JCT: This is the response received by Terry Parker to his Application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal refusal to grant him an interim exemption pending appeal, and the motion for an interim exemption pending the Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. As well, Ray Turmel and Robert Roy have received similar generic responses to their Applications: Department of Justice 130 King St. W. Toronto M5X 1K6 Tel/fax: 416-973-7171/0809 Dec 1 2014 Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar Supreme Court of Canada 310 Wellington St. Ottawa, K1A 0J1 Mr. Registrar Re: Terrance Parker v. Her Majesty the Queen, File No. 36156 Please accept this letter as the response of the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada (Canada) to the application for leave to appeal and motion for interim relief in the above-mentioned matter. Canada submits that the leave application does not raise an issue of public importance, and that the accompanying motion seeks relief that is not available. The application and motion should therefore be dismissed. JCT: Terrance Parker having on access to medical marijuana through the MMAR nor MMPR isnt an issue of national importance? He was the guy they were supposed to exempt first. A. Background Since February 2014, more than 270 self-represented plaintiffs, including the Applicant, have filed virtually identical claims in the Federal Court. The claims seek declarations that Canadas new medical marihuana regulatory regime, which requires patients to purchase from commercial licensed producers, is unconstitutional. By order dated May 7 2014, the Federal Court (Phelan J.) stayed the related actions pending final disposition of another Federal Court proceeding which seeks substantially similar relief. JCT: Lets us laugh at our Action to Repeal the MMAR is substantially similar by those with exemptions against Repeal!! Har har har. I just love that line. By further order dated June 4, the Federal Court confirmed its earlier stay order, and dismissed motions by several plaintiffs, including the Applicant, for an interim constitutional exemption from the CDSA pending trial of their actions. JCT: 50 motions with affidavits is several plaintiffs! And of course, the Crown always omits to mention for personal medical use hoping, justifiably, the court may forget it if they dont mention it. An appeal of the June 4 order is currently pending in the Federal Court of Appeal. In the course of his appeal, the Applicant also brought another motion for an interim exemption from the CDSA, this time, pending appeal. By Order dated July 17, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal (Nadon J.A.) dismissed the Applicants motion without reasons, with costs in the amount of $500. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal both the merits and the cost portions of that decision. JCT: No reasons to turn down The Terry Parker but the Justice must have had some good ones, just couldnt quite remember to mention them in the decision. B. The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of national importance JCT: Youd think with marijuana being such a major national issue, the Crown would feel foolish saying that. The application does not raise an issue of public importance or of a nature or significance that warrants consideration by this Court. JCT: The fact David Shea died while his Action was stayed could indicate otherwise. One less file for the A.G. to handle. It seeks leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which dismissed the Applicants motion for an interim constitutional exemption from the CDSA to possess and produce marijuana for his personal medical use. The decision below does not transcend the issues in dispute between the parties. JCT: It would depend if Terry could die without his mediation. Oh right, the court said he could. At its highest, the proposed appeal concerns the availability of interlocutory declarations of right where no constitutional violation has yet been found. JCT: Were rather focus on the availability of the right to life. Although the Ontario Court of Appeal has previously granted the Applicant an interim CDSA exemption, JCT: In protecting his right to life.. this exemption was issued pursuant to S.24(1) of the Charter, in conjunction with a one-year suspended declaration of invalidity. By contrast, there has been no finding in the present case that the impugned regulatory provisions are unconstitutional. JCT: Applicant has such a motion for a declaration of invalidity to repeal the MMAR but has been delayed until the hearing of the motion against repeal of the MMAR. Its up to the court if its obvious, isnt it? In any event, the law is clear that the Federal Court of Appeal may grant prerogative relief only as against those federal boards, commissions or other tribunal, let alone line listed in S.28. The requested relief is accordingly unavailable. JCT: We already pointed out under which section against HEr Majesty and not the boards we were actioning under. Guess Ill have to repeat it. No issues of public importance are raised by the proposed appeal as to costs either. JCT: Whether its just that Terry Parkers demand that the Parker Order be complied with be hit with costs may matter. The proposed appeal concerns matters of procedure in the Court below, JCT: And matters of the right to life. After all, if it werent for the Crown, David Shea may not be dead. which have previously been found not to warrant this Courts intervention. JCT: How many more have to die before it is found to warrant this Courts intervention? The application for leave should therefore be dismissed. JCT: Of course, the Government lawyers with the blood of David Shea and thousands of other deprived Canadians would say that. C. The motion for interim relief should be dismissed The motion for interim relief should be dismissed for the same reason as the leave application. JCT: So Terry shouldnt be exempted for his meds while he argues whether he should have been exempted for his meds. The Applicant seeks an interim CDSA exemption for the personal medical use of marihuana, pending his leave application. JCT: Finally, the mention PMU. As noted above, such relief is not available on an interlocutory basis. JCT: The courts had to let David Shea die. In any event, the Supreme Court of Canada is a statutory court, and the Applicant has identified no statutory authority that would allow this Honorable Court to grant the relief sought. JCT: There is no statutory power but for the Supreme Court to let the next guy die. D. Costs If leave is denied, Canada requests its costs of the leave application. If the motion for interim relief is denied, Canada requests its costs of the motion. Yours truly, Jon Bricker JCT: Punish Parker for asking for the exemption he was supposed to have gotten 13 years ago. 10 days to file to their Replies. Im working on our last word. John C. The Banking Systems Engineer Turmel, KingofthePaupers, Great Canadian Gambler, TajProfessor, Author of the UNILETS interest-free time-based currency United Nations Millennium Declaration C6 in the un.org/millennium/declaration.htm See johnturmel __._,_.___ Posted by: John Turmel
Posted on: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:49:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015