From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: In my last post on the 150-gram cap challenge, I   
   mentioned Jeff Harris, Lead Plaintiff for 36 high-dose   
   plaintiffs, had reached the Supreme Court of Canada with   
   this introduction:   
      
   TURMEL: Harris 150-gram cap exemption to Supreme Court   
   https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.john-turmel/c/UXF5_b7UNnw/m/yz0hNLltCAAJ   
   In 2014, Federal Court Justice Manson changed the possession   
   limit from "30-day supply" like all other drugs to "30-day   
   supply to a max of 150 grams."   
   In 2015, 4 high-dosers from BC were granted an exemption to   
   carry a 10-day supply in "Garber."   
   Last year, Federal Court Judge Brown dismissed a Crown   
   motion to strike Lead Plaintiff Jeff Barris' action to   
   strike the 150-gram cap leaving the 30-day supply and   
   granted Jeff an interim exemption to carry a 10-day supply   
   like Garber.   
   This year, the Federal Court of Appeal (Woods, Pelletier,   
   Gauthier) overturned the decision to allow the action to   
   strike the cap to proceed and cancelled the interim 10-day   
   supply exemption.   
      
   JCT: The neat part is they did not comment on the Garber   
   precedent being relied on. Keep in mind, another Superior   
   Court judge with the same power as a Federal Court judge to   
   strike down bad laws granted exemptions to this bad law. And   
   now so did Brown. And then these three higher judges   
   overturned Brown without explaining why he was wrong to   
   follow Cullen in Garber. About as shady a duck possible.   
   The arguments I prepared:   
      
   B) "AUTHORIZATION" AND "DOSAGE" ARE SUFFICIENT FACTS   
      
   15. Judge Brown noted that he only needed to know that   
   Harris was Authorized for 100 grams/day like Boivin to find   
   the same relevant facts were sufficient too. Of course, many   
   irrelevant personal facts must differ. Because both Harris   
   and Boivin suffered the exact same oppression due to the   
   exact same dosage, Judge Brown found the relevant facts on   
   all fours and granted the same remedy as granted to Boivin   
   by Cullen J. Yet this court says the facts were not   
   sufficient to reach those conclusions.   
      
   JCT: They said they didn't seen enough facts after the first   
   judges had said they did!   
      
   C) GARBER V. HMTQ IS VALID PRECEDENT   
      
   16. The purpose of a precedent is to set out how a situation   
   should be handled. Brown accepted Garber as a valid   
   precedent with the same facts and thus ruled the same.   
      
   17. Garber provided all the personal patient testimony   
   showing the effects of the unconstitutional deprivations   
   from the cap on high-dosers. Garber had the Manson Allard   
   interim decision imposing the 150 gram cap based on Health   
   Canada estimates of between 1-3 grams/day, 2g/day average!   
   In the same paragraph, noting the actual prescribed Canadian   
   average dosage was 17.7 grams/day!. The cap was based on an   
   average 9 times too low.   
      
   18. Though the Applicant's requested exemption was exactly   
   "substantially the same" as the exemption granted to Boivin   
   in Garber which was based on extensive evidence showing   
   their medical circumstances, etc., The Crown noted in their   
   Memorandum Para. 93:   
       93. The Motions Judge also noted the requested exemption   
       was "substantially the same" as the exemption granted in   
       Garber. However, Garber is distinguishable. It was based   
       on extensive evidence from the Garber plaintiffs   
       concerning  their medical circumstances, their   
       experience using cannabis and other treatments, and how   
       they were personally affected by the possession limits   
       pending trial. There was no similar evidence in this   
       case.   
      
   19. Judge Brown did not need to hear evidence of the same   
   effects of the cap on the same dosage patient again. Knowing   
   the Days Equation works the same for both patient facts, he   
   could follow the Garber Precedent. Judge Brown did not need   
   to hear all the woes again, he had read them. With a   
   precedent, the Court of Appeal shouldn't need the personal   
   details either. Yet the Court of Appeal has ruled failure to   
   proffer similar personal evidence of those same woes is   
   fatal to the cause in this court if successful in B.C.   
      
   20. The Court did not address the Garber decision and chose   
   to focus on other decisions unrelated to the 150-gram cap.   
   The Court notes the ample detail provided in Parker and   
   Allard whose personal deprivations have nothing to do with   
   any dosage cap at all while failing to heed the Garber   
   precedent which did deal with the dosage cap!   
      
   21. The Court fails to deal with the Garber decision of   
   Cullen J which is most on all fours with this case. He   
   looked at patient evidence and found the cap an   
   unconstitutional violation not in accordance with   
   fundamental justice which he remedied. Justice Brown looked   
   at the same relevant facts (minus the personal same woes)   
   and found the cap an unconstitutional violation not in   
   accordance with fundamental justice which he remedied in   
   exactly the same way as was remedied in Garber.   
      
   22. Without any reasons, this Court rules Cullen J. was   
   wrong in Garber and Brown J. in error to follow the Garber   
   Precedent.   
      
   23. Justices Cullen granted remedy from the unconstitutional   
   deprivation he found the cap imposed on a 100 gram/day   
   patient and Justice Brown ruled there was a chance the   
   deprivation he found the cap imposed on his 100 gram/day   
   patient might be ruled unconstitutional too.   
      
   24. Justices Woods, Pelletier and Gauthier say there is zero   
   chance of Federal Court finding similar deprivations without   
   citing any error in Justice Cullen's decision. They   
   completely contradicted a precedent Brown J. followed   
   without giving any reason why Garber should not have been   
   followed.   
      
   JCT: You have to admit, it's a beautiful case. They focused   
   on Parker and Allard and missed Garber! Har har har har har   
   har. Two judges in two jurisdictions, federal and provincial   
   superior, say the law is bad and these three feds say their   
   fed judge was wrong to follow the Provincial Superior judge   
   without saying why!   
      
   Sadly, there were a couple of foul-ups. I put the wrong   
   Section number on one document header, and Jeff didn't   
   include all the transcripts. I had assured Jeff that you   
   just had to get the Application filed and they'd then give   
   you time to fix any errors or omissions. So they wrote back   
   telling us the change and the missing but also requested a   
   motion for an extension of time.   
      
   This was kind of new. I have been late in submitting an   
   Application, Jeff was not, and had been forced to include   
   the motion for the extension of time which are inevitably   
   granted by the Court in dismissing the application.   
   "Extension of time granted, application dismissed" was the   
   standard format. But some earlier medpot applicants had   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)