TURMEL: Terry Parker Reply to Crown at SCC for medpot exemption JCT: Terry Parker served his Reply to the Crowns Response to his Application for Leave to Appeal the refusal of the lower courts to exempt him pending trial of his action for repeal! Keep in mind that Ray Turmel, Stephen Burrows and Robert Roy also have Applications and the Crown just served them with the almost same boiler-plate response focusing purely on non-medical issues. Well focus on them. Terrance Parker Dec 9 2014 Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar Supreme Court of Canada Re: Terrance Parker v. Her Majesty the Queen, File No. 36156 In 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the S.4 Possession Offence suspended 1 year and granted me a constitutional exemptions from CDSA to use marijuana during the suspension pending exemption by the MMAR. I also received a S.56 exemption from the Minister but the MMAR has never convinced my doctor to participate. The Respondent recaps that but for the medical details, 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. Respondent omits the Turmel Kit Plaintiffs also seek that Canadas old MMAR regime is unconstitutional and absent a viable medical exemption (R. v. J.P. (2003), the prohibitions in the CDSA should be struck by deleting marijuana from Schedule II of the CDSA. The Crown repeats Federal Court of Appeal may grant prerogative relief only as against those federal boards, commissions or other tribunal.. in S.28 despite my filing under S.27(1))(c): from any of the following decisions of the Federal Court, (c) an interlocutory judgment! S.28 is for originating Judicial Reviews, not appeals from below. The Crown states the proposed appeal concerns the availability of interlocutory declarations of right where no constitutional violation has yet been found and declaratory remedies are not available on an interlocutory basis but I submit an Interim Exemption pending the action, the issue in the appeal, is not a declaratory remedy. The Crown notes our actions were stayed pending final disposition of the Allard v. HMQ which seeks substantially similar relief. The Allard Action challenges the 4 failings in the MMPR, we challenge 20, while the Allard Action is against repeal of the MMAR, we are for its repeal, but the courts below bought substantial similarity of our actions enough to stay. The Crown notes motions by 50 plaintiffs, including the applicant, for an interim constitutional exemption for Personal Medical Use pending trial of my action were dismissed for failure of my Affidavit to sufficiently prove I have the Epilepsy determined by previous courts. Allard Plaintiffs also filed a motion for interim exemptions from the CDSA pending trial of their action which was rejected as inappropriate for being without limitation while our motions for Personal Medical Use pending trial of our actions were rejected as inappropriate for being similarly without limitation. The Crown argues that though the Ontario Court of Appeal previously granted Applicant an interim CDSA exemption in conjunction with a one-year suspended declaration of invalidity, there has as yet been no finding in the present case that the impugned regulatory provisions are unconstitutional. But there has as yet been no finding of unconstitutionality in Allard yet interim constitutional exemptions were granted pending the trial of their action. Like two of four Allard Plaintiffs, Robert Roy was left out of the relief by Manson and the ongoing Allard appeal does include the same appeal to grandfather their Possess Permits back to the same date as their grand-fathered Grow Permits. If the Allard Left-Outs may seek the same relief as sought by Robert Roy, why couldnt Robert Roy have sought it too? The Crown argues the proposed appeal does not raise an issue of national importance. With all the recent studies coming out on the benefits of marijuana, its prohibition has serious national implications on the Charter Right to Life. Since the declaration that prohibition of marijuana violated the right to life, only I was given 1-year protection all other epileptics were un-exempted and the vast majority remain un-exempted. With 4 known epileptics dying per day since 2000, thats 20,000 needless deaths since the prohibition was declared invalid. I should have been the first one exempted under the MMAR and Im not only not the last, Im a never. Despite 4,000 charges being stayed while the invalid exemption rendered the possession offence in the CDSA invalid, the prohibition has been kept in force by the Ministry of Justice and Judiciary accepting that the Hitzig decision striking down the flaws in the MMAR revived the not-in-effect prohibition in the CDSA despite S.43 of the Interpretation Act stating amending something in one act cannot revive something not alive in another. Since then, many courts kept the prohibition alive by accepting that the Hitzig Court revived the prohibition without Parliament. The Ministry of Justice and the Courts have the blood of all those epileptics on their hands. A decade where the judiciary ruled the judiciary had revived a prohibition that had been invalid for 2 years without Parliament at the behest of the Crown. Turmel Kit Plaintiff David Shea whose action was stayed before has since succumbed to his cancer. Should I obey the present law, I stand a chance of joining him on the victim list despite my Court of Appeal having ruled that forcing me to choose between my health and prison violated my right then. And does now. My only remedy is for an interim exemption pending the action for repeal of prohibition below. Terrance Parker JCT: To keep it simple, youre allowed to file a letter of Reply if under 2 pages. The Crown did and now we will. But since the Crown boiler-plated their response, the other Applicants can now adopt Terrys arguments and have plenty of space to get into their medical need that the Crown fully ignored. They should be all done by tomorrow. Remember, these are for interim exemptions, not for repeal. Thats coming next.
Posted on: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:14:41 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015