From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Terry Parker Reply to Crown on Phelan Exemption Nix   
      
   JCT: Terry Parker filed an appeal against the Jun 4 2014   
   decision of Federal Court Justice Phelan that dismissed the   
   all motions of 275 applicants for any interim exemptions for   
   Personal Medical Use pending trial of their actions. The   
   Crown responded why Terry shouldn't any meds:   
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-turmel/jclYdKnB5n0   
      
   This is his reply being filed this morning. Now a judge   
   decides whether Terry gets protection.   
      
      
                                             File No: A-287-14   
                      FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                           TERRANCE PARKER   
                                                      Appellant   
                               And   
                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Respondent   
      
                        APPELLANT'S REPLY   
      
   1. This is a motion for an interim exemption from the   
   prohibitions on marijuana in the CDSA for Personal Medical   
   Use pending an appeal of the stay of the action seeking a   
   constitutional declaration below.   
      
   2. The Crown's response raises the following issues:   
   A) Is an interim exemption declaratory relief?   
   B) No Jurisdiction for interim relief?   
   C) Omitting Personal Medical Use v. "Without Limitation?   
   D) Exemption Inappropriate?   
   E) Suspended Declaration before interim relief?   
   F) No previous right?   
   G) Insufficient evidence of medical need?   
   H) Unaffordability for Parker too?   
   I) Parker did not seek physician approval?   
      
   A) IS EXEMPTION DECLARATORY RELIEF?   
      
   3. The Crown has argued:   
       CR: 12... pending the outcome of his appeal. In essence,   
       the Appellant asks this Court for an interlocutory   
       declaration that the CDSA provisions infringe his   
       Charter Right and do not apply to him until such time as   
       his appeal is decided...   
       15. Moreover, even were declaratory relief available   
       from this court, it is well established that declaratory   
       remedies are not available on an interlocutory basis.   
       16. The constitutionality of the MMPR is the central   
       issue in the Appellant's action. The Appellant now   
       effectively asks this Court to rule on that central   
       constitutional issue on an interlocutory basis, without   
       the benefit of full evidentiary record or trial. The   
       request is entirely inappropriate.   
      
   4. I am NOT appealing for interim declaratory relief, I am   
   appealing the stay of my action below that seeks such   
   declaratory relief. No declaratory relief is sought here,   
   only for protection from the CDSA prohibitions while it is   
   argued below that the MMAR-MMPR exemption regimes have   
   failed me. There is no motion to this Court to rule on that   
   central constitutional issue on an interlocutory basis at   
   all. The interim exemption from threat to life is the   
   central issue in the Appellant's motion above, the   
   constitutional issue raised in the action below is not.   
      
   B) NO JURISDICTION   
      
   5. The Crown further argued:   
       CR: 13. The requested relief is not available from this   
       Court. S.18 and 28 of the Federal Court Act set out the   
       declaratory powers of the Federal Courts. S.18 provides   
       that declaratory relief against only a "federal board,   
       commission, or other tribunal" and provides the Federal   
       Court with "exclusive jurisdiction" to issue such   
       relief, save and except where the board, commission or   
       other tribunal is among those listed in s.28, in which   
       case, jurisdiction rests with the Federal Court of   
       Appeal.   
       14. The Appellant's request for declaratory relief is   
       not directed at a federal board, commission or other   
       tribunal, let alone one listed in s.28.   
      
   6. The Federal Court Act states:   
   27. (1) An appeal lies to the Federal Court of Appeal from   
   any of the following decisions of the Federal Court,   
   (c) an interlocutory judgment; or   
   (d) a determination on a reference made by a federal board,   
   commission or other tribunal or the Attorney General of   
   Canada.   
      
   7. I am appealing under (c), not (d).   
      
   8. The Crown argued:   
       CR: This Court is accordingly without jurisdiction to   
       grant Appellant's motion.   
      
   9. The Federal Court Rules say:   
   1.1 (1) These Rules apply to all proceedings in the Federal   
   Court of Appeal and the Federal Court unless otherwise   
   provided by or under an Act of Parliament.   
   373. (1) On motion, a judge may grant an interlocutory   
   injunction.   
      
   C) OMIT "PERSONAL MEDICAL USE" FOR INAPPROPRIATENESS   
      
   10. The Crown argued:   
       CR: 1. The Appellant seeks an "interim constitutional   
       exemption" from the CDSA pending his appeal of an   
       interlocutory decision of the case management judge.   
      
   11. Also, the Crown omits the limit "for Personal Medical   
   Use" in paras. 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, twice in 17. Then:   
       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.   
       20. In fact, the Federal Court expressly rejected the   
       Allard plaintiffs' request for an interim exemption   
      
   12. The Crown omitted the limit "For Personal Medical Use"   
   each time it cited the exemption I seek and omitted "without   
   limitation" each time it cited the Allard exemption sought   
   and refused. With both qualifiers omitted, they would seem   
   to be both equally inappropriate. Without the omissions,   
   Personal Medical Use is quite not "without limitation."   
      
   D) EXEMPTION INAPPROPRIATE   
      
   13. The Crown argued:   
       CR: 9. By further Order dated June 4 2014, Phelan J.   
       dismissed the plaintiffs' motions for interim relief. 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.   
      
   14. Appellant has cited being exempted under an identical   
   limit for Personal Medical Use before. An interim exemption   
   for Personal Medical Use is not inappropriate.   
      
   E) SUSPENDED DECLARATION FIRST BEFORE INTERIM RELIEF   
      
   15. The Crown argued:   
       CR: 17. The Appellant notes that the Ontario Court of   
       Appeal has granted him an interim exemption once before,   
       and submits that the same relief must therefore be   
       available here. The decision cited is inapposite. The   
       interim personal constitutional exemption granted to the   
       Appellant was issued pursuant to S.24(1) of the Charter,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)