From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   Jct: On Tuesday Feb 18 2014, Laurence Cherniak, 1st   
   President of NORML Canada, appeared before Mr. Justice   
   James O'Reilly in Federal Court in Toronto.   
      
   Here's his report.   
      
   Dear John,   
   Terry came and said I was very articulate today.   
      
   JCT: No matter how intimidated originally, mMost people who   
   know their own cases do find that they have no problem   
   articulating their cause.   
      
   A friend felt that my submissions were on a nice even keel   
   which she says helped to make it easy for Judge O'Reilly to   
   assimilate a lot of information.   
      
   James Gorham was (just) a little too repetitive.   
      
   Judge O'Reilly agreed, simply enough, with the fact that   
   (you, John, and I know, that on the surface) my case, is   
   somewhat more complicated than according to James Gorham.   
      
   I maintained that the complications came from not providing   
   the court with as much information as possible which   
   Counsel Gorham did do and that I demonstrated was true   
   regarding the 30 days that Health Canada did not reply to my   
   11 consecutive days of e-mails requesting their decision.   
      
   I am sure that Judge O'Reilly easily appreciated that I was   
   not unresponsive at that point to their giving me that   
   extra 30 days and my not replying as Counsel Gorham stated   
   and that it was myself who was having to wait for them   
   during all that time (plus) the eleven (11) consecutive   
   days of e-mails requesting their decision as one example of   
   holding back what had been transpiring...   
      
   I, otherwise, in all ways, got along with Counsel Gorham and   
   understood that he was simply doing his duty in representing   
   Health Canada (just as they had represented themselves about   
   not really being forthcoming) and that I was sure he had   
   copies of all those 11 e-mails and yet tried to tell Judge   
   O'Reilly that simple fact and rather that I had not been   
   responsive and if anything premature in filing about them   
   not replying yea or nay and merely wishing to have my   
   license expire.   
      
   Judge O'Reilly I am sure appreciated the subtle manner in   
   which I made that point while acknowledging that Counsel   
   Gorham and I had gotten along (with Counsel Gorham meanwhile   
   peacefully nodding his head in acknowledgement to Judge   
   O'Reilly.   
      
   Judge O'Reilly certainly appreciated my comment about the   
   fact that Health Canada system to do with this is a good   
   one; just not well administered.   
      
   At the end Counsel Gorham requested to be allowed to submit   
   (soon) to Judge O'Reilly their reply fax January 16th in its   
   entirety as a submission after today's proceedings.   
      
   Abigail Grimes, Registry Officer, Courts Administration   
   Service, Toronto Local Office, P: 416-973-3356, F: 416-973-   
   2154 who sat in on the proceedings was most amiable when I   
   entered and greeted me with a friendly "Well, we finally get   
   to meet".   
      
   After Counsel Gorham was allowed to offer his submission I   
   asked her if I could as well. She encouraged me to write a   
   letter requesting permission to also make a submission.   
      
   I have since this afternoon begun to make notes about what   
   was one of Counsel Gorham's main repetitiveness concerns   
   that Part "A" is as moot as Part "B".   
      
   Tomorrow I will write the letter, to Abigali Grimes, who, as   
   she told to me, to be in touch with her, regarding the style   
   and form for requesting permission to submit a letter to   
   Judge O'Reilly. With greatest of super smiling vibes to you   
   Dear John. Warmest regards and talk to you soon. Laurence.   
   ---   
      
   JCT: So the Crown Gorham did not win his motion to have both   
   heads of relief declared moot because one head of relief had   
   been satisfied.   
      
   As usual, it never really matters what was said in the   
   courtroom, Gorham could talk about all the irrelevant points   
   to do with how they finally extended the MMAR and what the   
   doctors had said all he wants but it cannot eliminate the   
   only question at issue, about the CDSA!   
      
   The judge has to prepare an Order that starts like this:   
      
   Upon the Application dated Feb 18 2014 for:   
      
   a) an Order declaring that the Letter of Exemption issued to   
   Applicant under S.56 of the CDSA does not satisfy the   
   Court's Order dated Jan 20 2014 that Applicant's   
   Authorization To Possess and Personal-Use-Production-License   
   under the MMAR shall be extended;   
      
   b) an Order of Mandamus that the original order of the court   
   dated Jan 20 2014 be complied with.   
      
   The Court hereby Orders:   
      
   Upon the provision of the extension of Applicant's ATP and   
   PUPL, the request for an Order of Mandamus in Part b) is now   
   moot.   
      
   And since Health Canada has finally complied and extended   
   the MMAR ATP and PUPL to replace the CDSA S.56 Exemption,   
   it's an implied admission that the CDSA relief had not   
   satisfied the Order of the Court if they eventually did it   
   right so I don't have to pronounce they screwed up   
   officially and cna call it moot.   
      
   Or he can declare the S.56 exemption did not satisfy the   
   Order of the Court, what was asked for.   
      
   The fact he's now stuck thinking on it is perfect. Plus if   
   he says it's moot, it's an easy and simple appeal. Laurence   
   paid to tell them they'd done it wrong and has a right to   
   have them told they'd done it wrong.   
      
   Let you know as soon as Justice O'Reilly decides to censure   
   Health Canada or not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)