From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Terry Parker Reply to Crown at SCC for medpot exemption   
      
   JCT: Terry Parker served his Reply to the Crown's Response   
   to his Application for Leave to Appeal the refusal of the   
   lower courts to exempt him pending trial of his action for   
   repeal! Keep in mind that Ray Turmel, Stephen Burrows and   
   Robert Roy also have Applications and the Crown just served   
   them with the almost same boiler-plate response focusing   
   purely on non-medical issues. We'll focus on them.   
      
   Terrance Parker   
      
   Dec 9 2014   
      
   Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar   
   Supreme Court of Canada   
      
   Re: Terrance Parker v. Her Majesty the Queen, File No. 36156   
      
   In 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the S.4   
   Possession Offence suspended 1 year and granted me a   
   constitutional exemptions from CDSA to use marijuana during   
   the suspension pending exemption by the MMAR. I also   
   received a S.56 exemption from the Minister but the MMAR has   
   never convinced my doctor to participate.   
      
   The Respondent recaps that but for the medical details,   
   "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."   
      
   Respondent omits the "Turmel Kit Plaintiffs" also seek that   
   Canada's old "MMAR" regime is unconstitutional and absent a   
   viable medical exemption (R. v. J.P. (2003), the   
   prohibitions in the CDSA should be struck by deleting   
   "marijuana" from Schedule II of the CDSA.   
      
   The Crown repeats "Federal Court of Appeal may grant   
   prerogative relief only as against those federal boards,   
   commissions or other tribunal.. in S.28" despite my filing   
   under S.27(1))(c): "from any of the following decisions of   
   the Federal Court, (c) an interlocutory judgment!" S.28 is   
   for originating Judicial Reviews, not appeals from below.   
      
   The Crown states the proposed appeal concerns the   
   availability of "interlocutory declarations of right" where   
   no constitutional violation has yet been found and   
   "declaratory remedies are not available on an interlocutory   
   basis" but I submit an Interim Exemption pending the action,   
   the issue in the appeal, is not a declaratory remedy.   
      
   The Crown notes our actions were stayed pending final   
   disposition of the Allard v. HMQ which seeks "substantially   
   similar relief." The Allard Action challenges the 4 failings   
   in the MMPR, we challenge 20, while the Allard Action is   
   against repeal of the MMAR, we are for its repeal, but the   
   courts below bought "substantial similarity" of our actions   
   enough to stay.   
      
   The Crown notes motions by 50 plaintiffs, including the   
   applicant, for an "interim constitutional exemption" for   
   Personal Medical Use pending trial of my action were   
   dismissed for failure of my Affidavit to sufficiently prove   
   I have the Epilepsy determined by previous courts.   
      
   Allard Plaintiffs also filed a motion for interim exemptions   
   from the CDSA pending trial of their action which was   
   rejected as inappropriate for being "without limitation"   
   while our motions for "Personal Medical Use" pending trial   
   of our actions were rejected as inappropriate for being   
   similarly without limitation.   
      
   The Crown argues that though the Ontario Court of Appeal   
   previously granted Applicant an interim CDSA exemption in   
   conjunction with a one-year suspended declaration of   
   invalidity, there has as yet been no finding in the present   
   case that the impugned regulatory provisions are   
   unconstitutional. But there has as yet been no finding of   
   unconstitutionality in Allard yet interim constitutional   
   exemptions were granted pending the trial of their action.   
      
   Like two of four Allard Plaintiffs, Robert Roy was left out   
   of the relief by Manson and the ongoing Allard appeal does   
   include the same appeal to grandfather their Possess Permits   
   back to the same date as their grand-fathered Grow Permits.   
   If the Allard Left-Outs may seek the same relief as sought   
   by Robert Roy, why couldn't Robert Roy have sought it too?   
      
   The Crown argues the proposed appeal does not raise an issue   
   of national importance. With all the recent studies coming   
   out on the benefits of marijuana, its prohibition has   
   serious national implications on the Charter Right to Life.   
      
   Since the declaration that prohibition of marijuana violated   
   the right to life, only I was given 1-year protection all   
   other epileptics were un-exempted and the vast majority   
   remain un-exempted. With 4 known epileptics dying per day   
   since 2000, that's 20,000 needless deaths since the   
   prohibition was declared invalid. I should have been the   
   first one exempted under the MMAR and I'm not only not the   
   last, I'm a never.   
      
   Despite 4,000 charges being stayed while the invalid   
   exemption rendered the possession offence in the CDSA   
   invalid, the prohibition has been kept in force by the   
   Ministry of Justice and Judiciary accepting that the Hitzig   
   decision striking down the flaws in the MMAR revived the   
   not-in-effect prohibition in the CDSA despite S.43 of the   
   Interpretation Act stating amending something in one act   
   cannot revive something not alive in another.   
      
   Since then, many courts kept the prohibition alive by   
   accepting that the Hitzig Court revived the prohibition   
   without Parliament. The Ministry of Justice and the Courts   
   have the blood of all those epileptics on their hands. A   
   decade where the judiciary ruled the judiciary had revived a   
   prohibition that had been invalid for 2 years without   
   Parliament at the behest of the Crown.   
      
   Turmel Kit Plaintiff David Shea whose action was stayed   
   before has since succumbed to his cancer. Should I obey the   
   present law, I stand a chance of joining him on the victim   
   list despite my Court of Appeal having ruled that forcing me   
   to choose between my health and prison violated my right   
   then. And does now.   
      
   My only remedy is for an interim exemption pending the   
   action for repeal of prohibition below.   
   Terrance Parker   
      
   JCT: To keep it simple, you're allowed to file a letter of   
   Reply if under 2 pages. The Crown did and now we will. But   
   since the Crown boiler-plated their response, the other   
   Applicants can now adopt Terry's arguments and have plenty   
   of space to get into their medical need that the Crown fully   
   ignored.   
      
   They should be all done by tomorrow. Remember, these are for   
   interim exemptions, not for repeal. That's coming next.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)