on the motions, and in    
       the underlying actions, Canada proposes that this action    
       be case-managed together with the Hathaway and Harris    
       actions,    
      
   There is no similarity between the action for the 150-gram    
   limit being struck down using the "150sc" kit and the 1-year    
   limit on period of use using the "yearsc" being struck down    
   other than that the Crown is attempting to strike both down.    
      
       CR: and seeks leave to file one set of motion materials    
       addressing this action and the Hathaway and Harris    
       actions.    
      
   Just as there will be more Plaintiffs filing the 150sc kit    
   challenge, there will also be more Plaintiffs filing the    
   yearsc kit challenge. There is no logical reason why    
   Defendant should not deal with each issue on its own    
   materials.   
      
   Considering that there will be    
   - another group of Plaintiffs to strike down the    
   prohibitions for impeding the supply of cannabis juice, kit    
   "juicesc"; and    
   - another group of Designated Persons (growers) filing kit    
   "dpsc" to strike down the maximum 2-patient/grower and 4-   
   license/site limits, and    
   - another group filing the kit "harsc" for damages due to    
   Health Canada calls harassing their doctors to reduce and/or    
   cancel their prescriptions thereby forcing patients to pay    
   less-daunted doctors, and    
   - another group filing the kit "10yrssc" to strike the 10-   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)