From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Last Tuesday Jan 14 2014, I prepared a Judicial Review   
   of Health Canada's Jan 15 2014 letter informing Laurence   
   Cherniak that he could re-apply under the MMPR after their   
   refusal. They had first sent a Letter of Intent to Refuse on   
   Nov 29 2013.   
      
   The refusal had something to do with a specialist claiming   
   he had not been consulted. Luckily, Laurence had submitted 3   
   specialists and they focused on the one. I asked him send   
   them off a letter saying something like:   
      
   "Dear Specialist:   
      
   For the past several years, I have used cannabis to treat my   
   symptoms quite successfully but my family doctor wants to be   
   assured that he has fully complied with the regulations   
   needs my specialist to provide the following information.   
      
   I want to stress that this statement has no bearing on my   
   use of cannabis, it deal strictly with your specialization   
   in conventional therapies not having proven effective. You   
   don't have to approve my use, my family doctor does, you   
   only have to concur that conventional treatments have proven   
   not effective enough.   
      
   "I, Dr. ______________________________________, specialist   
   in ______________________________________________, assessed   
   the case of Laurence Cherniak on _________________________   
   and concur that conventional treatments are ineffective or   
   inappropriate for his symptom."   
      
   Considering the success I've had with herbal treatment, I   
   cannot imagine how it could be appropriate to try new   
   chemical treatments now. Sadly, with my renewal date   
   approaching, time is of the essence and I pray  you can   
   email me such statement as soon as possible.   
      
   JCT: That should nail down whatever the problem was. We met   
   in Toronto to file the papers Tuesday morning for a hearing   
   by telephone on Friday. It was based on the lack of reasons   
   for intent but they say one of the doctors didn't concur.   
   But we're hoping they misled him into thinking he had   
   concurred on medpot use rather than on conventional   
   treatments not being good enough.   
      
   To win his case, he only needed one official statement from   
   one of the specialists; that way he could submit an amended   
   form by crossing out those any doctor whom he had not   
   obtained the statement from. So 1 doctor concurring that   
   conventional didn't work salvages the situation completely.   
   Two doctors makes Health Canada's reasons an embarrassment.   
      
   They probably tried to get non-concurrence out of all three   
   but two of three had concurred and so they picked the one of   
   three who had not to base their objection though either one   
   of the other two was sufficient. But technically, that extra   
   third was false, they'll defend, even if the required one and   
   two were not.   
      
   Best hope is that the guy who said he had not concurred had   
   been tricked into thinking it was about pot and not chems.   
   So there's also the chance he could get all three to state   
   conventional hadn't worked. Then he'd have shivved their   
   case to the point where they'll have to renew!   
      
   So if he can keep the doctors focused on the fact their   
   opinion had to do with their conventional treatment   
   specialization, not their non-conventional non-   
   specialization, he might get all three to completely shut   
   down Health Canada's case. After all, they haven't yet told   
   him which was thought he had not concurred and why not, have   
   they? And the fact they say 1 doctor looks good for the   
   other 2.   
      
   Regardless, I'm going in on a first challenge against the   
   "Intent" to decide ploy. There's a section that lets them to   
   that and I'd like to challenge it as a sleazy move,   
   especially since, in Laurence's case, we can see they don't   
   tell him what was wrong and he's expected to guess and cover   
   all bases again. Sleazy and they're caught. Stinks always   
   helps the case.   
      
   He'll be seeking the exemption extension pending the   
   decision on the reasons they say they have to say no. He   
   tried 10 times to get an answer he could judicially review   
   and it looks like it's the "intent to refuse then wait for   
   expiry" game.   
      
   And seeking an extension simply because their refusal to   
   decide gave him less time to shut down the wonderful grow   
   he had engineered over the years with undue haste.   
      
   So the torts are the ambiguity of the allegation against   
   his doctor and waiting for expiry rather than issue a   
   refusal with the required reasons!   
      
   They know it's an attack on his doctor and they really   
   don't want to get into that, they only want to hurt him   
   using the allegation they never expect to bring before a   
   court against a real doctor. Especially if they already know   
   2 of 3 had concurred that conventional wasn't enough.   
      
   So he focused on building the cards in his hand, trips is   
   cinch and exposes their fraud! Their fraud is suggested by   
   omitting details and hoping expiry works like it has so   
   often for others in the past!!!!! That's why I want to   
   challenge the policy of "intent to refuse." How many people   
   have you sent an "intent to refuse" with no details who   
   never figured out what was wrong and whose application then   
   expired? would be a great question to ask on Discovery of   
   Mr. Proulx. Because remember, once he starts this, he's   
   going to have Louis under oath!!! Har har har har har har.   
      
   If extension isn't won in Round 1, we file Round 2 motion   
   based on S.65 Destruct Order to be heard on the last Friday   
   Jan 24 before D-Day, 8-Life-Sentence Threat Day! Should be   
   quite the theatrics possible.   
      
   That's the plan so far, but pursuant to my ethos of "Winning   
   Through Intimidation," (check out the book, I don't   
   recommend many) I'll be searching for extra ways to hurt   
   Louis in between.   
      
   Later on Tuesday, the Attorney General filed a Response.   
   James Gorham is the Crown Attorney, a nice fellow, won't be   
   sleazy, he's on the civil side of prosecution, and has laid   
   out their losing cards as best he could.   
      
   CR:          RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   PART I - OVERVIEW AND FACTS   
      
   A. OVERVIEW   
      
   1. The Applicant, Mr. Cherniak, has brought an Application   
   for Judicial Review of a purported refusal of his   
   application to renew his Authorization to Possess dried   
   marijuana for medical purposes, and a correspondent licence   
   to produce marihuana for personal use.   
   In addition, the Applicant has brought the motion here in,   
   on an urgent basis, seeking the following relief:   
   - an extension of Applicant's MMAR exemption which expires   
   Jan 26 2013 under prevailing conditions pending resolution   
   of this judicial review; or in the alternative,   
   - a personal constitutional exemption under prevailing   
   conditions from the S.7 and S.4 prohibitions on production   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)