From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Ray Turmel 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 Terry Parker, Stephen Burrows and   
   Robert Roy also have Applications and each will deal with   
   different issues.   
      
   Terry already replied and he's a Never-In should should have   
   been first.   
      
   Now Ray has replied and he's an extended ATP by the Allard   
   decision so he's complaining about having to live under the   
   extended MMAR. Remember the MMAR we all complained about for   
   the past decade. All of sudden, the MMPR so bad the Allards   
   have forgotten all about the flaw in the MMAR and want it   
   back. Ray doesn't. They're both broken. We want them both   
   declared so. Ray's application is to be free of the MMAR.   
      
   Raymond J. Turmel   
   6 Des Noisetiers   
   Grenville-sur-la-Rouge   
   J0V 1B0 Quebec.   
   Tel: 819-242-9902  Fax: 519-753-5122 Cell: 819-328-6279   
   Email: rayturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   Dec 11 2014   
      
   Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar   
   Supreme Court of Canada   
   310 Wellington St.  Ottawa, K1A 0J1   
      
   Mr. Registrar   
      
   Re: Raymond Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen, File No. 36159   
      
   Given the Crown has provided a boiler-plate Response to my   
   Application and those of Terrance Parker (35156), Robert Roy   
   (36146) and Stephen Burrows (36147), I adopt the any salient   
   arguments from the Replies of Terrance Parker, Robert Roy or   
   Stephen Burrows while focusing on my particular medical   
   situation.   
      
   I have valid Possess and Production Permits under the Allard   
   decision and had been charged with growing "too many plants"   
   while under my storage limit.   
      
   In early spring, I filed an Action in Federal Court to   
   declare the MMAR unconstitutional for 16 unconstitutional   
   violations of the Charter, the MMPR for 20 unconstitutional   
   violations, and, absent a viable medical exemption, to   
   effect repeal of prohibition by striking "marijuana" from   
   Schedule II of the CDSA!   
      
   My Action was stayed pending the hearing of the Allard v.   
   HMQ challenge to 4 constitutional violations of the MMPR   
   though my MMAR permits were extended by that decision. Not   
   only did I face a mandatory minimum sentence under the MMAR   
   plant limit but I also faced the other 15 unconstitutional   
   impediments to my access and supply contained within the   
   MMAR. It makes little sense that my challenge to the MMAR   
   impediments should have to await a decision on the MMPR   
   impediments, and given threat of incarceration under the   
   MMAR regulations, unjust.   
      
   A further problem I now have with my exemption under the   
   Allard decision is the 150 gram possession limit upon:   
   "[55] Ms. Ritchot notes.. that as of December 3, 2013, the   
   average number of plants licensed for indoor growth was 101,   
   the average number of plants licensed for outdoor growth was   
   11, and the average daily dosage is 17.7 grams per day.   
   Despite this, the average amount of marihuana used by those   
   being supplied by Health Canada was between 1 and 3 grams."   
      
   1) John Turmel, expert witness in Mathematics of Gambling,   
   in T-488-14, has brought to the Court's attention that a   
   genocidal under-medication of a whole class of patients   
   occurred when Justice Manson's under-evaluated non-peer-   
   reviewed limit took effect on April 1 2014. The 150 gram   
   limit on personal possession and shipments suggested by   
   Health Canada and imposed by Manson J. was based on false or   
   non-existent peer-reviewed surveys that suggested no such   
   thing and end up under-medicating the whole class by a   
   factor of 9, thus inflicting on the group conditions of life   
   calculated (8/9) to bring about it's physical destruction in   
   violation of S.318(2) of the Criminal Code and is of such   
   urgency as to warrant the expeditious attention of the   
   Court.   
      
   2) many Plaintiffs have dosages higher than the 150 grams   
   limit: Michael Pearce T-1106-14 260 grams/day which makes   
   the 150 gram possession limit impossibly inconvenient.   
      
   3) any remaining supply must be destroyed at time of   
   delivery of new supply!!   
      
   4) The average purchased at high-price from Health Canada is   
   no fair indication of average use including cheap home-   
   grown.   
      
   John Turmel moved to have our motion with evidence of the   
   "peer-reviewed surveys" fraud also heard by Justice Manson   
   before his decision was made but was denied. Justice Manson   
   may never have found out about the fraudulent peer-reviewed   
   surveys before his Order setting a 5 gram daily limit, 150   
   grams per delivery, after accepting that Canada's doctors   
   had prescribed an actual average of 17.7 grams/day.   
      
   That statistical information on the Health Canada fraud was   
   given to the RCMP and the Canada's anti-fraud center as well   
   as to the Court below.   
      
   On April 1 2014, the MMAR would have ended and the MMPR   
   would have taken effect but with insufficient supply from   
   only 6 Licensed Producers at the time, the MMPR would not   
   have been constitutional and absent a viable medical   
   exemption, no prohibition can exist. But for the extension   
   of the MMAR in the Allard decision, prohibition would have   
   ended with the failure of the MMPR on April Fool! With only   
   13 LPs to date, the continued failure of the MMPR would seem   
   evident.   
      
   The only way I can be freed from the unconstitutional   
   impediments contained within the MMAR and MMPR is for an   
   Interim Exemption for Personal Medical Use pending trial of   
   my action.   
   __________________________   
   Raymond Turmel   
      
   JCT: So tomorrow, Stephen Burrows and Robert Roy file theirs   
   represing the pains of the Left-Outs. Both had their Grow   
   Permits grandfathered but not their Possess Permits. And   
   Stephen provided photos of his shrinking tumor to counter   
   Justice Phelan's "insufficient evidence of need" decision.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)