From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Stephen Burrows' 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   
   is served yesterday! Keep in mind that Terry Parker, Ray   
   Turmel and Robert Robert Roy have also filed Applications,   
   each will deal with different issues.   
      
   Terry already replied and he's a Never-In should should have   
   been first. Ray has his ATP and represents their concerns   
   under the Manson Order extending the MMAR that threatens   
   him.   
      
   Robert Roy's a "Left-Out," by only 3 days. His exemption   
   expired 3 days before Justice Manson grand-fathered his grow   
   permit but not his possess permit. Neat omission. Stephen's   
   a Left-Out too. But he also has pictures showing his   
   shrinking tumor with cannabis before being cut off and wants   
   an interim exemption to finish:   
      
   Stephen Patrick Burrows   
      
   Dec 12 2014   
      
   Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Supreme Court of Canada Registrar   
   310 Wellington St.  Ottawa, K1A 0J1   
      
   Re: Stephen Burrows v. Her Majesty the Queen, File No. 36147   
      
   Given the Crown has provided a boiler-plate Response to my   
   Application and those of Terrance Parker (35156), Ray Turmel   
   (36159) and Robert Roy (36146), I adopt any salient   
   arguments from the Replies of Terrance Parker, Ray Turmel or   
   Stephen Burrows while focusing on my particular medical   
   situation.   
      
   My tumor was cut in half using marijuana grown quite   
   affordably under my MMAR Authorization To Possess and   
   Produce. In late 2013, Health Canada announced that all MMAR   
   personal production gardens had to be shut down and all   
   stored stocked destroyed by April 1 2014 when the MMPR took   
   effect.   
      
   On Jan 13 2014, my exemption expired. With enough stock to   
   last until April, I, like Robert Roy, did not renew under   
   the MMAR because:   
   1) any crop produced would just have to be destroyed on   
   April 1;   
   2) it would have wasted money in doctor fees to apply;   
   3) I'm on long-term social services disability pension and   
   could never afford to apply for the high-priced product sold   
   by a Licensed Producer under the MMPR.   
      
   On Mar 21 2014, Justice Manson's Order in Allard v. HMQ   
   grand-fathered my Grow Permit back to 2013 but not my   
   Possess Permit.   
      
   On Apr 29 2014, I detailed my situation to the Court but   
   Justice Phelan rejected an Interim Exemption for "Personal   
   Medical Use" ruling that the Authorization To Possess cited   
   in my Affidavit hearing was insufficient evidence of my   
   medical need. Though my affidavit was unchallenged by the   
   Crown, the Court wanted to see a copy of my ATP and medical   
   evidence.   
      
   I appealed the denial of the Interim Exemption and provided   
   the Federal Court of Appeal a copy of my ATP as well as   
   "before and after" pictures of my tumor. My appeal argues   
   the court has no business checking into my medical file,   
   it's the doctor's function! My motion for Interim Exemption   
   pending that appeal was denied with "no reasons" and is the   
   subject of this Application for Leave to Appeal.   
      
   But for Health Canada's Destruct Order by April Fool, I am   
   now faced with insurmountable hurdles to obtain any   
   affordable medication. My tumor is no longer shrinking since   
   my access to a plentiful supply of cheap self-grown   
   marijuana has been cut off by bureaucratic and judicial, not   
   medical, decisions.   
      
   What makes this most unconscionable is that the prohibition   
   threatening us all is not even still valid since it was   
   struck down in 2001 by Parker. 4,000 charges were stayed   
   while the failed exemption had failed to keep the   
   prohibition valid. The only reason prohibition is still   
   enforced by the courts is that the Ontario Court of Appeal   
   ruled that its Hitzig decision repealing the flaws in the   
   MMAR exemption had revived the CDSA prohibition that had   
   been invalid for 2 years due to the lack of viable   
   exemption. It has been pointed out to many courts that S.43   
   of the Interpretation Act states: 43. Where an enactment is   
   repealed in whole or in part, the repeal does not (a) revive   
   any enactment or anything not in force or existing at the   
   time when the repeal takes effect.   
      
   So when the defects in the MMAR were repealed to leave a   
   constitutional exemption, the repeal did not revive the   
   prohibitions not in force in the CDSA at the time when the   
   MMAR became no longer unconstitutional. Once the law was   
   invalid, whether the Hitzig Court repealed the flaws in the   
   MMAR or not, Parliament Only Legislates new laws to revive   
   the prohibition that had been invalid for 2 years. So not   
   only is my Right to Life violated by prohibition preventing   
   access to my medication, but it's a law that the judiciary   
   say the judiciary itself revived after it had been invalid 2   
   years despite S.43 saying the judiciary cannot revive dead   
   laws. Will the judiciary revive the invalid abortion laws,   
   invalid death penalty laws too? Enforcement of this   
   judicially-re-enacted prohibition bring the administration   
   of justice into disrepute.   
      
   That the courts below could dismiss my plea for interim   
   exemption for "insufficient evidence of illness" and for "no   
   reasons," only adds salt to my tumor. The blood of the   
   medically-needy is on the hands of the judiciary who refused   
   to accept that the Hitzig Court could not revive the   
   prohibition in the CDSA by fixing the MMAR when S.43 says it   
   can't.   
      
   At this stage, an Interim Exemption to return to my former   
   status quo is my only remedy. It would have been the only   
   possible remedy for David Shea whose action for exemption   
   was stayed below. He couldn't show the court sufficient   
   evidence of his medical need and he's now dead from cancer.   
   Given the massive recent literature on the cancer-curing   
   effects of cannabis, who can't wonder if David Shea might   
   have survived had be not been prohibited from using the   
   cancer-curing herb?   
      
   I hope the courts can save me from ending up a victim like   
   David Shea of this invalid prohibition by granting me   
   interim access to cannabis for my Personal Medical Use   
   pending my action for repeal so I can finish shrinking my   
   tumor and if not, explain to me why not?   
   _____________________________   
   Stephen Patrick Burrows   
      
   JCT: So all four Applications for Leave to Appeal and for   
   Interim Exemptions pending appeal are now filed. Three top   
   judges will have to sign off on whether these medically-   
   needy Applicants merited interim exemptions for Personal   
   Medical Use while their actions for repeal went on below.   
      
   In the meantime, those 4 plus 22 more appeals are now   
   consolidated at the Federal Court of Appeal and these four   
   are closely-timed and boiler-plated that to all intents and   
   purposes, they're consolidated at the top now. But the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)