From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: There were 4 appeals filed against Justice Phelan's   
   June 4 2014 Order dismissing everyone's motions for interim   
   exemptions for Personal Medical Use within the required 10   
   days. Terry Parker representing the Never-Ins, Stephen   
   Burrows & Robert Roy for the Left-Outs, and Ray Turmel for   
   the ATPs unhappy with being stuck back under the MMAR while   
   the John Conroy's Allard case tries to fix the MMPR.   
      
   Terry, Stephen and Robert filed their Reply to the Crown's   
   boiler-plate "no jurisdiction" response and Ray's is the   
   last in the quartet.   
      
                                              File No: A-288-14   
      
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                        RAYMOND J. TURMEL   
                                                        Appellant   
                                And   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                       Respondent   
      
                        APPELLANT'S REPLY   
      
   1. The Crown has written a boiler-plate response from the   
   appeal of Terrance Parker that ignores our medical   
   predicaments and focuses on one issue of jurisdiction to   
   grant us an interim exemption for Personal Medical Use under   
   S.27(1)(d) of the Federal Court Act despite it being plainly   
   stated in the Style of Cause we appeal under S.27(1)(c). All   
   other issues raised have been ignored.   
      
   2. Since Respondent is seeking consolidation of our appeals,   
   Appellant therefore adopts the submissions of Terrance   
   Parker, Stephen Burrows and Robert Roy in support of this   
   Reply.   
      
   3. Our actions seek a declaration that the Medical Marihuana   
   Access Regulations (MMAR) and the Marihuana for Medical   
   Purposes Regulations (MMPR) are unconstitutional 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.   
      
   4. On Jun 4 2014, our Actions challenging the MMAR and MMPR   
   was stayed pending the decision in Allard v. HMTQ [T-2030-   
   13] challenging only 4 common violations in the MMPR. The   
   Allard action represents the concerns of the Coalition   
   "Against MMAR Repeal" who have Authorizations To Possess   
   while Applicant is "For MMAR Repeal" because of its   
   unconstitutional violations. They seek to declare the MMPR   
   constitutionally invalid only to the extent of striking 4   
   minor cosmetic flaws to leave the regime constitutional:   
   a) prohibition on non-dried forms of cannabis, MMAR-MMPR 9).   
   b) prohibition on production in a dwelling; MMPR 14).   
   c) prohibition on outdoor production; MMPR 15).   
   d) prohibition on possessing and dealing more than 150g;   
   MMPR 20);   
   or for extension of the MMAR and its associated privileges.   
      
   5. 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:   
      
   MMAR & MMPR   
   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 ONLY   
   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)   
      
   MMAR ONLY   
   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 21 2014, Justice Manson ruled in Allard that all   
   Production Permits grand-fathered to Oct 1 2013 were   
   extended pending trial of the action but only those with   
   current Authorizations To Possess Permits as of Mar 21 2014   
   were extended. Robert Roy's T-918-14 Possess Permit expired   
   Mar 18 2014 while his Production Permit remained valid, no   
   more meds by only 3 days and the limit on possession should   
   be 150 grams.   
      
   7. It is bad enough being put back under the violation-   
   filled MMAR but now it's worse. Justice Manson's extended   
   the MMAR exemption but not the MMAR bureaucracy causing   
   problems when those with ATPs cannot:   
   1. change garden or storage address:   
   2. change outdoor to indoor growing;   
   3. change indoor to outdoor growing;   
   4. change Designated Grower;   
   5. chance from Personal to Designated Grower;   
   6. change dosage:   
   7. document exemption to police.   
   8. 150 gram possession cap inconvenient to impossible for   
   high dosers.   
      
   8. Some of these issues are said may be cross-appealed in   
   the Allard Appeal next year but that's no help for me now. I   
   am facing a 1-year mandatory minimum for growing over the   
   MMAR plant limits and striking down that unreasonable MMAR   
   plant limit is my primary concern. Appellants submitted the   
   stay below was not justified and an Exemption for Personal   
   Medical Use is the appropriate remedy with no response.   
   Delaying my challenge against the MMAR plant limit until   
   after I've done my time to await the outcome of the MMPR   
   challenge is not just.   
      
   9. The Issue should be my Right to Life-saving treatment,   
   not "protocol on jurisdiction!" This higher Court can   
   disagree with the refusal of interim relief below and should   
   I lose my appeal and my continued healing be later deemed   
   inappropriate, the Court can take it away.   
      
   10. This Court has the power to do anything that is just and   
   there is no alternative for the constitutional violation of   
   my rights I allege than an Interim Exemption for Personal   
   Medical Use.   
   Dated at Ottawa on July 28 2014.   
   Raymond J. Turmel   
      
   JCT: Now, when Justice Phelan amended his Order on July 9 to   
   make the stay longer, until all the Allard Appeals are over,   
   not when the trial is over, that gave everyone another 10   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)