injunction/court case updates

gb123 said:

here's to hoping they aren't just going through the motions...

Click to expand...

no pun intended....

What's everyone's guess on how long it takes the judge to rule? You think he's already made his mind up one way or the other, or will he actually take time to decide? I think he will make his ruling within 30 days...probably sooner. I'm really nervous of what that decision will be, but I suspect it will be status quo for 12 months to allow HC another attempt at fucking things up. Hopefully we get permission to move gardens, but I think that's the best we can expect.

VIANARCHRIS said:

You think he's already made his mind up one way or the other,

Click to expand...

that's a question that keeps coming to mind...

VIANARCHRIS said:

What's everyone's guess on how long it takes the judge to rule? You think he's already made his mind up one way or the other, or will he actually take time to decide? I think he will make his ruling within 30 days...probably sooner. I'm really nervous of what that decision will be, but I suspect it will be status quo for 12 months to allow HC another attempt at fucking things up. Hopefully we get permission to move gardens, but I think that's the best we can expect.

Click to expand...

I think that all the time goes into writing the decision....and being careful not to mess up in applying the law as written.
they word there decisions with linguistic's that written law requires....and of course there is a research period as well...
I would imagine...that in order for a judge to render decisions...and be consistent with all those that came before...him and will come after him...as well as others sitting on the bench....currently...they probably have had to learn...a frame work or template for law writing...in lawyer speak...
So for a judge to be thorough ...it requires the whole time period they allot for the decision....

@VIANARCHRIS you mention moving--adress change? it is not this case to rule on that is it?

rnr said:

@VIANARCHRIS you mention moving--adress change? it is not this case to rule on that is it?

Click to expand...

I believe so. If we are talking about the Allard case (I get confused...old age!) then it is to reinstate elements of the mmar. At some point a judge is going to rule we can no longer grow, or most likely that the mmar/mmpr need to be fixed. In the meantime I would expect he will order Health Canada to process changes to mmar patients. That's my hope, anyway. We have been stuck in limbo for over a year.....

Sorry, what court case? We have a constitutional, extract, injunction left outs appeal,goldstars and ofcourse @doighdishes fearless five.

hopefully we get some meaningful discussion around here again...

we are waiting for the Allard decision for our right to grow/produce our own medicine-constitutional. Smith is at Supreme and that's for extracts & edibles.
the Conroy injunction so we can change out permits has not even been slated to be heard yet! i called his office and asked. that's why we (Heaven eleven now) are doing this thing now...so we can be heard right away...and then we can make changes...everyone! since we have now been denied, we are filing our appeal to their decision within a month so let's see
Goldstars are stayed pending the Allard trial

With my admittedly limited legal knowledge, it all gets confusing. Why would the constitutional case for our right to grow, not preclude or answer the issue with moving gardens, etc? IMO if HC is ordered to continue to let us grow, they are obligated to administer it, and that would include answering questions,complaints and requests from patients.It's kinda their job. Alternatively, they could back off and allow provinces to regulate health care as defined in the constitution.

we had to appeal the right to continue our right to produce for ourselves. that was approved but due to the date the judge chose, he left out relief for 2 of the Plaintiffs-Beemish and her DG/husband Hebert.
the plaintiffs Conroy chose covered the touchstones but the judge threw the curve ball by choosing his date effectively cutting off anyone who needed to renew or change. their permits expired.
if Conroy had one more plaintiff-current license but needed a change-we wouldn't have to go for the appeal for the injunction. that's why some are "left outs"

Im so lost...been out of the posts for awhile lol

I take it this appeal is for the left outs

bigmanc said:

Im so lost...been out of the posts for awhile lol

I take it this appeal is for the left outs

Click to expand...

we are appealing to be able to make changes to address etc. Hebert was cut off of relief (being able to move gardens as they couldn't afford where they were living) because they didn't renew their ATP's so they didn't fall under the dates outlined in the injunction so Beemish & Hebert were our only shot at being able to make changes. until they get "status"-which is what Conroy appealed but he didn't ask for immediate relief so "they're getting to it"
our motion was for immediate relief but they said we didn't have standing to file the motion so they dismissed it. we are off to the SCoC to argue we do have standing! if you look at paragraph 116 of the March 21 2014 injunction, it states that they recognize these plaintiffs represent a number of people. the person who dismissed us didn't look at that fact. it's unreal how they are fighting EVERYTHING! it's mind boggling that neither the crown or the "judge' didn't notice that!
we're supposed to trust these people who miss important things like that for our best interests. crazy!!

doingdishes said:

we are appealing to be able to make changes to address etc. Hebert was cut off of relief (being able to move gardens as they couldn't afford where they were living) because they didn't renew their ATP's so they didn't fall under the dates outlined in the injunction so Beemish & Hebert were our only shot at being able to make changes. until they get "status"-which is what Conroy appealed but he didn't ask for immediate relief so "they're getting to it"
our motion was for immediate relief but they said we didn't have standing to file the motion so they dismissed it. we are off to the SCoC to argue we do have standing! if you look at paragraph 116 of the March 21 2014 injunction, it states that they recognize these plaintiffs represent a number of people. the person who dismissed us didn't look at that fact. it's unreal how they are fighting EVERYTHING! it's mind boggling that neither the crown or the "judge' didn't notice that!
we're supposed to trust these people who miss important things like that for our best interests. crazy!!

Click to expand...

keep it up man. I know you got a lot on the line and causes you, myself and everyone else a lot of headaches and lost time because of those dates. I'm here hoping we get back dated to September. I'm in the same boat...let mine expire because I couldn't finish a crop anyways.

well i just read that they are going to look at varying the injunction possibly today after the oral submission:

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2030-13

2015-04-28 Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan dated 28-APR-2015 directing that 'The discussion of the scheduling of the Plaintiffs¿ motion, if time permits, will be done at the conclusion of the oral arguments.' placed on file on 28-APR-2015 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

well this might be the wrong thing to do. he's doing this at the wrong level. he needs to ask a higher judge

FUCK YA let's get it done today!!!

doingdishes said:

well i just read that they are going to look at varying the injunction possibly today after the oral submission:

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2030-13

2015-04-28 Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan dated 28-APR-2015 directing that 'The discussion of the scheduling of the Plaintiffs¿ motion, if time permits, will be done at the conclusion of the oral arguments.' placed on file on 28-APR-2015 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

well this might be the wrong thing to do. he's doing this at the wrong level. he needs to ask a higher judge

Click to expand...

What do you mean? This sounds like a notice that the plaintiffs want to admit some motion, and if there is time they will be allowed after closing arguments. Why does that need to be passed by a higher judge? Am I missing something?

the equal level judge made the decision so a higher up has to make the ruling. judges on the same level can't over rule each other
it's like going to a store with a complaint. you talk to the supervisor and they say you can't do what you want. you don't like that so you need to go to that supervisor's boss/higher up in order for them to over rule. neither supervisor has the authority to over rule each other.
Manson already said no to the date change so we could get the injunction to include making changes. Phelean is the same level judge as Manson.
That's my understanding of the way it works. i might be way off...i hope so but I got the info from a good source. let's see. i hope the info is wrong & we are allowed to make changes to sites & possibly increases!

Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
"Good morning" Justice Phelan greets the court. #Allard counsel John Conroy takes the stand for closing arguments
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy: we are free, unless the government provides a good reason for keeping us from being free - going over a brief history of pot laws
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy reviewing names of fact and expert witnesses in the case: Remo, Nash, Wilcox and others and their relation to the case
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy will deal with Section 7 issues, #Allard Counsel Bibhas Vase will deal with Section 1 issues
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy: Issue is whether or not the MMPR violates section 7 of the charter, in that in infringes on liberty of and security of the person
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Section 1 allows government to limit an individuals charter rights - Conroy said he's shown Section 1 is is not valid in this case
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Justice Phelan asks Conroy if he is trying to "strike out certain" parts of the MMPR or "insert" things
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy: case may "indicate to the government what the problems are and toss the ball to them to regulate"
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Justice Phelan jokes about the danger of leaving patients open to criminal charges "except in Vancouver". The courtroom chuckles

Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Many patients could not afford prices of government's original supply of marijuana through Prairie Plant Systems even when subsidized
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
There is no evidence any patients produced marijuana in an unsafe manner, or worked with the black market or other harms defended has raised
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy on #Allard growing his own: he knows he's got a continuous and safe supply - and derives a therapeutic benefit from doing it
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy: #Allard fears becoming a criminal and facing possible jail time for growing his medicine if the case is lost
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
#Allard affidavit: http://johnconroy.com/pdf/Allard-Plaintiffs-Affidavits-Trial/Affidavit-Allard.pdf…
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy discussing witness Tanya Beemish & her husband/designated grower David Hebert: they would become criminals under CDSA mandatory mins
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Affidavit of Tanya Beemish: http://www.johnconroy.com/pdf/Affidavit-of-Tanya-Beemish-January-13-2014.pdf…
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy now discussing Plaintiffs’ Factual Witness Shawn Davey and his struggles with health and relief from medical marijuana
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy: Davey met Brian Alexander, who became his designated grower and caregiver. They produce pot at $1 - $2 a gram

Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Davey wants personal autonomy and control over his own health. Fears going back to pharmaceutical drugs and cost of marijuana from LPs
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Phelan: "Do we have a constitutional right to other medicines we prefer? If the doctor tells you you must take one that works, you have to
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy: pharmaceuticals are harder to produce at home, but marijuana is easy to produce
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy: "The doctor has approved marijuana already. The question is, how do you get it?"
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy: Natural health products – unconrtolled herbs and other substances – are available without doctor approval
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy: Gov't is going to save a pile of money, LPs are going to make a ton, and patients are going to suffer as result of increased costs
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Conroy discussing witness Zach Walsh who said 86 percent of medical marijuana users still get their pot from the black market
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Marijuana Isn't a Gateway Drug, if Anything Alcohol is http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2015/04/30/Marijuana-Isnt-Gateway-Drug-if-Anything-Alcohol… #Alcoholic #Gateway
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5h 5 hours ago
Affidavit of Zachary Walsh: http://www.johnconroy.com/pdf/Affidavit-of-Zachary-Walsh-January-15-2014.pdf…
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 4h 4 hours ago
Conroy reviews Plaintiffs Expert Witness Remo Colasanti's testimony about safely producing medical cannabis indoors
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 4h 4 hours ago
Affidavit of Remo Colasanti: http://johnconroy.com/pdf/Allard-Experts-Trial-Plaintiffs/Affidavit-of-Remo-Colasanti-October-2014.pdf… #Allard