He also said this is not his problem. Everyone in BC has the right to seek a charter of rights decision from the bcsc and other cases can't prevent people from seeking that. So seems left outs may have a shoe in the door. Not all cases are close enough to allard to blanket cover everyone.
injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
westcoast420
Well-Known Member
This just means the governments appeal was not successful, the case carries on and no word on when a final ruling will be made.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
if they get it, i will be going for the same!!
if I can afford Kirk T, great but if not, i will ask John T to help out. this could get very interesting.
if I can afford Kirk T, great but if not, i will ask John T to help out. this could get very interesting.
If they get it I'd say save your $ and try it yourself. Nothing against Kirk just lawyers are expensive and if your situation is very similar to his clients and he wins for them... Should be easy for you to use the same arguments without paying for representation.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
exactly my thought but if Kirk has the argument already, i hope it will be less expensive than the first case....but then again, we are talking about a lawyer.
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Hey friends, just thought I'd offer my take on these happenings 
The part of Kirk's case that was ruled on is whether the case would be stayed, as he's said that means 'frozen' pending Allard. His arguments at Trial and BC Supreme Court level were that while his clients are 'covered', 150 gr and no address change were not, and both courts agreed. The crown argued that the 'floodgates' would be opened for people to file in BC, and Tousaw countered with 'that's not my problem, this court has the right to decide Charter issues'.
From what I know of Kirk's case, the entire case is situated around the injunctive relief not being adequate. So his case will not be 'overruling' Allard in that Allard will take years to resolve, but that his case will decide on whether the BC courts provide relief that goes beyond the injunction. I'm sort of puzzled as to why his plaintiffs would not be representative but that might be some peculiarity of provincial law.
So, let's be careful about what we mean when we talk about a 'win'. Currently, all the 'win' says is that Kirk's clients have the right to not have their case stayed. The decision whether to grant relief past the current injunction is the real issue to be ruled on, this verdict is more procedural than anything.
And actually now that I think on it, this verdict might not be representative because of the procedural nature. It's quite possible that the injunctive relief verdict will apply to all similar patients in BC but I'm sure Kirk will go over that once the verdict comes down.
The part of Kirk's case that was ruled on is whether the case would be stayed, as he's said that means 'frozen' pending Allard. His arguments at Trial and BC Supreme Court level were that while his clients are 'covered', 150 gr and no address change were not, and both courts agreed. The crown argued that the 'floodgates' would be opened for people to file in BC, and Tousaw countered with 'that's not my problem, this court has the right to decide Charter issues'.
From what I know of Kirk's case, the entire case is situated around the injunctive relief not being adequate. So his case will not be 'overruling' Allard in that Allard will take years to resolve, but that his case will decide on whether the BC courts provide relief that goes beyond the injunction. I'm sort of puzzled as to why his plaintiffs would not be representative but that might be some peculiarity of provincial law.
So, let's be careful about what we mean when we talk about a 'win'. Currently, all the 'win' says is that Kirk's clients have the right to not have their case stayed. The decision whether to grant relief past the current injunction is the real issue to be ruled on, this verdict is more procedural than anything.
And actually now that I think on it, this verdict might not be representative because of the procedural nature. It's quite possible that the injunctive relief verdict will apply to all similar patients in BC but I'm sure Kirk will go over that once the verdict comes down.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
"Umm dudley..
you get 'charged' first."
Yes I know that, did I state it backwards lol. The charge will be on cpic even if there is no conviction. So yes even a charge can have consequences.
you get 'charged' first."
Yes I know that, did I state it backwards lol. The charge will be on cpic even if there is no conviction. So yes even a charge can have consequences.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
Kirk said it would only apply to his 4 plaintiffs.Hey friends, just thought I'd offer my take on these happenings
The part of Kirk's case that was ruled on is whether the case would be stayed, as he's said that means 'frozen' pending Allard. His arguments at Trial and BC Supreme Court level were that while his clients are 'covered', 150 gr and no address change were not, and both courts agreed. The crown argued that the 'floodgates' would be opened for people to file in BC, and Tousaw countered with 'that's not my problem, this court has the right to decide Charter issues'.
From what I know of Kirk's case, the entire case is situated around the injunctive relief not being adequate. So his case will not be 'overruling' Allard in that Allard will take years to resolve, but that his case will decide on whether the BC courts provide relief that goes beyond the injunction. I'm sort of puzzled as to why his plaintiffs would not be representative but that might be some peculiarity of provincial law.
So, let's be careful about what we mean when we talk about a 'win'. Currently, all the 'win' says is that Kirk's clients have the right to not have their case stayed. The decision whether to grant relief past the current injunction is the real issue to be ruled on, this verdict is more procedural than anything.
And actually now that I think on it, this verdict might not be representative because of the procedural nature. It's quite possible that the injunctive relief verdict will apply to all similar patients in BC but I'm sure Kirk will go over that once the verdict comes down.
my question here is he is going at this provincially so how would this affect the Fed's? the provinces have no jurisdiction over the Federal Government. i saw the path that Smith took so it might work but that took over 5 years to get to the SCoC.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
has anyone seen Kirk T's reply about CONroy? this is from his Facebook page
"
This is a totally separate case from Allard. It applies to the 4 people only because typically that's how lawsuits work. They apply to the people involved not everyone. And anyone that thinks John Conroy screwed any patients is ignorant of how hard he's worked to achieve very difficult results that have benefitted tens of thousands of patients. Not to mention ignorant of how the legal process works"
i guess he doesn't get how we got screwed. CONroy helped thousands of patients but he also screwed thousands!! we are called "Left Outs" for a reason! CONroy left us out and now it looks like it was on purpose
"
This is a totally separate case from Allard. It applies to the 4 people only because typically that's how lawsuits work. They apply to the people involved not everyone. And anyone that thinks John Conroy screwed any patients is ignorant of how hard he's worked to achieve very difficult results that have benefitted tens of thousands of patients. Not to mention ignorant of how the legal process works"
i guess he doesn't get how we got screwed. CONroy helped thousands of patients but he also screwed thousands!! we are called "Left Outs" for a reason! CONroy left us out and now it looks like it was on purpose
torontoke
Well-Known Member
Consider the source!
A lawyer defending another lawyer.
Neither one calls their mother back without charging per minute.
Fuck the pair of em and anyone that thinks like them.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i am taking some flak now on his page from someone who i guess is NOT a left out. Any left outs can feel the pain from the screw job from CONroy. if you are covered by the injunction then CONroy did a great job but since half the patients were left out, i wouldn't call that a great job
torontoke
Well-Known Member
Pay them no mind man
You are a good dude and are simply saying it how it is. Naturally those that aren't left out and are getting help or at least they think they are getting help are going to have a different opinion.
Once they realize how little Conroy cares about anyone else they will come around.
I've never asked this but always wondered...
How did some people get left out?
I mean... most people applied for a license to posses and grow at the same time no?
or at least, I'd think the licenses would get renewed at the same time no?
and...if that is the only deal here with not having them renewed at the same time...... how the fuck did he draw any lines at all?
If you are good to posses and you had the licences..You're good!..
Unless
.....he made this order to stop the scramble of people to get licences to grow and get under an injunction.
maybe I missed something..
GroErr
Well-Known Member
Was trying to catch up on what was going on in the legal world, essentially nothing it would seem. I've grown about ~7 lbs. of weed since this thread was started. I've said before that I'll likely kick it before this mess is cleaned up. Fuck any system that allows this sort of thing to hang in the system while sick people either pay through the nose for shit LP weed or take their chances on the street. imo, this latest circus is a good enough argument/example if I ever get busted for growing and making my own meds.
torontoke
Well-Known Member
From what I understand there are two types of left outs.
The people that had mmar Lic prior to the cut off date that need changes made to their paperwork for any reason. Location amounts etc. there was a patient that fit that criteria originally included in the allard group but said patient was dropped to make it an easier case for the lawyers to win for the others.
Then there's those of us that we're completely left out and fucked into the mmpr because our sickness didn't happen before the cut off date or dr's wouldn't sign until then.
If an mmpr patient were included into the discussion perhap everyone would have the same rights. The way it should be.
Just my two cents
torontoke
Well-Known Member
Looks awesome man
I'd love to take a dip in that pool