From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   About 300 Plaintiffs claiming interim exemptions to use   
   medical marijuana for medical need have all been stayed   
   below with "insufficient evidence of medical need" in their   
   affidavits to warrant such protection.   
      
   So far, I've not published the template N12A Notice of   
   Appeal nor the N12 Motion Record for the Federal Court of   
   Appeal.   
      
   I filed Terry Parker first, the Terry Parker whom them MMAR   
   should have exempted first and whom it never did when he   
   could never get a doctor to participate in the regime. He's   
   already received 3 (three!) court exemptions, two during   
   Crown appeals of his winning judgment in 2000 and one during   
   his losing appeal in 2003. So you can get an interim   
   exemption without having first won the case, unlike what   
   Justice Phelan had concluded.   
      
   Then I filed Stephen (Paddy) Burrows who had cut the size of   
   his cancer in half with cannabis oil before being cut off,   
   in 3 dimensions, 1/2*1/2*1/2=1/8, that's 7/8ths gone! And   
   the fact he only proved he had been exempted by a doctor   
   wasn't good enough, the court needed to see a copy of his   
   actual exemption (which he had in his pocket) and his   
   medical file (which he had with him) and would have dropped   
   his pants and shown the judge who seemed to need some real   
   convincing.   
      
   Then I filed Robert Roy who had missed out on the Manson   
   relief by having his Possess Permit expire 3 days before the   
   Manson decision extended everyone's Permit from then on   
   while still grand-fathering his grow permit back to last   
   year. Grow permit legal but not without a Possess Permit and   
   he missed out by 3 days. Is that a good reason to lose his   
   grow? 3 days?   
      
   Then today I filed Ray Turmel, who has an ATP but who faces   
   a 1-year mandatory minimum under the MMAR for growing too   
   fast (too many plants) while being 4/11th of his storage!   
   Keeping the MMAR alive while the Allards fix the MMPR isn't   
   any help.   
      
   And since it wove together everyone's beefs, I made his   
   Written Representations generic citing only one "T-xxx-14 et   
   al (and others in Latin) whom were so affected.   
      
                                              File No: A-288-14   
      
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                        RAYMOND J. TURMEL   
                                                      Appellant   
                                And   
      
   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Respondent   
               APPELLANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   FACTS:   
      
   1. Appellant is one of numerous Self-Rep "Turmel Kit"   
   plaintiffs who filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court.   
   Of the 5 classes of Plaintiffs, I have checked that:   
      
   [  ] a) I have an Authorization to Possess ("ATP") and a   
   Personal-Use Production License ("PUPL") under the Marijuana   
   Medical Access Regulations ("MMAR") which were grand-   
   fathered in the relief granted the Allard Plaintiffs (T-   
   2030-13) by Justice Manson on Mar 21 2014;   
      
   [  ] b) I have a Grow Permit grand-fathered but my Possess   
   permit was not;   
      
   [  ] c) I was once exempted under the MMAR;   
      
   [  ] d) I have a qualifying medical condition but was never   
   exempted under the MMAR;   
      
   [  ] e) I do not have a qualifying medical condition.   
      
   2. Our Actions seek declaratory and financial relief for   
   violations of rights under S. 7 of the Charter by seeking 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 prohibitions in the   
   CDSA on marihuana for the Plaintiff's personal medical use.   
      
   C) Or, alternatively, damages for loss of patient's   
   marihuana, plants and production site and future needs.   
      
   3. The grounds of the Action:   
   a) "For MMAR Repeal" are 16 identified constitutional   
   violations,   
   b) "For MMPR Repeal" repeal are 20 identified constitutional   
   violations,   
   c) and, absent a viable medical exemption pursuant to R. v.   
   J.P., for repeal of the prohibitions by striking the word   
   "marijuana" from Schedule II of the CDSA.   
      
   4. We seek to have the MMPR declared invalid because of the   
   many fatal deficiencies to the point the regime is so full   
   of holes, it is in effect invalidated by these 20   
   constitutional flaws to leave the regime in tatters:   
      
   BOTH 1) Require recalcitrant doctor;   
   BOTH 2) Not provide DIN (Drug Identification Number);   
   BOTH 3) Require annual renewals for permanent diseases;   
   BOTH 4) Require unused cannabis to be destroyed;   
   BOTH 5) Refusal or cancellation for non-medical reasons;   
   BOTH 6) Health Canada feedback to doctors on dosages;   
   BOTH 7) Not provide instantaneous online processing;   
   BOTH 8) Not have resources to handle large demand;   
   BOTH 9) Prohibit non-dried forms of cannabis; * Allard a)   
   BOTH 10) Not exempt from CDSA S.5.;   
      
   MMPR 11) ATP valid solely as "medical document";   
   MMPR 12) Licensed Producer may cancel for "business reason";   
   MMPR 13) Prohibit return of medical document to cancelee;   
   MMPR 14) Prohibit production in a dwelling; * Allard b)   
   MMPR 15) Prohibits outdoor production; * Allard c)   
   MMPR 16) Not protect rights to brand genetics;   
   MMPR 17) Not remove financial barriers;   
   MMPR 18) Not provide central registry for police check;   
   MMPR 19) Not enough Licensed Producers to supply demand;   
   MMPR 20) Prohibit processing > 150 grams. * Allard d)   
      
   5. Plaintiffs further raise 6 additional concerns with the   
   MMAR regime added to the first 10 in common with the MMPR to   
   have the MMAR condemned:   
      
   MMAR 11) Require a specialist consultation;   
   MMAR 12) Require conventional treatments be inappropriate;   
   MMAR 13) Prohibit more than 2 licenses/grower;   
   MMAR 14) Prohibit more than 4 licenses/site;   
   MMAR 15) Number of plants limit improper;   
   MMAR 16) Not allow any gardening help.   
      
   6. On Mar 10 2014, our Actions challenging the MMAR and MMPR   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)