From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: I have a day to see if anyone could figure out their   
   optimal move. Guess only I see it so far. Enjoy:   
      
   On Mar 21 2014, Federal Court Justice Manson's ruling   
   in Allard v. HMTQ grand-fathered all patients' grow permits   
   back to the September 30 2013 announcement of the Health   
   Canada shut-down order but did not grand-father their   
   possess permits necessary to validate the grow permit so   
   those who had obeyed Health Canada's Directive to shut down   
   before April 1 were now no longer valid and Left-Out of his   
   remedy. Two of the four Allard Plaintiffs were Left-Out as   
   well as Gold Stars Stephen Burrows and Robert Roy. And there   
   was no way for those given his remedy to amend their permits   
   so any move, loss of grower, any needed change at all meant   
   losing their permits.   
      
   The Government appealed the valid ATPs being left alive and   
   the Allards cross-appealed to expand the scope of the remedy   
   for the Left Outs.   
      
   On Dec 15 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the   
   Crown's Allard appeal but sent the decision to leave Beemish   
   and Hebert out back to Manson in case he forgot them after   
   ruling they had a right to a remedy. They could have   
   expanded the remedy themselves but instead chose to   
   embarrass Judge Manson and make him correct his omission if   
   he forgot.   
      
   On Dec 30, Justice Manson said he hadn't forgotten, that he   
   had intended shutting down and moving should deprive   
   patients of the meds.   
      
   John Conroy's proposed to accept the decision and now await   
   the ruling on the "dried" marijuana before doing anything   
   else. Notice the ruling doesn't help any Left Outs at all.   
      
   What the combat engineer would do is file a $50 Notice of   
   Appeal and motion for the Court of Appeal to expand the   
   remedy in the interim since Manson provided no reason.   
      
   I could write the whole thing up in a couple of hours. But   
   it's as simple as saying:   
      
   You said we deserved a remedy for our right too.   
   Couldn't figure out why he said no and sent it back for   
   fixing.   
   He said he intended we be Left Out but again provides no   
   reason.   
   So we appeal his decision not to reconsider and move the   
   Court of Appeal 3 days later for the interim expansion to   
   everyone, including Robert and Stephen and everyone else,   
   right away.   
      
   So the Allards could be asking to be let back in in as few   
   as 3 days if I were writing the move (I still use Wordstar)   
   that could get relief for everyone.   
      
   So the optimal strategy is to appeal Manson's refusal to   
   reconsider after being told he forgot someone to the guys   
   who said he forgot and the optimal tactic is a motion for   
   interim expansion while they try to figure out why he   
   refused twice and wouldn't explain.   
      
   Isn't sad that I could have all the motion for the Left Outs   
   to get their grows back by next week and Conroy's going to   
   waste time waiting for a decision that's irrelevant to the   
   remedy they have a right to and don't yet have.   
      
   When you consider how the Court of Appeal stressed they had   
   the right but not yet the remedy, sent it back specifically   
   for the Left Outs to be remedied, and when he says no, how   
   could Conroy not think of going right back to them next   
   week?   
      
   Anyway, if Beemish and Hebert want to be in front of the   
   Federal Court of Appeal in 3-days trying to get remedy for   
   all the Left Outs, they only have to fire Conroy and self-   
   defend and I'll write their appeal and motion for relief for   
   my guys with them. Heck, we'd ask to consolidate the   
   Burrows, Robert, and some others of the 22 appellants who'd   
   been Left-Outs all together.   
      
   So now you know. You're 3 days away from seeing the same   
   guys who said Manson forgot asking them to do the   
   remembering. And it only costs $50 with the best legal   
   counsel money can't buy.   
      
   So everyone who's been Left Out and would like to have their   
   grows back and change their addresses, you know the who said   
   you had a right but no remedy yet are just a hearing 3 days   
   away! And you could even ask on short notice because the   
   patients are suffering, one died.   
      
   And isn't it amazing that just as this grand chance to win   
   it for everyone now opens up, Conroy's going to adjourn   
   everything. Sure acts like a narc mole shyster like Alan   
   Young. Here's a chance to win it with a simple move and he's   
   advocating taking the loss on permits and waiting for the   
   win on derivatives.   
      
   Now we get to find out if Beemish and Hebert are narc moles   
   too. They have the power to save everyone, I'll even pay the   
   $50 and any costs, and if they don't, what a story.   
      
   Anyway, we're a motion away from saving everyone. If you   
   don't see it, you're blind. And if you're blind, just trust   
   the Great Canadian Gambler sees the winning move and just   
   trust in the TajProfessor. $50 and every can be saved before   
   the end of next week!   
      
   Har har har. What a predicament, to have a way to save   
   everyone and then not do it. Maybe someone should ask Conroy   
   why he didn't think of the $50 appeal? Oh right, they can't   
   pay the lawyer the big money to do it. So he never thought   
   of it.   
      
   Remember, we'd be going back to the same guys who said:   
       "...although he provides a right (the interlocutory   
       injunction) to the four (4) respondents - Mr. Allard,   
       Mr. Davey, Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert - he does not, in   
       contrast, explain why he deprives two (2) respondents -   
       Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert - of a remedy. After careful   
       reading of the judge's reasons, I am left to speculate   
       as to his intention. [20] In these circumstances, I   
       cannot address properly the determination the   
       respondents are seeking as I am unable to understand   
       whether the judge intended to exclude Ms. Beemish and Mr   
       Hebert or simply forgot to deal with their situation...   
       In other words, the judge's reasons do not allow this   
       Court to perform its appellate function. [21] After   
       considering making an assessment of the evidence, I   
       believe that the wiser course is to return the matter to   
       the judge with a direction that he specifically   
       addresses the situation of Ms. Beemish and Mr Hebert...   
       I would remit the matter back to the judge for   
       determination solely on the issue of the scope of the   
       remedy, more particularly with respect to Ms. Beemish   
       and Mr. Hebert, in accordance with these reasons."   
      
   And point out that here's how Manson told them to shove it:   
      
       [6] Given that Ms. Beemish did not possess a valid   
       license to possess on Mar 21 2014 (the license having   
       expired on Jan 4 2014) and that Mr. Hebert could no   
       longer renew his designated production license (having   
       moved residence on Oct 30 2013) neither Ms. Beemish nor   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)