From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Court's medical opinion differs with doctor's on medpot   
      
   JCT: Motions had been properly served and filed in Ottawa on   
   Aug 8 2013 by Tony Van Edig and then in Edmonton on Aug 9 by   
   Elisha McDermott with evidence their doctor recommended   
   using their increased prescriptions "right away" and "as   
   soon as possible!"   
      
   Registry clerk Marc Cossette called to say that the Trial   
   Coordinator had rejected the filing because Tony's demand   
   was essentially similar to his previous three demands   
   (without the doctor support) which were put off to later   
   General Sittings of the court as non-urgent.   
      
   I pointed out how Justice deMontigny had said Tony's motion   
   had lacked doctor support and now he had it. It didn't   
   matter, the clerk had ruled and that was it. I asked for a   
   copy of the ruling and was told there would none! It just   
   wasn't going to get in! We'll see. I drafted a letter to the   
   Chief Justice of the Federal Court:   
      
   Tony Van Edig   
      
   Aug 9 2013   
      
   Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton   
   Federal Court of Canada   
   90 Sparks St. Ottawa   
      
   My Lord:   
      
   1. When I received my renewal for amended ATP for an   
   increased dosage of medical marijuana from 8gm/day to   
   12gm/day, it had been post-dated to Aug 27 2013.   
      
   2. On July 16 2013, I attempted to file a Notice of Motion   
   for a constitutional exemption to take my medicine right   
   away until Aug 16 2013 and received the Direction of   
   Aronovitch P.:   
   "The relief sought is not clear. A complete motion record   
   has not been presented for filing and the urgency of the   
   motion has not been demonstrated. Do not accept the notice   
   of motion for filing returnable  at General Sittings."   
      
   3. On July 24 2013, after 5 weeks without my new   
   prescription, I filed a Judicial Review of the policy of   
   non-instantaneous updating of Health Canada database   
   information and a short-notice motion on the urgent need to   
   start my prescription immediately; by telephone or at   
   General Sittings July 31 2013. Later that day, I received   
   the Direction of Tabib, P.:   
   The urgency is not sufficiently demonstrated. The motion   
   shall be heard at the next available general sittings, that   
   is, Aug 13 at Montreal or Aug 14 at Ottawa, as the Applicant   
   may advise at least 5 clear days before the date selected by   
   the Applicant."   
      
   4. The next day, Health Canada informed me that my Amended   
   ATP had been issued but post-dated to Aug 27 2013, the date   
   my old prescription expired.   
      
   5. On July 25, I filed a Notice of Motion for a   
   constitutional exemption to take my medicine right away and   
   received the Direction of Mr. Justice Montigny:   
   ".. the urgency of this motion has not been demonstrated.   
   There is no evidence from the Applicant's doctor supporting   
   his request..."   
      
   6. On Aug 8 2013, having obtained the evidence of Dr. Cindy   
   Shaw supporting my request and thus complied with the   
   requirement of Justice Montigny, I filed another Motion to   
   start my medicine "right away."   
      
   7. Marc Cossette of the Registry informed me that fulfilling   
   the requirement of Justice Montigny had not been enough, the   
   Trial Coordinator had handed down a decision that the Motion   
   supported by my doctor was essentially similar to my Motion   
   supported only by me and rejected the hearing.   
      
   8. I am further informed that my Motion will not be signed   
   off on, just disallowed. No document to appeal.   
      
   9. I complied with the Court's demand and don't think I   
   should have to convince the clerk that that a demand   
   supported by my doctor is essentially different from a   
   demand supported by only me. I cannot fathom how the clerk   
   sees no difference between a motion supported by my doctor   
   (as required) and a motion supported only by me; but would   
   submit that such a clerk shouldn't be making decisions in   
   the name of the court.   
      
   10. Because my documentation was proper, my affidavit   
   contained the new required information, I request my motion   
   be slated for hearing by telephone "right away."   
   Anthony Van Edig   
      
   JCT: That afternoon, we got this response:   
      
   court File No: T-1271-13   
   Between Anthony Van Edig v. Attorney General for Canada   
      
   Further to the Applicant's motion dated August 8 2013, the   
   Court (deMontigny J.) has on today's date directed:   
   "The new motion record should be accepted for filing and   
   inquiry should be made with the Attorney General with a view   
   to determining if they intend to make Representations before   
   this matter is reconsidered by a duty judge."   
      
   JCT: Okay, so it's Friday night and it looks like Mr.   
   Prefontaine is going to be working late. After all, it's for   
   "as soon thereafter as can be heard the motion" and that's   
   as fast as they get their answer in. Pretty fast:   
      
   From: "Prefontaine, Alain"    
   Date: 9 August, 2013 6:27:28 PM EDT   
   Subject: RE: T-1271-13 - representations of the respondent   
      
   This is further to Mr. Justice de Montigny's direction,   
   issued earlier today. I enclose the respondent's   
   representations on the alleged urgency of the motion for   
   interlocutory relief.   
   Alain Prefontaine   
   Director General and Senior General Counsel Civil Litigation   
      
   Re: Van Edig v. AGC T-1271-13   
      
   Representations - urgency of motion for interlocutory relief   
      
   AP: This is in response to the direction issued today by   
   Mr. Justice deMontigny asking the respondent if he intends   
   to make representations as to the urgency of the motion for   
   interlocutory relief filed earlier today by Mr. Van Edig. I   
   pray that you forward this letter to the duty judge:   
      
   "Representations   
   There is no urgency to this matter. The Applicant is   
   presently authorized to possess 20 times more marijuana than   
   what his doctor recommends he consume per day.   
      
   JCT: Don't you hate it when math rejects try lawying to us   
   with algebra! Tony is still under his old exemption up until   
   Aug 27 during which he may consume 8 grams per day from his   
   authorized 240 gram 30-day monthly supply. Dividing the 240   
   grams by 8 grams comes to 30 days worth, not 20 days. So   
   what he means is that his old monthly quota will still last   
   him 20 days at the higher dosage even if not all 30! He   
   divided the old 240 gram limit he can grow by Tony's new   
   dosage of 12 grams to get the fact it will last 20 days   
   instead of 30 days!   
      
   AP: Comes August 27th, he will be authorized to possess 30   
   times more marijuana than what his doctor recommends he   
   consumer per day.   
      
   JCT: Come Aug 27, he'll be allowed to grow a month's worth   
   of marijuana to last 30 days under his new limit but until   
   then, he can use his medicine up 50% faster than he grows   
   it. When he is authorized to use 12 grams per day, he will   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)