From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: I went to Nova Scotia to be the expert witness in   
   Stephen Godfrey's "Mernagh Plus Why" constitutional BENO   
   challenge to prove the MMAR a Bad Exemption and quash his   
   charge as No Offence.   
      
   I flew in to Moncton early Monday morning with witness   
   Laurence Cherniak and his girlfriend Eve and we were picked   
   up by witness Stephen Burroughs who drove us out to Terry   
   Flute Wood's place.   
      
   Stephen Burroghs,  like all of Dr. Kammermans' patients   
   outside Ontario, got a letter revoking his Authorization To   
   Possess on Oct 31 and had to find a new doctor (in BC by   
   Skype) but was in penal jeopardy until he did. Had Dr.   
   Kammermans authorized Nova Scotians by Skype from Ontario,   
   no problem, but because he showed up in Nova Scotial to do   
   personal exams, that made him practice where he didn't have   
   a license! So they revoked all those exemptions! Imagine,   
   the only impropriety was the doctor visited personally and   
   there would have been none if he's stayed in Ontario. All   
   those people lost their exemptions for that inane reason!   
   Wish it was worth a judicial review. But it's a nice   
   anecdote exemplifying Health Canada's abusive mindset.   
      
   That evening, Stephen Godfrey and attorney Eugene Tan showed   
   up for a meeting of the witnesses. They included Donna Jones   
   and Cale Sutton who, with Stephen, couldn't find a doctor to   
   sign, and exemptees Debbie Stultz-Giffen, Marcel Gignac and   
   Stephen Burroughs who did but cited troubles with the MMAR.   
      
   In court on Tuesday morning, my part was to testify that   
   each tort would cause more pain than gain. The patients   
   would then testify how much. Like a vector with magnitude   
   and direction, I pointed out the logical direction and they   
   pointed out the actual magnitude of the pain.   
      
   The Crown was Doug Shatford, the same Crown in Rick   
   Simpson's Cannabis Oil case. Judge Scovil presiding.   
      
   The Crown challenged how my opinion on the odds of pain   
   being increased compared to gain could relate to the right   
   to life. And the judge didn't see the relevance of an expert   
   opinion that no DIN was going to hurt more than help, that   
   yearly renewals for permanently-ill people hurt more than it   
   helped. So "odds of survival" was barred!   
      
   But the witnesses provided the actual evidence of the pain   
   that I was not allowed to theorize! Har har har har har har.   
   Getting my opinion figured out with math that it was more   
   pain than gain may have been barred but the Crown wasn't   
   ready for the actually evidence there was more pain and no   
   gain.   
      
   I've ordered the tape of the hearing for $25, great   
   souvenir, and may have time to transcribe it, doubtful, but   
   the evidence will figure prominently in the written   
   representations!   
      
   The Judge ordered that the Defence provide written summation   
   by Feb 17, the Crown by Mar 31 and he'll hand down his   
   decision on April 24 2014.   
      
   I believe the evidence elicited allows Stephen to win the   
   Mernagh Plus "Why Doctors had No Good Reasons" hands down.   
   No rebuttal from Crown at all, though he was completely   
   unprepared compared to the two Crowns in the Spottiswood   
   challenge with reams of documentation from Health Canada on   
   every witness. Maybe Shatford wasn't too eager to invest   
   time in a losing fight late in the era.   
      
   But a Godfrey Plus win still negates the prohibitions back   
   to Aug 1 2001, Terry Parker Day, just like the first win in   
   J.P. negated the 4,000 charges withdrawn back from Oct 7   
   2003 to 2001 Aug 1 and Mernach would have negated it from   
   2010. So a win in Godfrey Plus means a lot of charges will   
   be dropped around the country and possibly expunge   
   convictions back to 2001.   
      
   Remember the consequences of the Mernagh decision. BENO: Bad   
   Exemption means No Offence dating back to while the MMAR   
   never worked, 2001. That's how big this Godfrey (Mernagh   
   Plus) really is, as big as Mernagh would have been. Check   
   out those headlines while it had not yet been overturned.   
   "Court strikes down pot prohibitions!" Then realize that   
   Godfrey  can't be overturned by the court saying "you had no   
   evidence doctors didn't have good reasons to refuse..."   
      
   I get the feeling what's been accomplished in Nova Scotia   
   and the position you're now in merits getting excited about.   
   We all lived the the great expectations for Mernagh and now   
   realize Maritimers came together in Godfrey Plus to cinch   
   their home-grown, but national too, hopes.   
      
   Now, I'm happy as heck that the "doctors had no reasons"   
   issue is proven but my focus is on winning condemnation of   
   the other 23 torts, especially those that are now also in   
   the MMPR like yearly renewals for permanent diseases (just   
   to discomfit and deter doctor capability and support), no   
   financial support by Drug Information Number, S.65 destruct   
   order if permit renewal late, etc. I just want to make sure   
   those issues are also condemned, or not, so I can write up   
   appeals So my main goal from now on is to make sure we get   
   reasons we can argue about to the north.   
      
   But I think everyone should prepare themselves for a win of   
   the same consequence as Mernagh, only stronger since you   
   fulfilled the requisites demanded by the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal to show the doctors had no good reasons. Prohibitions   
   7 and 4 on cultivation and possession declared invalid all   
   the way back to Terry Parker Day. Just like Mernagh and J.P.   
   judges did.   
      
   Most people give Hitzig credit for the dropping of the 4,000   
   charges but there would have been no Hitzig decision if   
   Parker and Turmel-Paquette had not started the appeals.   
   Hitzig was drawn in by the Crown and then the judges   
   switched the name of the case from Parker & Turmel to   
   Hitzig. And then J.P. used the Hitzig Bad Exemption for his   
   No Offence precedent, the guy charged having his charges   
   dropped because Hitzig proved the MMAR had not worked, Bad   
   Exemption means No Offence, said the JP Court of Appeal,   
   (same panel as Hitzig and Parker and Turmel) J.P. got No   
   Offence when Bad Exemption in 2003 and Mernagh got No   
   Offence when Bad Exemption in 2010. But proving Bad   
   Exemption means No Offence worked in Ontario and should work   
   in Nova Scotia. And that's big big numbers.   
      
   All I ask is that as you enjoy the potential "no doctors"   
   win, keep carping at "no DIN" and "no Permanent Permit for   
   Permanent Disease" because they'll be the issues you'll be   
   facing at Judicial Reviews in Fed Court. So build on the   
   "doctors" win while you have the limelight to help possible   
   upcoming "DIN" or "Permanents" fights. We need to champion   
   those future issues while we win "no doctors" from the past.   
      
   I'll publish both written summaries so you get an idea of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)