From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: I'd been waiting for an opportune moment to file a   
   Motion for Summary Judgment against Her Majesty in Default   
   of filing a Statement of Defence.   
      
   When I tried to file one for hearing with the April 29 Big   
   Event, it was rejected because a Summary Judgment may not be   
   sought within a "Simplified Action."   
      
   You'll remember that it had been the Registry clerk who   
   would not accept my Statement of Claim with "This is a   
   simplified action" on the front because it was for less than   
   $50,000. I'd added it by pen. Now I was told it barred me   
   filing for a summary judgment.   
      
   Well, I'd been right about an action seeking cash and a   
   declaration is not a simple action seeking only cash. And   
   I'd made a motion to have the words they'd made me add   
   struck from my Statement of Claim. At the Big Event, the   
   Crown consented and Justice Phelan said it was struck.   
      
   Interestingly, when I went to file the Motion yesterday, the   
   clerk refused to file it because the computer showed it was   
   a "simplified action"... What happened at the end.   
      
   So this is the Motion for the Summary Judgment sought by all   
   our Gold Stars. It costs $150 to file so no reason for   
   everyone in on this one.   
      
   It asks Phelan for leave to make the motion and whether he   
   denies leave, of hears the motion and denies it, I move up   
   to appeal and get it consolidated with the 26 appeals   
   against the refusal to provide interim exemptions.   
      
   I've had the chance to add all the Judicial Reviews I had   
   filed last year that were added to Justice Phelan's case   
   management. I got to record every sleazy move in red-taping   
   exemptees and ended with my favorite line:   
   "Though, with the repeal of the MMAR, the judicial reviews   
   of these abuses will no doubt be mooted, they do serve to   
   show that not only did the MMAR regime malfunction, it   
   malfunctioned at the hands of sadists!"   
      
   So here it is, the whole list of every malfunction in both   
   regimes in an attempt to show that there never was a working   
   exemption and a big analysis on Bad Exemption means No   
   Offence so strike "Marijuana" from Schedule II for REPEAL!   
      
            NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT   
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on _________________ 2014 will be heard   
   Plaintiff's motion at the Federal Court in Toronto.   
      
   THE MOTION SEEKS summary judgment:   
      
   A1) that the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR)   
   that came into force on Jul 30 2001 and the Marihuana for   
   Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) that came into force on   
   June 19, 2013, (and run concurrently with the MMAR until   
   March 31, 2014 when the MMAR will be repealed by the MMPR)   
   are unconstitutional and not saved by S.1 of the Charter in   
   that the s. 7 Charter constitutional right of a medically   
   needy patient to reasonable access to his/her medicine by   
   way of a safe and continuous supply consistent with the S.7   
   Charter right is unreasonably restricted by the impediments   
   to access and/or supply in the MMAR and/or MMPR;   
      
   A2) 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.   
      
   THE GROUNDS ARE THAT the 16 distinct defects raised about   
   the MMAR medical marijuana regime including abuses raised in   
   associated judicial reviews and the 20 distinct defects   
   raised about the MMPR medical marijuana regime with 10 in   
   common make both exemptions irreparably illusory and inflict   
   on cannabis-needy group of patients conditions of life   
   calculated to bring about its physical destruction.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging any time for service or amending   
   any error or omission which this Honourable Court may allow.   
   Dated at Toronto on Dec 24 2014.   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
   ------------------------------   
      
                  AFFIDAVIT OF THE EXPERT REPORT   
                    OF JOHN C. TURMEL, B.ENG.   
               (Expert in Mathematics of Gambling)   
      
      
   I, John C. Turmel, B. Eng., residing at 50 Brant Ave,   
   Brantford, Ontario, having also personal knowledge from   
   having authored the associated judicial reviews, make oath   
   as follows:   
      
   STATEMENT OF ISSUES   
      
   1. Given available US Government statistics showing zero   
   deaths attributed to the use of the cannabis plant;   
   Given preponderant available evidence from US insurance   
   companies in states that have recently legalized marijuana   
   showing that "high" drivers have less accidents;   
   Given the University of Saskatchewan's 2006 study showing   
   cannabis use promotes neurogenesis, new brain cell growth,   
   useful for Alzheimer's and dementia victims;   
   Given preponderant available evidence showing that marijuana   
   oil kills cancer and with a rise in cancers from the   
   Fukushima nuclear fallout we're being exposed to looming   
   expected;   
   Given the preponderant available evidence forces Health   
   Canada to allow the use of cannabis for so many varied   
   illnesses,   
   Plaintiff claims dozens of distinct bureaucratic impediments   
   in the MMAR-MMPR medical exemption regimes that reduce the   
   chances of a patient's good health and survival making both   
   regimes irreparably and unconstitutionally illusory pursuant   
   to S.7 Charter Right to Life.   
      
   2. My expert report will conclude that if cannabis marijuana   
   is good for you once you're sick, it was probably good for   
   you before you got sick. Not using cannabis for prevention   
   of all the illnesses it's good for once you get them before   
   you get them reduces the chances of survival. And that the   
   neurogenesis of new brain cells reported in the 2006   
   University of Saskatchewan study is a benefit too important   
   to prohibit.   
      
   3. Out of the ten Canadians who die from epileptic seizures   
   every day, four knew they were epileptic and could have been   
   alive today if all epileptics had been granted the same   
   protection of right to life as the Court of Appeal granted   
   Terrance Parker to possess a joint. 13 years since the   
   Parker decision, that's almost 20,000 epileptics who would   
   have survived had their anti-seizure medication not been   
   prohibited.   
   4. If it's beneficial when you get sick, not getting it on   
   demand reduces your chances of survival. Health Canada has   
   relegated the MMAR Exemption Applicants who died during the   
   delay in application processing to their "Dormants File,"   
   the wrong word for 6 feet under. Once the Defendant elicits   
   from Health Canada the number of "dormant" applicants to   
   date whom they could not find alive, the reduction of their   
   chances of survival due to the delay will have been   
   established. In every case where cannabis has a life-saving   
   effect, the bureaucratic delay in obtaining an exemption   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)