From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Letter to Court on Crown's sleazy stays   
      
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
   50 Brant Ave.,   
   Brantford, N3T 3G7,   
   Tel/Fax: 519-753-5122,   
   Cell: 519-717-1012   
   Email: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   Mar 10 2014   
      
   BY FACSIMILE   
      
   Federal Court   
   90 Sparks St., 5th floor,   
   Ottawa, ON, K1A 0H9   
      
   Attention: Court Administration Services   
      
   Re: TURMEL v. Canada   
   Federal Court File No. T-488-14   
      
   Dear Sir or Madam:   
      
   1. On Mar 7 2014, the Crown faxed a submission to the Court   
   that the motion of Ray Turmel not be scheduled until the   
   motion in Allard is adjudicated to avoid multiplicity of   
   hearings and as being "likely to be lengthy and   
   inappropriate for general sittings."   
      
   2. Though the Crown's fax indicates a Carbon Copy to the   
   Plaintiff, that copy was improperly served by courier and   
   not by fax so that Plaintiff received it too late, Monday   
   Mar 10 2014, to respond before the Crown's ex-parte request   
   was granted.   
      
   3. My Statement of Claim has also been stayed pending   
   adjudication of the Allard Motion because it is based "on   
   the very same issues."   
      
   4. The Allard Claim represents the interests of the   
   COALITION AGAINST MMAR REPEAL who possess Authorizations To   
   Possess ("ATPs") under the Medical Marijuana Access   
   Regulations ("MMAR"). They seek to render the Marijuana for   
   Medical Purposes Regulations ("MMPR") constitutionally   
   viable by striking down 4 constitutional deficiencies   
   therein or for an extension of the MMAR and its associated   
   privileges.   
      
   5. Plaintiffs who have no ATP and I ("NATPs) under the MMAR   
   cannot be seeking the same heads of relief to upgrade the   
   MMPR or extend the deficient MMAR as the ATPs who do!   
      
   6. Plaintiff Terry Parker whose Ontario Court of Appeal   
   ruling compelled the government to enact a constitutionally   
   viable medical exemption to the prohibitions has epilepsy   
   and has never been able to comply under the MMAR. He and   
   other Plaintiffs with medical documentation but no doctors   
   to sign cannot be seeking to correct the MMPR nor extend the   
   MMAR which they cannot even access.   
      
   7. Yes, some Plaintiff's with ATPs may benefit from having   
   their exemptions extended under the deficient MMAR, but   
   whatever comes of the ATPs case has nothing to do with my   
   case. After all, they are AGAINST REPEAL and we are FOR   
   REPEAL! And "absent a constitutionally viable medical   
   exemption," the prohibitions against marijuana in the CDSA   
   cannot have force or effect.   
      
   8. ATPs, to be satisfied with the MMPR regime, ask to   
   strike:   
   a) prohibition on non-dried forms of cannabis,   
   b) prohibition on production in a dwelling;   
   c) prohibition on outdoor production;   
   d) prohibition on possessing and dealing more than 150g.   
      
   9. NATPs, to never be satisfied with the regime, raise these   
   other 16 constitutional deficiencies:   
   1) Require recalcitrant doctor;   
   2) Not provide DIN (Drug Identification Number);   
   3) Require annual renewals for permanent diseases;   
   4) Require unused cannabis to be destroyed;   
   5) Refusal or cancellation for non-medical reasons;   
   6) Health Canada feedback to doctors on dosages;   
   7) Not provide instantaneous online processing;   
   8) Not have resources to handle large demand;   
   a) 9) Prohibit non-dried forms of cannabis;   
   10) Not exempt from CDSA S.5.;   
   11) ATP valid solely as "medical document";   
   12) Licensed Producer may cancel for "business reason";   
   13) Prohibit return of medical document to cancelee;   
   b) 14) Prohibit production in a dwelling;   
   c) 15) Prohibits outdoor production;   
   16) Not protect rights to brand genetics;   
   17) Not remove financial barriers;   
   18) Not provide central registry for police verification;   
   19) Not have enough Licensed Producers to supply demand;   
   d) 20) Prohibit processing > 150 grams.   
      
   10. While the ATPs seek to have the MMPR amended by striking   
   the constitutional deficiencies, we seek to have the MMPR   
   declared invalid because of the many more deficiencies to   
   the point the regime is so full of holes, it is in effect   
   invalidated.   
      
   11. Yes, we have raised the 4 mini-torts raised by Conroy   
   with our other 32 constitutional violations alleged so   
   though it may be said that we NATPs have raised the same 4   
   issues, it cannot be said the ATPs raised our same 36   
   issues! They really address only 4 of our concerns.   
      
   12. With respect to the issue of the 150 grams, the ATPs   
   attempt to prove the limit is "too unreasonable" whereas I   
   have the statistical evidence to prove that it is "too   
   fraudulent." I've emailled Health Canada twice requesting   
   the names of the surveys and the peer-reviews journals that   
   so deviated from the published mean rate of use per day with   
   no response. I don't want the issue of their fraudulent   
   limit mooted by a ruling on its unreasonableness.   
      
   13. So their motion striking down a few MMPR flaws doesn't   
   make our motion to declare the whole MMPR invalid due the   
   sum total 20 flaws moot but our motion would make their   
   motion moot. Plaintiff must submit that the Allard Motion   
   subsumed in Plaintiff's motion is the one that should have   
   been stayed.   
      
   14. Though the ATPs seek to have the MMAR extended, AGAINST   
   REPEAL, Plaintiffs FOR MMAR REPEAL raise the singular   
   deficiencies in the still-current MMAR untouched upon by the   
   Allard Plaintiffs that number 16:   
   1) Require recalcitrant doctor;   
   2) Not provide DIN (Drug Identification Number);   
   3) Require annual renewals for permanent diseases;   
   4) Require cannabis to be destroyed;   
   5) Refusal or cancellation for non-medical reasons;   
   6) Health Canada feedback to doctors on dosages;   
   7) Not provide instantaneous online processing;   
   8) Not have resources to handle large demand;   
   9) Prohibit non-dried forms of cannabis;   
   10) Not exempt from CDSA S.5.;   
   11) Require a specialist consultation;   
   12) Require conventional treatments be inappropriate;   
   13) Prohibit more than 2 licenses/grower;   
   14) Prohibit more than 4 licenses/site;   
   15) Number of plants limit improper;   
   16) Not allow any gardening help.   
      
   15. Plaintiff's do not need the allegations of   
   constitutional violations in the MMAR mooted by the end of   
   the regime on Mar 31 2014 and have a right to challenge its   
   constitutionality while it is still in force.   
      
   16. Rule 34 says that we have a right to be heard at General   
   Sittings if it's appropriate and booked 2 days in advance   
   for weekly or 7 days in advance for monthly general   
   sittings. Plaintiffs filed with more than 7 days notice for   
   monthly general sittings in Halifax and with than 2 days   
   notice for weekly General Sittings in Ottawa, Vancouver and   
   Toronto. Rule 34.(2) says General Sittings may be cancelled   
   if no notice of motion has been filed. Our Notices of Motion   
   were filed in sufficient time.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)