• TURMEL: "Strike 150-gram cap" Claim and Motion to be amended

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Thu Nov 1 16:41:28 2018
    From: johnturmel@gmail.com

    TURMEL: "Strike 150-gram cap" Claim and Motion to be amended

    JCT: 6 people had filed Statements of Claim for a
    declaration striking the 150-gram caps in the ACMPR allowing
    the 30x days supply: Jeff Harris and wife Colleen, Ray
    Hathaway, Arthur Jackes, Robert McAmmond and Scott

    Case Management Judge Brown slated a hearing on Oct 30. So
    Jeff filed a Motion for that day to be allowed a 10-day
    supply as had been granted by the BC Superior Court to the
    Garber plaintiffs which could be applied to the other five.

    But the judge pointed out we were now no longer under the
    ACMPR but under the Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations. I
    hadn't realised the ACMPR had been replaced. So I've found
    all the sections on the 150 grams in the Cannabis
    Regulations and swapped them in to the new 150-gram cap

    So I switched in the right updated section numbers we wish
    to strike. Judge Brown named Jeff Harris and Ray Hathaway as
    Lead Plaintiffs and granted them the right to file an
    amended Statement of Claim to match the new one up at http://johnturmel.com/ins150.pdf to strike the 150 gram
    limit with only Cannabis Regulations sections being

    Ray Hathaway had also filed a Statement of Claim on his own
    behalf and included some of the sections I'm going to be
    dealing with individually. I didn't want Jeff's claim or
    motion for interim remedy on the 150 grams to be slowed down
    so Ray has agreed to adopt Jeff's Amended Claim with the
    other 4 Plaintiffs and to then filing his own new claims
    with respect to the other individual problems. For instance,
    he had argued to strike the 1-year cap on period of use but
    we have a whole separate kit that he can use for that. So no
    need to complicate the 150-gram challenge with the other

    At the Tuesday Oct 30 afternoon hearing, the judge had
    directed that all plaintiffs provide him with a proposed
    timetable and though I was going to write that we'll follow
    the regular court timeline after the Crown files their
    Statement of Defence in 30 days, I forgot. So Judge Brown
    gave them more time to submit their timetables.

    Two Lead Plaintiffs were suggested, Jeff Harris filing for
    the group and Ray Hathaway filing on his own material.

    Scott McCluskey thought Justice Brown showed prejudice over
    them not employing REAL lawyers, and doing this as self
    represented though they all said they could not afford

    Scott thought a clear prejudice was elucidated by Jon
    Bricker over seeing the same names on so many files from the
    past. He also acted like self-representation was the plague
    though they've been handling them for the past 4 years. And
    Bricker ain't seen nothing yet. Many people will be able to
    file several of the upcoming Statement of Claim kits.
    Everyone who filed over damages can also file to strike the
    150 gram cap and also file to strike the 2-patient/grower
    and 4-licenses/site caps, and also file to declare the
    prohibitions invalid because they impede our right to juice
    from local growers. Every tort is different so no wonder
    Bricker's in a bad mood.

    But Judge Brown was there to watch the whole recent process
    so he'll understand Bricker and Wright having good reason to
    be upset. But I see no gain in challenging Justice Brown's
    partiality given he's ruled our way so many times before.
    The proper way is to appeal on the merits if the eventual
    ruling is not favorable. But do you really think this Judge
    Brown is going to let people be illegal if they leave home
    with a whole day's dosage?

    Seems Bricker also again suggested that he needed to know
    their illnesses before being able to decide whether the 150
    gram limit is unreasonable. Jeff will repeat the argument
    against their last motion that a signed Dr form should be
    enough to prove a qualifying condition and why should they
    have to disclose their illness in a public forum?

    I know the Plaintiffs may not like being berated over and
    over for using the Turmel's kits... like it's some sort of
    weakness. But I take pride in being mentioned as the
    mastermind of the Repeal Prohibition resistance.

    But they kept saying the same thing about the actions being
    void of facts.... Same thing they said when the start date
    and end date on the permit were the only facts we submitted
    to determine a period of use! And whether it was
    unconstitutional. The Judge ignored their argument and let
    it go forward with just those facts establishing the period
    and not what illness the Plaintiffs were suffering. But it
    seems they're asking Judge Brown again.

    But it boils down to Jeff filing an Amended Statement of
    Claim, a new amended Motion for his 10-day supply in the
    interim, and a letter informing the judge the timeline in
    the Rules can be used.

    Today, Jeff got two emails from the Court. One his Order
    with respect to the motion and the other a timetable for
    Jeff's fresh motion:

    Date: 20181101
    Dockets: T-1716-18 T-1765-18
    Ottawa, Ontario, November 1, 2018
    PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown

    Docket: T-1716-18


    Docket: T-1765-18


    UPON the Court convening a case management meeting
    concerning these set cases assigned to me to case manage;

    AND UPON hearing from the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the
    Defendant as to whether and how these matters should

    AND UPON concluding that the most efficient course to follow
    is the appointment of two Plaintiffs as lead Plaintiffs who
    are to file amended Statements of Claim in a timely fashion
    following which the Defendant will bring a Motion to Strike.


    1. The Plaintiffs Raymond Lee Hathaway and Allan Harris in
    file numbers T-1716-18 and T-1765-18 respectively are
    appointed representative or lead Plaintiffs in connection
    with this group of actions and any actions subsequently
    added to this group all of which shall be managed in
    accordance with this Order.

    2. The said Raymond Lee Hathaway and Allan Harris shall
    serve and file their amended Statements of Claim on or
    before November 16, 2018.

    3. The Defendant shall serve and file Her Motion to Strike
    on or before December 14, 2018.

    4. The Plaintiffs Raymond Lee Hathaway and Allan Harris
    shall serve and file responding material on or before
    February 1, 2019.

    5. The Defendant shall serve and file reply material on or
    before February 22, 2019.

    6. The Defendant is at liberty to file one set of material
    on the representative Plaintiffs in respect of both actions.

    7. The Plaintiffs Raymond Lee Hathaway and Alan Harris may
    serve and file material on the Defendant electronically, and
    the Defendant may serve and file Her material on the said
    Plaintiffs also electronically.

    8. No proceedings may be brought by parties in this group of
    actions without leave of the Court.

    9. A copy of this Order shall be placed in all files covered
    by this Order, and a copy of this Order shall be provided to
    all parties who are now or hereafter subject to this Order.

    10. Costs in the cause.
    Henry S. Brown Judge

    T-1784-18 T-1822-18 T-1878-18 T-1900-18

    JCT: That's the timeline for the Crown's motion to strike
    the Statement of Claim. Then Jeff got a Direction from the
    judge on his Motion for interim remedy of 10-day supply:
    The Plaintiff is to file a fresh Motion within 5 days
    after he files an amended Statement of Claim.

    JCT: Jeff just filed his new Statement of Claim and his
    fresh Motion Record at the same time as his letter to the
    judge with his timetable.

    File No: T-1765-18

    Allan J. Harris

    Her Majesty The Queen

    (Pursuant to S.48 of the Federal Court Act)

    1. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Sections
    S.266(2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b), (6)(b), (7), S.267(2)(b),
    (3)(b), (4)(b), (5),S.290(e), S.293(1), S.297(e)(iii),
    S.348(3)(a)(ii), in the Cannabis Regulations (SOR 2018-144)
    imposing a 150-gram cap on possessing and shipping cannabis

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)