JCT: On March 13 2009, Kathy Lewis, a marijuana exemptee from London
called me to explain who Health Canada were jerking her around in
taking 3 months to update her exemption information. It has already
been 3 weeks so I told her to give them a 30-day ultimatum (our 2001
Rouleau victory by Johnny Dupuis-Robert Neron) before a judicial
review engineered by John Turmel in the background. The threat worked
when Marc Paquette was being jerked around over his exemption's
renewal just a few years ago so why not now? Then post her story at
http://health.group.yahoo.com/MedPot-discuss/messages where we could
all respond.

#12914 From: "kathylewis@..." <kathylewis@...>
Date: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:49 pm
Subject: The HC story I told you on the phone

KL: John. We spoke on Friday, March 13. This is what I told you:

My Designated Grower's license expires in November. However, he made
a
mess of things, so I revoked the license on February 15. On February
17, my new grower and I filled out HC paperwork, included the revoked
license and a copy of the letter sent to the old grower stating that
the license was officially revoked.
We tracked the courier and HC received the package on February 18.
They are saying 8-10 weeks for processing. That delays the START of
my
crop by 2 months, added to the 3 months for the first growing cycle.
Neither I nor my grower can afford to wait this long. We have to
start
NOW. I have to buy off the street while i am waiting.

Here's what you advised me to do:
Leave a detailed message at the HC call centre telling them that I am
invoking the 30 day ruling in the decision made by Judge Rouleau as
of
the date they received the paperwork (Feb 18). They must produce the
license, or a letter stating legality of grow by March 20. If they
fail to comply I will ask for a Judicial Review in Federal Court and
that John Turmel will be involved behind the scenes.

I had the clerk read the message to me several times (he got
important
info wrong the first time) and he promised it would be right in the
hands of the bureaucrats. However, he warned me, this would cause a
further delay, as they would have to call me in 3 days and that would
mean taking my file out of their "queue". I have been told, but don't
know, that there is no "queue". This is just a delaying/scare tactic.

John I've complied with everything they asked for, at some peril to
myself. I want this license so that neither my new grower not I are
at
risk. Kathy Lewis (519-645-0558)
---

#12915 From: "Marc Paquette" <paquettemarc@...>
Date: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:50 pm
Subject: Re: The HC story I told you on the phone paquettemarc
Hi Kathy! :)
according to me, your predicament is pretty similar, as you cannot
get
your legal marijuana medicine produced while waiting an unreasonable
amount of time for your new grower to get a designated grower's
license under the MMAR.
According to me, a Judicial Review would not be solution, because
such
action could take up to a year until it's heard in court - and John
Turmel knows this.
By the way, Health Canada's MMAR 8-10 weeks in advance policy has to
do with exemption renewals, but there is NO such policy for any
amendments within a currently valid exemption.
In Kathy's case, not being able of getting her cannabis medicine
produced legally under her valid exemption is an EMERGENCY, and it
should qualify for a Order of Mandamus under Section 18 of the
federal
court rules...NOT a Judicial Review! Marc
--

#12918 From: "John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
Date: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:27 am
Subject: Re: The HC story I told you on the phone johnturmel

MP: a Judicial Review would not be solution, because such action
could
take up to a year until it's heard in court - and John Turmel knows
this.

Jct: And Marc's forgotten how many times he got in front of judges
very fast so many times? Once you had filed your application for
judicial review which could take up to a year, you then could file an
application for interim relief, even on short notice some of which you
won. Then later the Judicial Review on the issues took place.
Remember the time Health Canada had not delivered your new exemption
by the expiry of your old one and we tried to get in on short notice
that very day because of importance. The judge delayed it two days and
Health Canada drove your exemption over to you the next day and tried
to get you to not go to court. You went anyway and got $150 plus
chastisement of the ministry.

MP: By the way, Health Canada's MMAR 8-10 weeks in advance policy has
to
do with exemption renewals, but there is NO such policy for any
amendments within a currently valid exemption.
In Kathy's case, not being able of getting her cannabis medicine
produced legally under her valid exemption is an EMERGENCY, and it
should qualify for a Order of Mandamus under Section 18 of the federal
court rules...NOT a Judicial Review!

Jct: Section 18 is the section for Judicial Reviews. You can go for
the Order of Mandamus compelling them to do their duty as interim
relief within the Section 18 Judicial Review.
--

#12916 From: KATHY LEWIS <kathylewis@...>
Date: Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: The HC story I told you on the phone kathylewis...
Marc My concern about the judicial Review process was exactly as you
state Marc. It would surely take a long time, and I'd have the HC
paperwork before that. I'd been advised previously to go that Order
of
Mandamus route. Isn't that the only way to get it done NOW? Tell me
how this is done, please. I cringe every time I get details, like
spelling, wrong.
--

#12919 From: "John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
Date: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:38 am
Subject: Re: The HC story I told you on the phone johnturmel

Jct: Go read my report on Marc's short notice application for
mandamus
within his Judicial Review at
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/25 where I had
written:

"The Federal Court allows for motions for immediate relief before
federal court actions are even launched so within an application for
judicial review of the whole Letter of Exemption now being withheld, I
wrote him a short notice motion and affidavit for immediate relief.

Jct: So the only way to get in front of a judge for short notice
relief is to start a judicial review then go for relief while you're
waiting.
--

#12922 From: KATHY LEWIS <kathylewis@...>
Date: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:41 am
Subject: Re: Re: The HC story I told you on the phone kathylewis...
I need "immediate short term relief". How do I do this? Kathy
---

JCT: These next two posts had been flagged as spam by yahoogroups and
I hadn't noticed for several days

#12946 From: KATHY LEWIS <kathylewis@...>
Date: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:24 am
Subject: Re: Re: The HC story I told you on the phone kathylewis...
Thanks to both of you, Marc and John. Is this settled then? Can I
submit an order of mandamus? I will call John later unless I hear
from
him here. Kathy
--

#12945 From: KATHY LEWIS <kathylewis@...>
Date: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:48 am
Subject: Re: (unknown) kathylewis...
John. Health Canada called me this morning and said the paperwork
will
be sent out on Thursday and I'll have it by Friday. That was the
exact
date I gave them on your suggestion.. Or else they are sick of you.
I'm good with that. Hope I don't have to bug you more. We'll see....
Kathy

JCT: So I didn't know the magic words "John Turmel engineering
judicial review behind the scenes" may have worked and started
preparing her judicial review papers. So on deadline day March 20, I
posted the draft of Kathy's judicial review:
--

#12129: johnturmel <johnturmel@...>
Date: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:09 pm
Subject: TURMEL: Exemptee Kathy Lewis in Fed Court for paperwork
change

Jct: Okay, Kathy Lewis. Everything under argument will be based on
your Affidavit of facts. All the other stuff, Notice of Applications,
Affidavits of Service, Application Record covers, is merely
packaging.

DRAFT APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT

I, Kathy Lewis, residing at ??? in London Ontario make oath and say as
follows:

1. I am sick enough to qualify as marijuana exemptee. My license for
my Designated Grower expires on November ?? 2009 but he made a mess
of things and I had to revoke the license on February 15 2009.

2. On February 17 2009, my new grower and I mailed off our Health
Canada paperwork including the revoked license and a copy of the
letter sent to the old grower stating that the license was officially
revoked. We tracked the courier and it was received on February 18.

3. Health Canada tell me it will take 8-10 weeks for processing. That
delays the start of my crop by 2 months, added to the 3 months for
the first growing cycle. Neither I nor my grower can afford to wait
this long. We have to start now. I have to buy off the street while I
am waiting.

4. I left a detailed message at the Health Canada call centre telling
them that I am invoking the 30 day ruling in the decision made by
Federal Court Justice Paul Rouleau from the 2001 case of Johnny
Dupuis V. Health Canada or Robert Neron v. Health Canada that the
ministry could be compelled to respond to such important life-and-
death issues within 30 days before the lack of action presuming
denial
could be judicially reviewed. I pointed out the date they received
the
paperwork (Feb 18) and that they should produce the license, or a
letter stating legality of grow by March 20, or I would be compelled
to seek a Judicial Review in Federal Court of Appeal on whether these
kinds of delays in medicine production are unconscionable enough to
warrant judicial remedy.

5. The clerk who took my message warned me, this would cause an even
further delay, as they would have to call me in 3 days and that would
mean taking my file out of their "queue". I have been told, but don't
know, that there is no "queue". This is just a delaying/scare tactic.

6. This Affidavit is made in support of an application for an interim
Order of Mandamus compelling the Respondent to do its duty and
immediately process the exemption information update and in support
of
the application for judicial review of the 10-12 weeks it takes
Health
Canada to switch from one authorized medical marijuana grower to
another.
Kathy Lewis
Address:
Tel:
Sworn before me on _______________________
in _____________________ Ontario

A COMMISSIONER, ETC.

JCT: Be ready for serving and filing in Toronto Monday or Tuesday
next week. Alan Young called me the "circus lawyer" for my propensity
to place as many victims in front of a judge at the same time as
possible and with the addition of Derek Francisco and maybe another,
it'll have a greater impact if you're all complaining together than
if
you were complaining alone.
Derek's Affidavit Draft next. Maybe a third applicant.
Everyone meets in TO for service, filing and press conferences and 2
or 3 days later, for the plea for justice against this malevolent
bureaucracy.
--

JCT: Derek's problem is that Health Canada made a 35-minute
threatening call to Derek's doctor in their campaign to keep
marijuana prescriptions low. Derek had received his first exemption
for 7 grams per day which permitted the cultivation of 35 plants. In
2007, his doctor prescribed 10 grams a day, 50 plants. In 2008, he
prescribed 21 grams per day after Derek had provided him with the
calculations on how much marihuana was required to make the cooking
oil to make cookies and muffins, a very lengthy, but clear
formulation
why his limit needed to be 21 grams. So the doctor made an informed
prescription.

In 2009, he went to his doctor to get his renewal papers signed for
the same 21 grams as 2008, no increase as they had already hit the
ideal amount, but he was now told me the doctor could only sign for 5
grams as he had been threatened by Health Canada officials for
prescribing more than the bureaucracy's medical opinion said he
should.
I had found a Canadian Press article by Dean Beeby dated Saturday
June
16 2007 detailing the start of the Health Canada campaign to reduce
dosage in general, a bureaucratic medical opinion lambasted in the
article, which highlights some patients' needs for up to an ounce a
day. (An ounce of joints is about the size of a pack of cigarettes.)

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/970048/health_canada_moves_to_keep_daily_med\
ical_marijuana_consumption_low/index.html

Health Canada Moves to Keep Daily Medical Marijuana Consumption Low
Posted on: Saturday, 16 June 2007, 12:02 CDT

By DEAN BEEBY
OTTAWA (CP) - Health Canada has been contacting doctors who prescribe
medical marijuana for their government-approved patients, advising
them to keep the dosages low.
Some users say that not only violates doctor-patient confidentiality,
it's also wrong for bureaucrats to make judgments about the medical
needs of people they've never seen.
"A person's medication should be between him and his doctor," said
Tony Adams, 60, a medical marijuana user in Victoria. "There
shouldn't
be some bureaucrat in Ottawa that's never met me. "Everybody has
different needs for medications."

Adams, a licensed user who's been smoking seven grams of marijuana
daily, recently applied to Health Canada to increase the dose to 10
grams, with his doctor's authorization. Official approval from Ottawa
is needed so that Adam can legally grow the appropriate number of
marijuana plants, set by Health Canada at five plants for each daily
gram.

But a program official in Ottawa challenged Adams' doctor in a
telephone call, saying most patients need no more than five grams.
Adams, who has severe arthritis and degenerative disc disease, later
received a new licence for just five grams a day. "I'm just really
pissed off about the whole situation... I need to get to the bottom
of
this."

Similarly, Alison Myrden in Burlington, Ont., says her doctor was
challenged by Health Canada bureaucrats about her 20-to 28-gram daily
dose. "They asked to lower it more than once, and my doctor and I
both
refused," said Myrden, 43, who uses marijuana for multiple sclerosis
and another painful condition. Her message to Health Canada: "Back
off
- leave our doctors alone."

The department's recent campaign to keep doses to five grams or less
includes postings on its website referring to external surveys and
studies indicating most medical users need only one to three grams
daily, "whether it is taken orally, or inhaled or a combination of
both."

Another posting indicates more than 85 per cent of Canada's licenced
users take five grams or less each day. And a fact sheet mailed to
doctors warns that "an elevated daily dosage of more than five grams
may increase risks with respect to the effect on cardiovascular,
pulmonary and immune systems and psychomotor performance, as well as
potential drug dependency."

Health Canada also sent a letter recently to the Canadian Medical
Association advising doctors about appropriate daily amounts. A
spokesman for the department said dosage decisions are always left to
doctors. "Occasionally, Health Canada contacts physicians to verify
or
clarify some of the information provided in the application," Renee
Bergeron said. "As part of this discussion, Health Canada provides
the
opportunity for medical practitioners to obtain more information
about
the program, including information available on the website with
regards to daily amount."

Recent efforts to restrict dosage levels may be related to concerns
about criminal activity. Last fall, for example, the department
received a letter of complaint from someone in Agriculture Minister
Chuck Strahl's riding of Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon, B.C. "The
constituent expresses his concern that an individual in his
neighbourhood is cultivating a large number of marijuana plants for
medical purposes, thereby potentially endangering his family and the
neighbourhood in general," says Nov. 20 memo to Health Minister Tony
Clement, obtained under the Access to Information Act. The memo
describes the department's efforts to reduce dosages, and says "the
initial reaction from physicians ... has been positive and it may
indirectly have an impact on the number of marijuana plants produced."

The department is also hiring eight compliance officers across the
country to monitor licensed users and growers, the document
indicates.
Bergeron says five have already been hired, and the rest - for
Ontario
and Alberta - will be hired shortly. The officers have the authority
to make site visits and alert police to problems.

As of last month, 1,774 patients were licensed to use medical
marijuana, about a thousand of whom grow it themselves. Another 166
have someone else grow it for them under licence, and 538 are
approved
to order government-certified marijuana grown in Flin Flon, Man., by
a
firm under contract with the department.

Health Canada, which has been compelled by the courts to develop its
medical marijuana program, has said that sometime after 2007 it plans
to require all users to order government dope - perhaps through
pharmacies - rather than be allowed to grow it themselves.
Source: Canadian Press
--

JCT: So Derek's doctor wants a letter stating he will not get into
trouble if the doctor prescribes what the doctor had prescribed
before
despite the ministry's medical opinion. I told Derek to simply ask
if any other doctors were ever charged with over-prescribing
marijuana. Once it is ascertained that the answer is no, it means the
Health Canada campaign was pure bluff and Derek can call them on it
and settle the issue in front of a judge. I can't imagine how they'd
want a judicial review of their policy to threaten doctors with non-
existing sanctions but one benefit I rarely mention is the right to
examine them and have them answer our questions under oath. We have
transcripts of Johnny Dupuis examining Cindy Cripps-Prawak, me too.
Guerrilla law takes up a lot of their time. So, compared to Gord and
Kathy's abuses, this is a judicial review giving Derek's chance to
tear apart this stinking policy in front of a judge I would relish
fighting. Cutting people's prescriptions is a much bigger issue than
sick people merely being tormented and jerked around.
--

Thirty five minutes later, Kathy posted:

#12930 From: KATHY LEWIS <kathylewis@...>
Date: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:44 pm
Subject: Re: TURMEL: Exemptee Kathy Lewis in Fed Court for paperwork
change

KL: This is gold or community currency, John Turmel. Many, many
thanks. I received ALL the documents today. Exactly 30 days to the
minute. And that was just last week that i left that message.
They had a picture of you on their desks when they completed my
forms,
I'm sure. I will keep this for future reference..Please let me know
if
I can do anything to assist in Derek's case. Regards, kathy

JCT: Hooray. No need to do the rest of the paperwork.
--

#12931 From: "John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
Date: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: TURMEL: Exemptee Kathy Lewis in Fed Court for paperwork
change

Jct: I feel like the medpot Lone Ranger. Har har har har. Had they
reacted before the very last day, I'd have even been saved the time
on
the affidavit. No sweat. Winning without a fight is always sweet even
if they'll claim we can infer nothing from it. Har har har har. Nice
to see government can jump.
--

#12932 From: commpacorders@...
Date: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:53 pm
Subject: Re: Re: TURMEL: Exemptee Kathy Lewis in Fed Court for
paperwork change derek.francisco

DF: I had sent HC a warning that we would all be going to court at
once, maybe that's why they jumped. They jumped on Gord Strickland's
file as well, after he sent them an authorization to talk to me about
his file, his card is on its way next week we hope.

JCT: So Gord Strictland's possible third ring of my 3-ring judicial
review circus may also now be resolved upon the mere threat of
judicial review engineered by the guerrilla lawyer behind the scenes
upon 30 days notice. Har har har. It's from the book "Winning through
intimidation." Just show them your hole cards (including the Joker)
and see if they really want to fight you over the pot in a public
courtroom. Har har har har. This is chortling.

DF: Well I'm just waiting for Ronald Denault to send my doctor a
letter so that he feels safe and knows he won't be harassed again.

JCT: And all we really need to know to win is how many doctors have
gotten into trouble so far.

DF: Let's see if they make my april 4th deadline and clear this
complete mess up so I'm not forced to file affidavit.

JCT: It's a big affidavit. Glad not to be writing it yet.

DF: I think I will give them till end of next week. Then I will file.
Thanks John, Derek

JCT: Great. No need to start any paperwork yet. Faced with preparing
3
judicial reviews over a weekend to the possibility of resolving both
by pure intimidation.
--

#12933 From: KATHY LEWIS <kathylewis@...>
Date: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:53 pm
Subject: Re: Re: TURMEL: Exemptee Kathy Lewis in Fed Court for
paperwork change kathylewis...

KL: I cringed when i saw all your work on that affidavit pop up here.
It was Canada Post at my door one second and your work the next. I'll
buy you lunch, but I get to choose the beverages. You gave me the
words to do this. and yes, HC jumped. Good for us. Don't want to
steal
your intellectual property though. Are you used to being that
effective? Kathy
--

#12934 From: "John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
Date: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:00 pm
Subject: Re: TURMEL: Exemptee Kathy Lewis in Fed Court for paperwork
change johnturmel

Jct: Almost scary, isn't it? Hey, I got them to drop the charges
against 4000 people, getting them to avoid a court fight over their
slow work seemed a really good bet given our past.
But, also, you had the backbone to play a scary card.
If you want to read about backbone, see Derek's refusal to an offer
of
getting everything back if he would only plead guilty and then see
them give him everything back after withdrawing the charges.
Seems Derek has gotten his seized pot back for a 4th time! An officer
confiscated some last week and Derek got it back Today. 4th time!
Must
be a record.
So Kathy, now you know how to defend yourself against an obstructive
bureaucracy. Savor your victory. It's up on my wall too.
--

JCT: And now, once we get proof no doctor has ever gotten into any
trouble in Canada for over-prescribing non-toxic never-fatal herb,
Derek's doctor will give him back his old prescription and these
three
horrible ministry abuses will be all resolved upon mere intimidation.
Quietly, unfortunately, so that few will hear about "privileges" won
by our medpot resisters.

Anyway, they still have the change to balk in Derek's case and I'd
relish chance to prepare the questions for Derek to ask the Health
Canada marijuana department director. We had such fun examining and
harassing them in the old days, why not start up again if they're
looking for a fight.