From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: This is the response received by Terry Parker to his   
   Application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave   
   to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal refusal to grant him   
   an interim exemption pending appeal, and the motion for an   
   interim exemption pending the Application for leave to   
   appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.   
      
   As well, Ray Turmel and Robert Roy have received similar   
   generic responses to their Applications:   
      
   Department of Justice   
   130 King St. W.   
   Toronto M5X 1K6   
   Tel/fax: 416-973-7171/0809   
      
   Dec 1 2014   
      
   Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar   
   Supreme Court of Canada   
   310 Wellington St.   
   Ottawa, K1A 0J1   
      
   Mr. Registrar   
      
   Re: Terrance Parker v. Her Majesty the Queen, File No. 36156   
      
   Please accept this letter as the response of the Respondent   
   Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada ("Canada") to the   
   application for leave to appeal and motion for interim   
   relief in the above-mentioned matter. Canada submits that   
   the leave application does not raise an issue of public   
   importance, and that the accompanying motion seeks relief   
   that is not available. The application and motion should   
   therefore be dismissed.   
      
   JCT: Terrance Parker having on access to medical marijuana   
   through the MMAR nor MMPR isn't an issue of national   
   importance? He was the guy they were supposed to exempt   
   first.   
      
   A. Background   
      
   Since February 2014, more than 270 self-represented   
   plaintiffs, including the Applicant, have filed virtually   
   identical claims in the Federal Court. The claims seek   
   declarations that Canada's new medical marihuana regulatory   
   regime, which requires patients to purchase from commercial   
   licensed producers, is unconstitutional.   
      
   By order dated May 7 2014, the Federal Court (Phelan J.)   
   stayed the related actions pending final disposition of   
   another Federal Court proceeding which seeks substantially   
   similar relief.   
      
   JCT: Let's us laugh at our Action to Repeal the MMAR is   
   substantially similar by those with exemptions against   
   Repeal!! Har har har. I just love that line.   
      
   By further order dated June 4, the Federal Court confirmed   
   its earlier stay order, and dismissed motions by several   
   plaintiffs, including the Applicant, for an "interim   
   constitutional exemption" from the CDSA pending trial of   
   their actions.   
      
   JCT: 50 motions with affidavits is "several plaintiffs!" And   
   of course, the Crown always omits to mention "for personal   
   medical use" hoping, justifiably, the court may forget it if   
   they don't mention it.   
      
   An appeal of the June 4 order is currently pending in the   
   Federal Court of Appeal. In the course of his appeal, the   
   Applicant also brought another motion for an interim   
   exemption from the CDSA, this time, pending appeal. By Order   
   dated July 17, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal (Nadon   
   J.A.) dismissed the Applicant's motion without reasons, with   
   costs in the amount of $500. The Applicant now seeks leave   
   to appeal both the merits and the cost portions of that   
   decision.   
      
   JCT: No reasons to turn down The Terry Parker but the   
   Justice must have had some good ones, just couldn't quite   
   remember to mention them in the decision.   
      
   B. The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of national   
   importance   
      
   JCT: You'd think with marijuana being such a major national   
   issue, the Crown would feel foolish saying that.   
      
   The application does not raise an issue of public importance   
   or of a nature or significance that warrants consideration   
   by this Court.   
      
   JCT: The fact David Shea died while his Action was stayed   
   could indicate otherwise. One less file for the A.G. to   
   handle.   
      
   It seeks leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the   
   Federal Court of Appeal, which dismissed the Applicant's   
   motion for an "interim constitutional exemption" from the   
   CDSA to possess and produce marijuana for his "personal   
   medical use." The decision below does not transcend the   
   issues in dispute between the parties.   
      
   JCT: It would depend if Terry could die without his   
   mediation. Oh right, the court said he could.   
      
   At its highest, the proposed appeal concerns the   
   availability of interlocutory declarations of right where no   
   constitutional violation has yet been found.   
      
   JCT: We're rather focus on the availability of the right to   
   life.   
      
   Although the Ontario Court of Appeal has previously granted   
   the Applicant an interim CDSA exemption,   
      
   JCT: In protecting his right to life..   
      
   this exemption was issued pursuant to S.24(1) of the   
   Charter, in conjunction with a one-year suspended   
   declaration of invalidity. By contrast, there has been no   
   finding in the present case that the impugned regulatory   
   provisions are unconstitutional.   
      
   JCT: Applicant has such a motion for a declaration of   
   invalidity to repeal the MMAR but has been delayed until the   
   hearing of the motion against repeal of the MMAR. It's up to   
   the court if it's obvious, isn't it?   
      
   In any event, the law is clear that the Federal Court of   
   Appeal may grant prerogative relief only as against those   
   federal boards, commissions or other tribunal, let alone   
   line listed in S.28. The requested relief is accordingly   
   unavailable.   
      
   JCT: We already pointed out under which section against HEr   
   Majesty and not the boards we were actioning under. Guess   
   I'll have to repeat it.   
      
   No issues of public importance are raised by the proposed   
   appeal as to costs either.   
      
   JCT: Whether it's just that Terry Parker's demand that the   
   Parker Order be complied with be hit with costs may matter.   
      
   The proposed appeal concerns matters of procedure in the   
   Court below,   
      
   JCT: And matters of the right to life. After all, if it   
   weren't for the Crown, David Shea may not be dead.   
      
   which have previously been found not to warrant   
   this Court's intervention.   
      
   JCT: How many more have to die before it is found to warrant   
   this Court's intervention?   
      
   The application for leave should therefore be dismissed.   
      
   JCT: Of course, the Government lawyers with the blood of   
   David Shea and thousands of other deprived Canadians would   
   say that.   
      
   C. The motion for interim relief should be dismissed   
      
   The motion for interim relief should be dismissed for the   
   same reason as the leave application.   
      
   JCT: So Terry shouldn't be exempted for his meds while he   
   argues whether he should have been exempted for his meds.   
      
   The Applicant seeks an interim CDSA exemption for the   
   "personal medical use" of marihuana, pending his leave   
   application.   
      
   JCT: Finally, the mention PMU.   
      
   As noted above, such relief is not available on an   
   interlocutory basis.   
      
   JCT: The courts had to let David Shea die.   
      
   In any event, the Supreme Court of Canada is a statutory   
   court, and the Applicant has identified no statutory   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)