From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: I've just filed the response to the Crown's motion to   
   stay all of our actions pending the "final" decision in   
   Allard in BC.   
      
                                              File No: T-488-14   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                          JOHN C. TURMEL   
                                               Responding Party   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                   Moving Party   
      
                  RESPONDING PARTY'S MEMORANDUM   
      
   PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   1. Applicant requests an order staying these proceedings and   
   any new proceedings seeking the same or similar relief   
   pending final disposition of Allard. In Para. 28:   
   "28. In addition to the similar relief sought, the factual   
   background underlying Allard is similar to that underlying   
   the Turmel Kit claims. Both are concerned with the repeal of   
   the MMAR."   
      
   2. The Applicant has submitted that since both actions seek   
   interim exemptions pending trial, refused "without   
   limitation" to the Allards, still sought "for personal   
   medical use" by Plaintiff herein, our polar opposite claims   
   must be "the same or similar relief."   
      
   3. The Applicant submitted that Allard should go first   
   because their 4 issues raised against the MMPR are   
   "substantially similar" to the 20 issues raised herein and   
   could "significantly narrow" the 20 issues argued.   
      
   4. Applicant submitted that the Plaintiff's motion for   
   exemption "for personal medical use" should be refused   
   because it is the same as the Allard motion for use "without   
   limitation."   
      
   5. Applicant submitted that a stay pending the final   
   determination of the Allard case would be a brief 9-12   
   months not counting time for 2 appeals to the Supreme Court.   
      
   6. Applicant claims such brief delay would not prejudice the   
   Plaintiffs.   
      
   PART II - ISSUES   
      
   A) Are the Actions of the Plaintiff's for MMAR repeal   
   detailing 16 distinct threats to life and of the Coalition   
   Against MMAR repeal detailing none the same relief?   
      
   B) Are the 20 issues for repeal of the MMPR substantially   
   similar to the 4 issues raised by those Against Repeal of   
   the MMAR?   
      
   C) Does hearing the 4 minor issues first significantly   
   narrow the remaining 20 fatal issues raised herein?   
      
   D) Should the 4-issue Allard action be heard before the 20-   
   issue action herein or does subsumation work the other way?   
      
   E) Is an exemption "without limitation" the same as an   
   exemption "for personal medical use?"   
      
   F) Can a 2-4 year delay until the Allard Claim is finally   
   adjudicated be termed "brief?"   
      
   G) Would epileptics who die during such "brief" delay be   
   prejudiced?   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENTS   
      
   A) The Coalition Against(!) MMAR Repeal in Allard et al v.   
   HMTQ (T-2030-13) do not seek repeal of the MMAR. Against   
   implies they are not for repeal of the MMAR. Plaintiff   
   herein for(!!) MMAR-MMPR repeal seeks to strike down the   
   MMAR medical exemption regime for 16 distinct torts. So both   
   are not concerned with the repeal of the MMAR and only   
   Plaintiff has presented any factual background on the MMAR.   
      
   B) With only 4 torts in common with our 20, calling the   
   actions "substantially similar" is dubious.   
   C) Resolution of the 4 torts of the Coalition Against MMAR   
   repeal could hardly "significantly narrow" the 20 torts   
   raised by Plaintiffs For MMAR repeal.   
      
   Further, Plaintiff here seeks to strike the word "marijuana"   
   from CDSA Schedule II" "absent a constitutionally valid   
   medical exemption" and the Allard Plaintiffs do not seek to   
   repeal prohibition.   
      
   D) The Plaintiff's 20-issue action subsumes the Allard 4-   
   issue action and should be adjudicated first. We don't need   
   a decision saying the 4 defects haven't broken it enough   
   when it can be shown that the 20 defects make it   
   irreparable.   
      
   E) the Allard motion for exemption "without limitation" that   
   was refused and the Plaintiff's motion for an exemption "for   
   personal medical use" are just not the same.   
      
   F) Can the 2-4 years it could take for the two possible   
   appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada be termed a "brief"   
   delay?   
      
   G) Evidently, the 6,000 known epileptics who would die of   
   seizures for lack of a joint in the next 4 years would   
   suffer some kind of prejudice.   
      
   PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT   
      
   Respondent Party seeks an Order dismissing the Applicant's   
   motion to stay as frivolous and vexatious.   
      
   Dated at Brantford on Thursday 24 2014.   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
   TO: Registrar of this Court   
   Attorney General for Canada   
      
   JCT: So the rebuttals of the Attorney General's really   
   stupid arguments is on record. That was such fun and I still   
   have the Chess Move up my sleeve. Har har har har har har. I   
   just slashed them around a little now, wait until Tuesday   
   when I gut them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)