From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Left-Outs Burrows & Roy Appeal Phelan J. MedPot Nix   
      
   JCT: Terry Parker filed last week and now Stephen Burrows   
   and Robert Roy filed today. The Crown may have been able to   
   duck dealing with individual cases by lumping us all   
   together but now they have to answer one at a time. Let them   
   have fun explaining why people should die!   
      
                                              File No: A-289-14   
                      FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                      STEPHEN PATRICK BURROWS   
                                                        Appellant   
                                And   
                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                       Respondent   
      
                          NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT the Appellant's urgent motion, on short   
   notice if applicable, will be made in writing to a judge of   
   this Court.   
      
   THE MOTION SEEKS an interim constitutional exemption from   
   the prohibitions on marihuana in the CDSA for the   
   Appellant's Personal Medical Use pending this appeal.   
      
   THE GROUNDS ARE THAT the Appellant's Right to Life will be   
   infringed upon if Appellant's motion an Interim   
   Constitutional Exemption for Personal Medical Use is denied.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging any time for service or amending   
   any error or omission which this Honourable Court may allow.   
      
   Dated at Halifax on July 3 2014.   
   For the Appellant:   
   Stephen Patrick Burrows   
      
               APPELLANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. I have cancerous tumors on my groin for which no local   
   doctor would prescribe me marijuana.   
      
   2. In 2011, Dr. Rob Kammermans of Ontario came to do a   
   clinic in Nova Scotia and signed my Authorization for   
   marijuana after examining my tumors.   
      
   3. On Oct 1 2012, a letter from Health Canada revoked my   
   exemption because the good doctor had not returned to   
   Ontario where he was registered to practice but had signed   
   my Authorization in Nova Scotia. Health Canada revoked the   
   exemptions for medication to thousands of patients and   
   condemned me and others to death for this same non-medical   
   reason.   
      
   4. In November, I found a doctor in B.C. to sign my renewed   
   Authorization to Possess for 2013 after a Skype interview.   
   Having been signed in the right province, that medical   
   opinion was judged valid by Health Canada. It cost me $400   
   for my appointment. My Affidavit has before and after   
   pictures of the tumors.   
      
   4. On Jan 13 2014, my exemption Possess and Grow Permits   
   expired and I lost my Designated Grower. I could not apply   
   to renew under the MMAR because:   
   1) any new crop reaped would have had to be destroyed on   
   April 1 2014 upon the Health Canada Directive;   
   2) it would have been a waste of another $400;   
   3) I could not afford to apply under the MMPR for the high-   
   priced product sold by a Licensed Producer.   
      
   5. On Mar 3 2014, having been out of affordable marijuana   
   for months, I filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court   
   for repeal of the MMAR based on 16 identified constitutional   
   violations, repeal of the MMPR based on 20 identified   
   constitutional violations, and repeal of the prohibitions by   
   striking the word "marijuana" from Schelule II of the CDSA.   
      
   6. I also filed Motion for an interim exemption for Personal   
   Medical Use with my Authorization To Possess Number in an   
   Affidavit attesting to my need of marijuana for my cancers.   
      
   7. On Mar 10 2014, my motion was stayed pending the Mar 21   
   2014 decision of the motion for interim relief in Allard v.   
   HMTQ [T-2030-13]. The Allard action represents the concerns   
   of the Coalition "Against MMAR Repeal" who have   
   Authorizations To Possess while I am "For MMAR Repeal"   
   because it permitted my medication to be stopped for a non-   
   medical reason. Such polar opposite remedies are not   
   "substantially similar."   
      
   8. The Allard case seeks to end the MMPR prohibitions on:   
   a) cannabis derivatives;   
   b) outdoor growing;   
   c) in-home growing;   
   d) possession of more than 150 grams.   
      
   9. I do not have legal access so that the resolution of   
   those 4 issues of those Against MMAR repeal does not affect   
   me and cannot significantly narrow any of the 36 issues I am   
   raising for MMAR repeal.   
      
   10. On Mar 21 2014, Justice Manson ruled in Allard that all   
   Grow Permits were grandfathered to Oct 1 2013 but not   
   Possess Permits. Only those with current ATPs would continue   
   to be exempted. I was "Left-Out" of the Manson relief.   
      
   11. On Mar 31 2014, my motion was once again stayed upon a   
   motion by the Her Majesty in Default of filing a Statement   
   of Defence for a stay of my Action pending the final   
   decision in Allard v. HMTQ (T-2030-13) on the basis that I   
   am "seeking relief which is substantially similar to that   
   being sought by the Allard Plaintiffs" due to the 4 issues   
   in common whose resolution would "significantly narrow" the   
   issues I am raising.   
      
   12. On the Apr 29 2014, the Crown-in-Default's motion for   
   the stay was heard by Justice Phelan. At the hearing, I   
   explained to Justice Phelan why my ATP was not current and I   
   had been left-out of the Manson relief. I pointed out I had   
   no reason to be waiting to see what remedy they would   
   receive when I could not share in it. I told the Court I had   
   all my documentation and pictures of my tumors reducing in   
   size.   
      
   13. On Jun 4 2014, Justice Phelan stayed my Action pending   
   the final decision in Allard and dismissed my motion for   
   interim exemption for Personal Medical Use ruling:   
       Perhaps most importantly, the claimants have failed to   
       establish at this time that the medical exemption   
       provided by the MMAR or MMPR violates their Charter   
       rights in a way that would be remedied by the proposed   
       constitutional exemption.   
      
   14. Since neither the MMAR nor MMPR serve my medical need, a   
   continued violation of my right to life remains while I have   
   no exemption for access for medical use. The validity of the   
   exemption is being challenged for the same unaffordability   
   for which the Allard Plaintiffs were granted remedy. Not   
   being able to afford the MMPR seemed good enough reason to   
   grant the Allards their protection, it should be good enough   
   reason to have granted me mine too.   
      
   15. Justice Phelan further ruled:   
       [21] In the Allard Injunction hearing, Justice Manson   
       declined to issue a similar constitutional exemption. He   
       wrote at para 124:   
       "The first form of relief requested by the Applicants [a   
       constitutional exemption] is inappropriate. It would   
       exempt medically-approved patients and their designates   
       from the possession, trafficking, and possession for the   
       purposes of production provisions in the CDSA without   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)