From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: A few years ago, Stephen Godfrey was charge with   
   cultivating and possessing cannabis and filed my self-   
   defence kits. Hits Quash Motion was dismissed and will be   
   appealed within the appeal of any conviction. Next up is his   
   constitutional motion for Jan 21-22 2014 in Halifax.   
      
   Stephen managed to get himself a lawyer, Eugene Tan, willing   
   to argue the constitutional motion for him. So on Jan 21,   
   I'll be giving expert evidence that the Stephen's odds of   
   survival are harmed rather than helped by the two dozen   
   different flaws in the MMAR torting him. I just establish   
   that it should hurt rather than help, then the patient   
   witnesses testify with their experiences proving the trend.   
      
   Right now, there aren't too many patient witnesses who have   
   completed "Will Say" so they can testify. I'm calling on   
   Nova Scotia MMAR exemptees as well as any who could not be   
   exempted to testify they were refused by their doctor for   
   non-medical reasons, to fill write up a Will Say of what   
   they can testify to.   
   Here is Stephen's Motion with the list of torts. Just make a   
   copy and input a short note on what you Will Say on it.   
      
                 Provincial Court of Nova Scotia   
                           (at Amherst)   
      
      
   Between   
                         Stephen Godfrey   
                                              Applicant/Accused   
      
                             - and -   
      
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
           NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE   
                    Pursuant to S.8(2)(a) of the   
                    Constitutional Question Act   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on Aug 15 2013 the Accused will bring an   
   application at the courthouse at Amherst N.C. 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   
   d) "Not All" doctors participate   
   e) Delay in processing ATPs   
   f) Delays in ATP renewals   
   g) Delays in ATP amendments to documentation   
   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) S.2 prohibiting removal of impurities   
   m) No bulk grow means no respite   
   n) Help prohibited   
   o) Cash costs for doctor participation   
   q) No exchanging different strains for different pains   
   r) Number of plants the wrong parameter   
   s) High-cost chemicals v. Low-cost herbals   
   t) Phone calls urging doctors lower dosages   
   u) Five million Canadians do not have family doctors   
   v) Stress from MMAR defects   
   w) 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 pursuant to R.   
   v. J.P.(2003);   
      
   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) S.2 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) Help prohibited to Personal User Production Licensee   
   impedes supply violating the Right to Life;   
      
   o) Cash costs to get doctor to fill out MMAR forms impede   
   access violating the Right to Life;   
      
   q) No exchanging to find different strains for different   
   pains impeding effectiveness and violating the Right to   
   Life;   
      
   r) Number of plants the wrong parameter: Different strains   
   provide different yields making the number of plants the   
   wrong main limiting factor to impede supply and violate the   
   Right to Life;   
      
   s) 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;   
      
   t) phone calls from Health Canada non-doctors to urge   
   doctors to lower dosages violates the Right to Primary;   
      
   u) 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;   
      
   v) stress caused by all these defects in the MMAR exemption   
   process violates the Right to Life.   
      
   w) 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)