ba3070c9   
   XPost: alt.fan.john-turmel, can.politics, alt.drugs   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy   
   From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: After much pre-trial discussions, I redrafted Mike's   
   Application for Constitutional Question and Factum for only   
   the points we have witnesses for and dropped a few others.   
   This will be the next constay.doc kit going up for the next   
   person to use.   
      
   File No.: 10948   
                    SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO   
   Between   
                      Michael K. Spottiswood   
                                              Applicant/Accused   
                             - and -   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
           NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE   
                    Pursuant to S.8(2)(a) of the   
                    Constitutional Question Act   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on Jan 21 2013 or as soon as possible   
   thereafter will be heard the Application by the Accused at   
   the courthouse at London for an Order:   
      
   A) declaring the MMAR unconstitutional for:   
      
   a) Section 32(e) limiting exemptees per gardener;   
   b) Section 32(d) limiting gardeners per site;   
   c) S.65(1) forcing exemptees to destroy their medication   
   when Health Canada is late in renewing exemption;   
   d) "Not All" doctors participate   
   e) Delay in processing ATPs   
   f) Delays in ATP renewals   
   g) Delays in ATP amendments   
   h) Delays in RCMP criminal record checks for growers   
   i) Inability to exempt Canada's epileptic 400K population   
   j) No DIN (Drug Identification Number) for financial support   
   k) Unreasonable yearly renewals for permanently ill   
   l) Prohibiting removal of impurities   
   m) No bulk grow means no respite   
   n) Too much info on exemption card   
   q) Cash costs for doctor participation   
   r) 3% Health Canada strain not medicinal enough   
   s) No exchanging different strains for different pains   
   t) Number of plants as parameter   
   u) High-cost chemicals v. Low-cost herbals   
   v) Phone calls urging doctors lower dosages   
   w) Five million Canadians do not have family doctors   
   x) Stress from MMAR defects   
   z) Doctors as gatekeepers, patients decide   
      
   B) declaring the S.4(1) and S.7(1) CDSA prohibitions on   
   marijuana possession and cultivation of no force and effect   
   while the MMAR exemption is unconstitutional;   
      
   C) staying the charges against the accused.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging the time for service, filing, or   
   hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to   
   form or content of the application, or for any Order deemed   
   just.   
      
   THE GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION:   
      
   A) THAT THE MMAR ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL are that:   
      
   a) just as Sfetkopoulos completely removed the limit on   
   Authorisations To Possess ("ATP") per gardener in MMAR   
   S.41(b.1) for being unconstitutionally limiting, so too,   
   raising the old limit of 1 to the new limit of 2 exemptees   
   per gardener in MMAR S.32(e) remains contemptuously as   
   unconstitutionally limiting;   
   b) just as Beren completely removed the limit on gardeners   
   per site in MMAR S.54(1) for being unconstitutionally   
   limiting, so too, raising the old limit of 3 to the new   
   limit of 4 gardeners per site in MMAR S.32(d) remains   
   contemptuously just as unconstitutionally limiting;   
   c) the forced destruction of the exemptee's medical supply   
   when Health Canada is late in renewals is an   
   unconstitutional threat to the right to life;   
   d) the opting out of an almost total majority of doctors is   
   an unconstitutional violation of Applicant's Right to Life;   
   e) the months and years it takes to process applications for   
   an exemption is an unconstitutional violation of Applicant's   
   Section 7 Charter Right to Life;   
   f) the weeks it takes to process ATP renewals is a violation   
   of the Right to Life;   
   g) the weeks delay for amendment processing violates the   
   Right to Life;   
   h) the 6-8 months for an RCMP criminal record check for   
   growers impedes supply and violates the Right to Life;   
   i) the for inability to exempt Canada's 400,000 epileptic   
   population means the MMAR was never workable violating all   
   their Right to Life;   
   j) failure to provide a DIN to enable the same financial   
   support as for any other prescribed medication violates the   
   Right to Life;   
   k) MMAR unreasonably compelling yearly renewals for those   
   with permanent diseases violates the right against arbitrary   
   treatment under S.15 of the Charter;   
   l) MMAR prohibiting the removal of impurities to obtain the   
   remaining hash and oil violates the right to the best   
   medicine;   
   m) no respite from growing full-time, can't grow and save   
   bulk, impedes supply violating the Right to Life;   
   n) Too much info on exemption card   
   q) Cash costs to get doctor to fill out MMAR forms impede   
   access violating the Right to Life;   
   r) Health Canada's 3% strain is recreational, not medicinal,   
   impeding effectiveness and violating the Right to Life;   
   s) No exchanging to find different strains for different   
   pains impeding effectiveness and violating the Right to   
   Life;   
   t) Different strains provide different yields making the   
   number of plants the wrong main limiting factor to impede   
   supply and violate the Right to Life;   
   u) Financial advantage lost by not getting patients off   
   high-cost chemical drugs onto low-cost herbal medications   
   impedes access by poor patients violating the Right to Life;   
   v) phone calls from Health Canada non-doctors to urge   
   doctors to lower dosages violates the Right to Primary;   
   w) Five million Canadians do not have doctors and cannot   
   avail themselves of the program when it might be most suited   
   violating their Right to Life;   
   x) stress caused by all these defects in the MMAR exemption   
   process violates the Right to Life.   
   z) Morgentaler, Parker, Krieger, all say the patient   
   decides, no gatekeepers.   
      
   B) THE GROUNDS THAT THE S.4 & S.7 PROHIBITIONS ON MARIHUANA   
   POSSESSION AND CULTIVATION ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL are that   
   pursuant to Parker and Krieger, the J.P. Court ruled   
   possession and cultivation offences are valid while there is   
   a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption in force and   
   not valid otherwise;   
      
   THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES TO BE RAISED ARE WHETHER:   
      
   a) the new limit of 2 ATPs per gardener in S.32(e) is as   
   unconstitutionally limiting as the old limit of 1 in   
   S.41(b.1) that was declared unconstitutional in   
   Sfetkopoulos?   
   b) the new limit of 4 gardeners per site in S.32(d) is as   
   unconstitutionally limiting as the old limit of 3 declared   
   unconstitutional in Beren?   
   c) destroying exemptees store of medication when a renewal   
   is late violates exemptees right to life?   
   d) letting an almost total majority of doctors opt out is an   
   unconstitutional violation of Applicant's Right to Life?   
   e) the failure to provide a prompt Authorization is an   
   unconstitutional violation of the S.7 Charter Right to Life?   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)