injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
GrowRock
Well-Known Member
Good question it has to be getting close. This is redickulous that sick canadians have to wait this long...
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
where did you get that from? i would like to pursue that angle if possible. let's get on with it.
maybe we CAN ask what's taking so long
Brian Savage
Well-Known Member
Yeah it would be nice to stop the constant anxiety.
We need a ruling.
We need a ruling.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
thank you very much.
off to read now
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i read that he would do it awhile ago after the 6 month mark but no mention now. how much time would it be for him to write the request??
Scott McCluskey has just sent an email...I will post it in a second. good thoughts for a new action. they started the MMPR due to problems but when the Allard case came about and asked for the proof, there was none.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
from Scott to John Turmel. stuff to think about:
While recovering from this surgery I got to thinking about a potential angle to REPEAL the MMAR, which is our stated goal. In the Allard case, it was very clearly elucidated by Boyd and others that the premise for changing the MMAR to the MMPR, was because of risk of diversion, fire, gangsters and mold. These facts that gave rise to the rush to change the regulations, where generated by not by us medusers or designated prosucers, but so called stake holders the RCMP and the Fire Departments. These organizations have a financial and over bearing interest that makes them bias in their assessments of the facts of the MMAR and alleged abuses of the MMAR, that caused Health Canada to panic and bring in the MMPR.
We now know, factually on record in a court of law, that RCMP Holmquist reports were and are false. The fire reports were false. The mold reports were false, and the gang connections to organized crime could not be proven, to have anything to do with medical gardens.
So here is the idea. Should it not be possible to repeal the MMAR, not by it's current methods, Allard and the Goldstars, but a new action, stating that serious false information was relied upon by so called stakeholders that never represented any true threat to the integrity of the long functioning MMAR. It would seem an easy case to make, they lied, we proved it, it caused HC to move to the MMPR, because of a false perception of the faults of the MMAR, and since the new legislation was based upon these false facts, it the MMAR it must be repealed. It was blatant and the possible malicious intent that was behind these false reports given to Health Canada, making them believe they had to act now, things were out of control.
Maybe a civil action would be better for this, as in a class action lawsuit, which I have much experience with.
While recovering from this surgery I got to thinking about a potential angle to REPEAL the MMAR, which is our stated goal. In the Allard case, it was very clearly elucidated by Boyd and others that the premise for changing the MMAR to the MMPR, was because of risk of diversion, fire, gangsters and mold. These facts that gave rise to the rush to change the regulations, where generated by not by us medusers or designated prosucers, but so called stake holders the RCMP and the Fire Departments. These organizations have a financial and over bearing interest that makes them bias in their assessments of the facts of the MMAR and alleged abuses of the MMAR, that caused Health Canada to panic and bring in the MMPR.
We now know, factually on record in a court of law, that RCMP Holmquist reports were and are false. The fire reports were false. The mold reports were false, and the gang connections to organized crime could not be proven, to have anything to do with medical gardens.
So here is the idea. Should it not be possible to repeal the MMAR, not by it's current methods, Allard and the Goldstars, but a new action, stating that serious false information was relied upon by so called stakeholders that never represented any true threat to the integrity of the long functioning MMAR. It would seem an easy case to make, they lied, we proved it, it caused HC to move to the MMPR, because of a false perception of the faults of the MMAR, and since the new legislation was based upon these false facts, it the MMAR it must be repealed. It was blatant and the possible malicious intent that was behind these false reports given to Health Canada, making them believe they had to act now, things were out of control.
Maybe a civil action would be better for this, as in a class action lawsuit, which I have much experience with.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i am waiting for him to return my call or email.
i am looking into how we can ask the judge but if it's like anything else here, the only on who might be ab;le to ask is one of the plaintiffs or CONroy. i doubt CONroy will lift a finger
i am looking into how we can ask the judge but if it's like anything else here, the only on who might be ab;le to ask is one of the plaintiffs or CONroy. i doubt CONroy will lift a finger
I read it the other day and have been saying it from day one..
he cant make a decision until the government makes up their mind first about regulating legalization
and again...
Ya!
redi jedi
Well-Known Member
I think its the other way around GB.I read it the other day and have been saying it from day one..
he cant make a decision until the government makes up their mind first about regulating legalization
and again...
Ya!
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
you would think that but who knows what this ass backwards HC is going to do. Im fairly certain they have a program drawn up incase Phelan decides with us.
redi jedi
Well-Known Member
Well..lets say JT comes out tomorrow and says only LP's can grow, and then the following day Phelan says any medically authorized person can supply themselves...does JT go back to the drawing board? or would he wait for the court?
GrowRock
Well-Known Member
My thought is if a patient who is caught up in the left outs was willing and could show how unneed harm was being done by basically holding there medicine hostage by the Allard case. Then the judge would have to make a decision or allow the goldstars to proceed my 2 cents
How Long Until a Decision on the Allard injunction?
It could be weeks or months. No one can really say with any kind of certainty except Justice Phelan. And then there is the possibility of an appeal process. But it is likely that the decision will come down before any kind of legalization can be enacted. And that’s what people seem to have forgotten."
https://news.liftcannabis.ca/2016/01/27/the-forgotten-allard-injunction/