injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
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
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
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!
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
Over half of the 18k left outs are renewal date discrepancies. Dismissing the majority would only weaken the entire injunction supports.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
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.
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
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.
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."
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."
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
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.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
nobody important 666
Well-Known Member
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.
How much of that case of beer is tax? How much of that pound of tomatoes is tax? Get the difference? One is mostly tax and one is not taxed because it is essential to life...
nobody important 666
Well-Known Member
If you produce yourself no tax
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
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.
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Right, it's the last part of the test that's really the issue here, perhaps I should have said balance of convenience instead. And that's the issue, it's a 'balance'.