From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: These are the Crown's Written Representations to the   
   Federal Court of Appeal on why The Terry Parker should not   
   be exempted like courts have previously ruled.   
      
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   PART I - OVERVIEW   
      
   1. The Appellant seeks an "interim constitutional exemption"   
   from the CDSA pending his appeal of an interlocutory   
   decision of the case management judge.   
      
   JCT: Notice they left out the limit of "Personal Medical   
   Use." If they don't mention it, the Court may forget we did.   
      
   CR: This Court is without jurisdiction to grant relief of   
   this type, and in any event, such relief is not available on   
   an interlocutory basis. HMTQ therefore requests that the   
   motion be dismissed with costs.   
      
   JCT: The Crown is trying to say this higher court doesn't   
   have the jurisdiction to save someone's life. Har har har.   
      
   CR: PART II - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   2. Since February 2014, more than 275 self-represented   
   plaintiffs, including the Appellant, have filed virtually   
   identical claims in Federal Court. The claims, which are   
   based on templates downloadable from the website of John   
   Turmel (one of the self-represented litigants), seek   
   declarations that the medical marijuana medical regime set   
   out in the MMAR, which were repealed on Mar 31 2014, and the   
   MMPR, which succeeded the MMAR, are unconstitutional. In the   
   alternative, the claims seek permanent personal   
   constitutional exemptions from the marijuana provisions of   
   the CDSA, and in some cases, damages for the loss of the   
   plaintiff's marihuana plants and production sites.   
      
   3. Of the "Turmel Kit" plaintiffs, more than 60 have filed   
   motions for "interim constitutional exemptions" from the   
   marijuana provisions in the CDSA pending trial of their   
   actions. The Appellant filed two such motions, one on March   
   6 2014 and a second on April 8 2014.   
      
   4. At the time the Turmel Kit actions were commenced, the   
   Federal Court was already seized of a comprehensive   
   constitutional challenge to Canada's medical marihuana   
   regulatory regime brought by four plaintiffs represented by   
   legal counsel.   
      
   JCT: 4 out of 20 MMPR issues being "comprehensive" but   
   leaving out all the big violations is just lawying.   
      
   CR: Allard et al v. HMTQ (T-2030-13) ("Allard"). Like the   
   self-represented Turmel Kit plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in   
   Allard seek a declaration that the MMPR infringes S.7 of the   
   Charter by unreasonably restricting access to marijuana for   
   medical purposes.   
      
   JCT: Conroy claims "unreasonably restricting access under   
   Right to Security," I claim "killing patients under Right to   
   Life."   
      
   CR: 5. Accordingly, on April 10 2014, Canada filed a motion to   
   stay the Turmel Kit claims pending the final determination   
   of Allard. The grounds for Canada's motion were that a stay   
   would limit the risk of inconsistent judgments, and conserve   
   scarce judicial and public resources by significantly   
   narrowing the issues for determination in the Turmel Kit   
   claims.   
      
   JCT: And Judge Phelan bought that resolving 4 out of our 36   
   issues would "significantly narrow" the issues! Must have   
   been a trained lawyer.   
      
   CR: 6. With respect to the plaintiff' interlocutory motions   
   for CDSA exemptions pending trial of their actions, Canada   
   submitted that the Federal Court (Manson J.) had rejected a   
   similar request for interim relief in Allard, and that   
   doctrines of judicial comity and abuse of process required   
   that the plaintiffs' motions be similarly dismissed.   
      
   JCT: Notice they leave off the PMU limit and hope the judges   
   forget we brought it up. It's like a magic wand, they don't   
   include that fact and the court then forgets that we did.   
   Har har har. Nice to have this on official record forever.   
      
   CR: 7. At a case management conference on April 29 2014, the   
   case management judge, Mr. Justice Phelan, heard oral   
   arguments in relation to Canada's stay motion, and adjourned   
   the plaintiffs' motions for interim relief pending   
   determination of Canada's stay motion.   
      
   8. By Order dated May 7, 2014, Phelan J. granted the stay   
   motion subject to limited exceptions. In granting the stay,   
   Phelan J. observed that there was "substantial overlap"   
   between the Allard litigation and Turmel Kit claims,   
      
   JCT: Right, Phelan J. found 4 out of 36 issues was   
   "substantial overlap." Only another lawyer could be swayed   
   by such lawying.   
      
   CR: and that Allard, which involved experienced counsel and   
   was much further advanced, had significant potential to   
   "reduce the issues in play,   
      
   JCT: From 36 to 32, quite the "significant" potential. Har   
   har har. Aren't lawyers dense. And they sign their names to   
   this kind of crap all the time. Good money. Only now it gets   
   into the public record.   
      
   CR: clarify those remaining   
      
   JCT: So resolving those 4 clarifies the remaining 32! Wonder   
   how? Just more lawying.   
      
   CR: and potentially simplify the litigation for the lay   
   litigants in the Turmel Kit claims.   
      
   JCT: Those who aren't dead by then, maybe. What about those   
   who are going to die in the next 4 years before the final   
   decision in Allard is reached?   
      
   CR: 9. By further Order dated June 4 2014, Phelan J.   
   dismissed the plaintiffs' motions for interim relief.   
      
   JCT: All of them. Not one patient could convince the judge   
   they had real medical need without letting him do an   
   examination on them first. Maybe he wanted to be a doctor   
   then gave up trying to be useful and became a lawyer?   
      
   CR: In doing so, the Court noted that the CDSA exemption   
   sought was "inappropriate" as it was insufficiently tailored   
   to the Charter violations alleged by the plaintiffs.   
      
   JCT: Yes, Justice Phelan said that our apparent limit of   
   Personal Medical Use appeared "essentially without limit."   
   More lawying logic.   
      
   CR: In any event, even had the requested relief been   
   available, the Court observed that the plaintiffs' motion   
   materials were inadequate   
      
   JCT: Note they don't say what they were inadequate about.   
   They provided evidence of illness, what's inadequate about   
   that? But a judge can always says "not enough, pull down   
   your pants and show me before I'm convinced." And if Paddy   
   had known that his doctor signing his ATP for cancer wasn't   
   convincing enough for Justice Phelan without a personal   
   examination, he'd have dropped his pants and shown him when   
   he had the chance. I'm sure a personal examination of   
   Paddy's cancer might have convinced Judge Phelan as his   
   Affidavit attesting how his doctor had already concluded   
   that had not.   
      
   CR: and that "each fails to plead sufficient evidence   
   regarding the claimants' personal circumstances to warrant   
   any relief."   
      
   JCT: All of them. Insufficient evidence of Epilepsy, Cancer,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)