From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: MMPR Federal Court MedPot Gold Star Team Updates   
      
   JCT: When we all started filing our Statements of Claim, most   
   filed motions for hearing at General Sittings slated for Tues   
   Mar 11 in Toronto and Wed Mar 12 in Halifax, Ottawa, Vancouver.   
   Others provinces had to request a special sitting. When our   
   motions were all stayed, I prepared an appeal. Here was the   
   Affidavit I was preparing for a Motion for interim exemption for   
   personal medical use to the Federal Court of Appeal they   
   wouldn't hear below. Of course, I introduce stuff only I was   
   privy to!!   
      
                         APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT   
      
   1. I am one of numerous Canadians asking Federal Court for an   
   interim  constitutional exemption to use cannabis for personal   
   medical purposes pending the trial of our Statements of Claim.   
      
   2. On Jan 26 2014 2014 I filed File Number T-488-14 Statement of   
   Claim against Her Majesty The Queen for:   
      
   "A) A Declaration pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Canadian   
   Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) for an Order:   
   A1) that the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR) that   
   came into force on Jul 30 2001 and the Marihuana for Medical   
   Purposes Regulations (MMPR) that came into force on June 19,   
   2013, (and run concurrently with the MMAR until March 31, 2014   
   when the MMAR will be repealed by the MMPR) are unconstitutional   
   and not saved by S.1 of the Charter in that the s. 7 Charter   
   constitutional right of a medically needy patient to reasonable   
   access to his/her medicine by way of a safe and continuous   
   supply consistent with the S.7 Charter right is unreasonably   
   restricted by the impediments to access and/or supply in the   
   MMAR and/or MMPR;   
      
   A2) and that, "absent a constitutionally acceptable medical   
   exemption," the prohibitions on marihuana in the Controlled   
   Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) are invalid and the word   
   "marijuana" be struck from Schedule II of the CDSA.   
      
   B) In the alternative, pursuant to S.24(1) of the Charter,   
   for a permanent Personal Exemption from the prohibitions on   
   marihuana in the CDSA for the Plaintiff's personal medical use;   
      
   C) Or, alternatively, damages in the amount of $300 for the loss   
   of patient's marihuana, plants and production site."   
      
   3. On Feb. 27 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion returnable at   
   General Sittings on March 11 2014 for an Order pursuant to   
   S.24(1) of the Charter for an interim personal Constitutional   
   Exemption from the prohibitions on marihuana in the CDSA for the   
   Plaintiff's personal medical use pending trial on the merits of   
   the Action.   
      
   4. Ex.A is the Mar 5 2014 letter from the Registry to John   
   Turmel advising me of the oral direction rendered by Chief   
   Justice Crampton directing that:   
   "Motion Doc.2 is to be referred to the Office of the Judicial   
   Administrator for Scheduling of a special sitting."   
      
   JCT: So no hearing at General Sittings, I'm sent off to book a   
   Special Sitting. No Special Sitting was booked.   
      
   6. Ex.B is the copy of the Mar 7 2014 facsimile sent to the   
   Court Administrator advising that the Motions for interim relief   
   by Ray Turmel (and Anthony Van Edig) were "likely" to be   
   inappropriately lengthy for General Sittings and asking that the   
   motions not be scheduled for hearing until the motion in Allard   
   is adjudicated because we the relief sought is "substantially   
   similar" to that being sought in the Mar 18 2014 interim   
   injunction of Allard T-2030-13 which would "suspend replacement   
   of the MMAR with the MMAR pending adjudication of the   
   challenge."   
      
   7. Section 54 of the Rules state:   
   "Motion for directions   
   54. A person may at any time bring a motion for directions   
   concerning the procedure to be followed under these Rules."   
      
   8. The Crown was supposed to have served a motion for the   
   Direction to de-schedule my motion from being heard in General   
   Sittings and did not. While its request was instantaneously   
   faxed to the Court, a copy was only snail-mailed to Plaintiffs   
   Ray Turmel and Anthony Van Edig by courier arriving Monday Mar   
   10 2014 and foreclosing any possible submissions on the Crown's   
   motion for the Direction due to the improper service.   
      
   9. On Mar 7, Federal Court Chief Justice Crampton granted the   
   ex-parte Direction ordering my General Sittings Motion be stayed   
   and also the first 25 Statements of Claim filed, while ordering   
   the remaining 70 files since also be stayed as likely to be   
   inappropriately lengthy for General Sittings and were the "very   
   same issues" as raised in Allard.   
      
   JCT: Here's the actual text from my Notice of Appeal:   
      
   THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Federal Court of Appeal from the   
   order of Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton dated Mar 7   
   2014 by which:   
               In the matter of numerous filings seeking   
           a declaration pursuant to S.52(1) of the Canadian   
            Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("The Charter");   
                                  and   
             In the matter of numerous motions requesting   
             interim or interlocutory relief pursuant to   
            S.24(1) of the Charter with regards to changes   
              to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations   
            ("MMAR") and the Marijuana for Medical Purposes   
                         Regulations ("MMPR".)   
      
                               DIRECTION   
      
   1. UPON noting that the Federal Court Registry has received   
   numerous filings seeking a declaration pursuant to S.52(1) of   
   the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("The Charter") that   
   the changes to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations AR") and   
   the Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations ("MMPR") are   
   unconstitutional;   
      
   2. AND UPON noting that the Plaintiffs on these filings have   
   filed or are in the process of filing Motion Records seeking   
   interim or interlocutory relief pursuant to S.24(1) of the   
   Charter with regards to changes to the MMAR and the MMPR;   
      
   3. AND UPON noting that the Court has already scheduled a   
   hearing date on Tuesday March 18 2014 in Vancouver, in Court   
   file no. T-2030-13 (NEIL ALLARD and others v. HMTQ) regarding   
   Plaintiff's motion for interim and interlocutory relief, on the   
   very same issues.   
      
   THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:   
      
   1. The above-captioned proceedings are stayed pending the   
   determination of the Plaintiff's motion in T-2030-13;   
      
   2. All other filings/Motions seeking the same or similar relief   
   are also stayed pending the determination of the Plaintiff's   
   motion in T-2030-13;   
      
   3. These types of proceedings are not appropriate for General   
   Sittings. If the stay mentioned above is lifted, any motion   
   seeking the same or similar relief is to be scheduled by way of   
   Special Sitting;   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)