From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Igor had his claim split off from Jeff Harris because   
   he was first to file for restitution of the full term of the   
   period of the permit. Harris then had his claim amended to   
   include restitution "B" issue. So after Judge Brown ruled on   
   the Lead Plaintiff's two issues, he adopted those reasons in   
   ruling on Igor's claim.   
      
   Jeff appealed no restitution and the Crown cross-appealed   
   letting damages in. Then the Crown appealed Judge Brown not   
   dismissing Igor's damages claim and he cross-claimed for   
   restitution.   
      
   Everyone waited to see what happened to Harris' appeal. When   
   they dismissed the claim for restitution of the full term   
   and granted the Crown's motion to dismiss on bogus reasons,   
   Igor with his appeal upcoming has filed a motion to permit a   
   Supplentary Memorandum with the Harris appeal canards   
   rebutted.   
      
   The Crown objects to letting Igor's new arguments in saying   
   they're the same as Jeff's arguments. Har har har. So here   
   is his reply:   
      
   Igor Mozajko   
   Respondent (Cross-Appellant)   
      
   Monday Jan 20 2019   
   VIA FACSIMILE   
      
   Court Administrator:   
   Federal Court of Appeal   
      
   RE: Mozajko v. HMTQ No: A-339-18   
      
   Please place this letter as the Respondent/Cross-Appellant's   
   Reply in the motion for an extension of time to file a   
   Supplementary Memorandum in my appeal. Due to my physical   
   handicaps and constraints making personal service of paper   
   documentation difficult, I would ask for a Direction   
   allowing for service and filing of this reply by fax and for   
   any extension of time or other relief this Court may find   
   just.   
      
   In Paragraph 24, the Defendant states that I have not   
   provided any reasonable reason for the delay in filing the   
   Supplementary Memorandum (Appellant's Record Ex. "S").   
      
   The memorandum was supplementary because I had adopted the   
   Harris Memorandum (Appellant's Record Ex. "T") while the   
   Harris appeal was pending. The Crown did not pursue   
   dismissal of my appeal for lack of memorandum and waited for   
   the Harris appeal to be adjudicated, as did I. Paragraph 11   
   of my Supplementary Memorandum does explain how I had waited   
   to find out how the Harris Memorandum I had adopted had   
   fared.   
      
   In paragraph 25, the Defendant argues I have not identified   
   any manifest error in the Harris decision.   
      
   My Supplementary Memorandum claims to have identified   
   several manifest errors in the Harris decision that should   
   be adjudged:   
   PART II - ISSUES:   
   A) RESPONDENT'S REMEDY (A) ISSUES:   
   1) RIGHT TO GROW ESTABLISHED BY LEGISLATION   
   2) AFFORDABILITY AND STRAINS ALTERNATIVES   
   3) INEVITABLE DELAY V. ADDITIONAL DELAY   
   4) ACMPR v. CANNABIS ACT & REGULATIONS   
   B) CROSS-APPELLANT'S REMEDY (B) ISSUE:   
   1) (B) RESTITUTION REMEDY APPEAL WAS NOT ADJUDGED   
      
   In paragraph 26, Appellant states I incorrectly suggest   
   Harris failed to address the full term of the period issue   
   and that the Court had referred to it.   
      
   But the Court did not discuss it nor rule on it in their   
   final judgment.   
      
   In paragraph 28, the Crown states there is no evidence   
   Harris or Mozajko ever filed a claim concerning processing   
   time under the Cannabis Regulations.   
      
   Paragraph 28 of the Supplementary Memorandum prints the   
   actual final paragraph of the new claim after Judge Brown   
   ordered the amendment of "ACMPR" to "Cannabis Act &   
   Regulations." How could the Crown not know that Judge Brown   
   had amended claims against the ACMPR to now claim against   
   the Cannabis Act & Regulations? How can they keep forgetting   
   we've been off the ACMPR regime since the Cannabis Act   
   regime was passed? They put in the wrong version of the   
   Statement of Claim and trying to now deny Judge Brown   
   ordered the amendment verges on the silly.   
      
   In paragraph 27, the Crown states my arguments are the same   
   as those advanced by Harris in the Harris appeal.   
      
   As shown above, there are new arguments against the Harris   
   decision which the Respondent/Cross-Appellant is relying on.   
   The arguments in the Supplementary Memorandum are not the   
   same as those that were adopted from the Harris Memorandum.   
   The Supplementary Memorandum notes that the restitution of   
   the full term of the period was not dealt with in Harris and   
   I want it dealt with for me.   
      
   In paragraph 29 the Appellant states that I have failed to   
   show any merit in the cross-appeal over restitution of the   
   full term. I'm not trying to show merit in the full term   
   issue, that's for the appeal, I'm trying to show that it was   
   not dealt with in Harris decision and should be for me.   
      
   In paragraph 30, the Appellant asks for dismissal of the   
   motion to extend the time and of the cross-appeal. If they   
   can't ask for the granting of their appeal for lack of   
   memorandum, why should they ask for dismissal of my cross-   
   appeal for that reason? The adjudication of my cross-appeal   
   is as necessary as that of their appeal.   
   ________________________________   
   Igor Mozajko   
   CC: Jon Bricker   
      
   JCT: So now the Court decides if they go to Igor's appeal   
   without his supplementary arguments or not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)