TURMEL: John Conroy optimal strategy and tactics 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 Mansons 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to validate the grow permit so those who had obeyed Health Canadas Directive to shut down before April 1 were now no longer valid and Left-Out of his remedy.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 Crowns 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 hadnt forgotten, that he had intended shutting down and moving should deprive patients of the meds. John Conroy has proposed to accept the decision and now await the ruling on the dried marijuana before doing anything else. Notice the ruling doesnt 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 its as simple as saying: You said we deserved a remedy for our right too. Couldnt 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 Mansons 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 wouldnt explain. Isnt sad that I could have all the motion for the Left Outs to get their grows back by next week and Conroys going to waste time waiting for a decision thats irrelevant to the remedy they have a right to and dont 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 Ill write their appeal and motion for relief for my guys with them. Heck, wed ask to consolidate the Burrows, Robert, and some others of the 22 appellants whod been Left-Outs all together. So now you know. Youre 3 days away from seeing the same guys who said Manson forgot and asking them to do the remembering. And it only costs $50 with the best legal counsel money cant buy. So everyone whos been Left Out and would like to have their grows back and change their addresses, you know those 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 isnt it amazing that just as this grand chance to win it for everyone now opens up, Conroys going to adjourn everything. Sure acts like a narc mole shyster like Alan Young. Heres a chance to win it with a simple move and hes 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, Ill even pay the $50 and any costs, and if they dont, what a story. Anyway, were a motion away from saving everyone. If you dont see it, youre blind. And if youre 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 didnt think of the $50 appeal? Oh right, they cant pay the lawyer the big money to do it. So he never thought of it. Remember, wed 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 judges 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 judges 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 heres 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 Mr. Hebert were covered by the injunctive relief granted. The fact they did not possess valid licenses as of the transitional dates was determinative of their inability to be covered by the injunctive remedy granted. Michael D. Manson, Judge JCT: Who wouldnt want to take that back to the higher guys? So near and yet so far?
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:27:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015