3000 left ? Or a number misunderstanding.

realmeduser

realmeduser

Well-Known Member
I have seen the number 38000 and 41000 used in regards to the injunction case.
People seem to have taken this to mean that there are only 3000 patients covered under the injunction.
Are there really only 3000 left, or have hc and conroy just used a different total figure of patients?
I am curious.
 
indoorguycanada

indoorguycanada

Active Member
realmeduser said:
I have seen the number 38000 and 41000 used in regards to the injunction case.
People seem to have taken this to mean that there are only 3000 patients covered under the injunction.
Are there really only 3000 left, or have hc and conroy just used a different total figure of patients?
I am curious.
Click to expand...
Very good question
I would also like to know
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
I can 100% undoubtedly confirm it is in fact 41,000 patients. That's what my privacy breach statement from the privacy commissioner himself and HC signed off on in the investigation.
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
i heard 18000 left outs but i could be wrong.
i think it's so wrong that a judge can do something like that with the stroke of a pen and we have to suffer to get back what should have been left alone...and injunction should have held the bloody status quo! he even knows what he did because the appeal judges asked for his reasoning to give relief to some and not to all. that was the win Conroy had at the higher level court and chose not to appeal there. those judges had authority to over rule Manson
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
i heard 18000 left outs but i could be wrong.
i think it's so wrong that a judge can do something like that with the stroke of a pen and we have to suffer to get back what should have been left alone...and injunction should have held the bloody status quo! he even knows what he did because the appeal judges asked for his reasoning to give relief to some and not to all. that was the win Conroy had at the higher level court and chose not to appeal there. those judges had authority to over rule Manson
Click to expand...
Guess we got the same info on the 18k. Im really concerned about the Allard case, if things dont go as planned tomorrow then im really concerned. This battle HC insists on having about home grown is going to last a long time. HC will appeal as Conroy has said. Everyone should understand Conroy himself said it CAN take up to 4-5 years to be legally growing in your own home again. SIGN UP FOR GOLDSTARSSSSS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top