injunction/court case updates

The Hippy said:
Gulp.....WTF did Conroy NOT do right. So like he fucked up bad.
I've always said this but why are we really on only one lawyer ?
Click to expand...
Conroy is the guy we gave the money to so he could defend our rights.....
after hearing he has LP interests and then him discontinuing the appeal at the higher court, i am wondering is he 100% on our side.
then looking at the case and him leaving out 1 more plaintiff who was up to date on permits/authorizations but needed changes-that way there wouldn't be as many left outs. the only ones to be left out were the ones that didn't renew.
One more plaintiff would have made a world of difference for a lot of people
 
cannadan said:
I mean seriously....how do those others working on this case not see this....??
someone should have spelled out...how Conroy was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes...
I kept getting a weird feeling from watching those Conroy with Jason Wilcox .... in Jamaica video's.....and did not know what to think....other than to trust my instincts.....
but after the group here at ROLL_IT_UP,,,contacted J.Conroy with a offer to help out his court case...
and help they did...by providing valuable details to the case as a whole....
then I felt somewhat guilty...for doubting J.C.....
now I'm back to wondering...if we have been duped big time...
Click to expand...
You and me both....I feel like I've got both feet and possible a hand in my mouth...
 
he's not going to have to fight any more fights after this coming election. Im sure he's counting on that. The courts are on our side and he knows that as well...... Nothing will get done.....it will stay as it is now for a while....There's no doubt there, you can count on that!
 
doingdishes said:
Conroy is the guy we gave the money to so he could defend our rights.....
after hearing he has LP interests and then him discontinuing the appeal at the higher court, i am wondering is he 100% on our side.
then looking at the case and him leaving out 1 more plaintiff who was up to date on permits/authorizations but needed changes-that way there wouldn't be as many left outs. the only ones to be left out were the ones that didn't renew.
One more plaintiff would have made a world of difference for a lot of people
Click to expand...
Over half of the 18k left outs are renewal date discrepancies. Dismissing the majority would only weaken the entire injunction supports.
 
doingdishes said:
that's what they have done now.
really hoping we don't have to worry about this after Harper is GONE!!
Good ol' Tom said he'd decriminalize the day he gets in and JT says he'll wipe out old charges and legalize eventually.
Click to expand...
Once Allard,beemsish etc loose 1st round with the injunction down the tubes and leaving only 4 defendants to appeal we will all be fucked. Like you said the new government will change things thats if we get a new government. All politicians butter up the citizens for the votes and make back room deals with the corporations backing them and financing there campaign. Now fast forward and the big pharma companies push and pressure for laws that benefit them and put the wealth on there side.

Personal production to the scale of mmar will never come back. All states are scaling back personal grows most importantly Washington and Colorado. Im hoping we yield results with the goldstars for our gardens back but in no way will it be every medically approved patient. The last we will see of mmar will be a "Shut down notice" and a couple hundred dollar cheque for a privacy breach.
 
bigmanc said:
Once Allard,beemsish etc loose 1st round with the injunction down the tubes and leaving only 4 defendants to appeal we will all be fucked. Like you said the new government will change things thats if we get a new government. All politicians butter up the citizens for the votes and make back room deals with the corporations backing them and financing there campaign. Now fast forward and the big pharma companies push and pressure for laws that benefit them and put the wealth on there side.

Personal production to the scale of mmar will never come back. All states are scaling back personal grows most importantly Washington and Colorado. Im hoping we yield results with the goldstars for our gardens back but in no way will it be every medically approved patient. The last we will see of mmar will be a "Shut down notice" and a couple hundred dollar cheque for a privacy breach.
Click to expand...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-could-double-seat-count-in-b-c-political-expert-1.2526547 I predict Ndp will form a minority gov. Best part is the cons are spending all that $$ to keep jt out only to let mulcair slip right in. Haven't seen a he's not ready yet commercial directed towards the Ndp. It's like the cons don't even see them as real competition.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-mulcair-marijuana-decriminalization-1.319953
Mulcair said it's time for a change.

"Mr. Harper's plan has failed so we've got to start doing things differently. I have been categorical that no person should ever face criminal charges or a criminal record for personal use of marijuana," Mulcair said.

Asked about whether the NDP would extend amnesty to those convicted under old laws, Mulcair said it would be something his party would "sit down and look at."
 
Gmack420 said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-mulcair-marijuana-decriminalization-1.319953
Mulcair said it's time for a change.

"Mr. Harper's plan has failed so we've got to start doing things differently. I have been categorical that no person should ever face criminal charges or a criminal record for personal use of marijuana," Mulcair said.

Asked about whether the NDP would extend amnesty to those convicted under old laws, Mulcair said it would be something his party would "sit down and look at."
Click to expand...
It's a start, and with a minority, we'll be able to persuade the Libs to demand the ndp legalize and extend amnesty. Harper is finished and so is prohibition, the projected minority gives us the power to have input into what legal will look like. It's a win-win situation,imo.
 
VIANARCHRIS said:
It's a start, and with a minority, we'll be able to persuade the Libs to demand the ndp legalize and extend amnesty. Harper is finished and so is prohibition, the projected minority gives us the power to have input into what legal will look like. It's a win-win situation,imo.
Click to expand...
i agree. let's hope that TM & JT can and will work together and thumb their noses at Harper. i would LOVE to see that.
 
VIANARCHRIS said:
It's a start, and with a minority, we'll be able to persuade the Libs to demand the ndp legalize and extend amnesty. Harper is finished and so is prohibition, the projected minority gives us the power to have input into what legal will look like. It's a win-win situation,imo.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. Any step away from Harper is a good step. IMO we don't want the green rush that the U.S. Legal states had. I don't like the whole legalize and tax shit either. Decriminalize and leave me the fuck alone. I should be able to grow it and have as much of it as I want. It's not tobacco it's not alcohol it doesn't have the social cost they do. It really needs to be regulated like garden vegetables are regulated.
 
Gmack420 said:
Yes exactly. Any step away from Harper is a good step. IMO we don't want the green rush that the U.S. Legal states had. I don't like the whole legalize and tax shit either. Decriminalize and leave me the fuck alone. I should be able to grow it and have as much of it as I want. It's not tobacco it's not alcohol it doesn't have the social cost they do. It really needs to be regulated like garden vegetables are regulated.
Click to expand...
Decriminalize wont help much. Just means you can have small amount. Full legalize is the only way. Only taxed if you buy. Its not illegal to produce your own alcohol or tobacco.
 
doingdishes said:
here's a read..John Turmel about the things that are happening on our case

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/turmel/conversations/messages/4643

@JungleStrikeGuy any thoughts?

here's part of the article:
Mar 21 2014 Justice Manson ruled that in order to protect
the viability of the MMPR, he was cutting off half of
Canada's exemptees from their meds (including Allard co-
Plaintiff Tanya Beemish) and the remaining half would have
their permits cancelled for any needed change (including
Allard co-Plaintiff David Hebert).
In Dec 2015 three judges of the Court of Appeal can't
understand why Justice Manson would have Left Out half of
Canada's Exemptees from access to their medicine nor why he
was cutting off meds to people who needed permit changes.
sNote, they didn't even notice the 5 times Justice Manson had
said it was in consideration of the effects on the MMPR. But
rather than expand the relief themselves, concluding they
"could not speculate why" he left them out and not realizing
he had given his reason 5 times, they sent it back for his
reason. And he told them for the 6th time it was for
viability of the MMPR, if not the patients.
The only way to over-rule Manson's Death Penalty on Permits
was to go back to the higher Court that hadn't even
considered MMPR viability in their deliberations! And ask
for an Interim Order allowing all patients the needed remedy
while the appeal of Manson's Execution Order is challenged.
So Conroy appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal but does
not move for interim remedy. Let the patients live without
their meds while Conroy's appeal goes on. Get that? He
didn't ask for immediate remedy he would have most likely
received within days!!!
Now comes the Stab-in-the-Back. He tells all his hillbilly
supporters that the legal wisdom was to discontinue the
appeal to the higher court with jurisdiction to overrule
Federal Court Justice Manson to stay below and ask another
peer judge with no jurisdiction to vary Manson's Order.
Of course Justice Phelan dismissed the motion to vary on the
grounds he had no jurisdiction to vary a carefully-crafted
Order that Justice Manson meant to cut them off. No doubts
about it.
Get that! Conroy discontinued the appeal to the higher
judges with the jurisdiction to overrule Manson to go put on
a show below before a judge without any jurisdiction. Get
it? That whole motion to vary was smoke & mirrors.
No remedy for the Left-Outs! No remedy for those needing
amendments. All hope was not lost, but it was discontinued.
Now, if you're in the affected class, you can't start your
own Statement of Claim for relief. Phelan ordered all others
but Conroy's Plaintiffs are automatically stayed until the
Allard case is over, whether they're seeking anything to
help you or not. And usually not.
Nor can you file your own appeal because Conroy changed it
from a class action where you'd have a stake to an action
with only his 4 Plaintiffs having a stake; while making
everyone think they were in on it. Did you contribute
thinking he was protecting your right with theirs?
Some in the group did apply to appeal the Manson order
afflicting them but Federal Appeal Justice Dawson ruled only
Conroy's Beemish Left-Out and Hebert Moved-Out had standing
to appeal, no one else in the group since it's not a class,
and the Allard had it discontinued... Har har har har har
har, she must have chuckled at the patients being so screwed
by Conroy, but Jeff Harris is leading 17 people in appealing
her decision to the Supreme Court of Canada that only
Conroy's Plaintiffs have standing to appeal for the class
and since they discontinued, everyone else is out of luck
and have to live with it; or die, for some.
Click to expand...

In regards to the whole appeal vs trial court thing this is something I should probably get a handle on ASAP so I can comment intelligently on it. But on the rest:

-It's common to stay a case with similar arguments. I get that people are suffering in the interim but this is not something Conroy came up with, so that part is sort of just ranting.

-IMO this should have never been a 'class action', this is a matter of constitutionality just like Parker, Hitzig, etc. But as for Turmel saying he's pretending 'you' have a stake, that's just a lie. In cases like this representative plaintiffs are used so the court doesn't have 10000 people in it. Everyone similarly situated has a 'stake', not just the 4 plaintiffs in this case. Turmel knows better.

-Ruling the 'left outs' were the only ones with standing to appeal is logical. If you are protected by the injunction, why would you appeal? That makes no sense. Again, this are representative plantiffs, meaning if you fall into their circumstance you are represented. Turmel is skirting the line between misleading and outright lying here.

I have to again stress that interlocutory is not meant to address every need of the plaintiffs, but prevent irreprable harm as previously discussed with the 3-prong test. I really need to do some research on this whole trial vs appeal court stuff though as I have a suspicion Turmel isn't being truthful there either, hopefully within the next week.

Last comment is that I don't think there's a conspiracy, or 'backroom deals'. Some judges may be sympathetic to 'conservative' viewpoints, but we have a highly separated judiciary (thank goodness) in this country from the legislative branch. And right now Harper and judges aren't exactly BFF's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top