OUTLINING WHAT WILL COME FROM THIS FEDERAL COURT APPEAL

PREAMBLE: Federal Courts (FC) enforce UCC [International

UN Commercial Code Standards]. Conroy did a good job of
pressing a Charter Challenge, AND the Crown pressed that
under FC rule #373; this case is defined as an 'interlocking
injunction'; this means they can wave some of our Charter rights won under
the old MMAR, in order to accommodate their S-55 of the CDSA mandate.
This means these adjudicators can create new regulations in order to
comply with the goal of the MMPR, which is to establish licensed
cross border trafficking of cannabis, by complying to UCC case law,
AND this means Health Canada can claim to be finally offering a
quasi-legal remedy to those affected. [as opposed to quasi-illegal]
1st THE GOOD NEWS: This case is called a 'limited suspension'
application, where Conroy is almost certain, under UCC case law,
to licence the right of MMAR victims to grow their own medicine
for personal use only, under the MMPR, because this Charter right
already exists in the UCC, and having this concession apply to
Canada is necessary in order to comply with fixing the problem of
creating irreparable arm to those victims under the old MMAR.

THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE OUR EDA DECLARATION

AS IN: As soon as the FC files their ruling on this last
appeal means we [our Marijuana Party EDAs] are actually
being invited into Federal Court in order to declare THAT:
Under the Supremacy of Parliament, our right to govern
ourselves under common law jurisdiction must be recognized
[not to be ignored or dismissed] because we hold a genuine
right to not being under their control to regulate,
We are not asking these Federal Courts if they can press
their authority onto our political affairs, We're declaring that
[as to John Locke] they have no authority to take away our
Peaceful political solution to this loss of Sovereignty they created
BECAUSE obedience to their rules is a total denial of our Marijuana
Party guarantees to protect our rubric under common law jurisdiction.
In this motion, we'll ask them [under the Evidence Act] to show
us, under their rules where we are directly prohibited from
transferring a PST tax in order to protect our beliefs under our
common law positive-law initiative, because under the CRA we
can prove that we can do exactly that, with IC75-2R8 protocol

UNTIL NOW: this transition from one system to the other

included all those designated growers[DG], who supplied others
with medical-need with medicine, from their excess production
It was made clear THAT: this 2-source supply experiment is
not going to be tolerated after this ruling. This means that when
DGs cannot supply anyone else, means the dispensaries will be shut down,
because frankly they have no access to legal cannabis, unless they grow it
themselves under an MMPR license [like some clubs have already done].

The worst they can do is say NO because frankly, we have a

letter saying that the Lieutenant Governor declared that they are
directly prohibited from ignoring us. ON THIS: a lawyer would
be disbarred for filing such a motion BUT we're not lawyers
They actually cannot deny us the right to pay a 10% common law PST tax
BECAUSE fundamentally they cannot stop us from being their competition.

The MMPR presently prescribes with the UCC standard that's being
applied in the USA of only selling what they grow. Under UCC case
law, Cities with clubs can be given canton status [like they've done in
Spain Portugal etc] BUT the wholesale /retail system that naturally
evolved under the old MMAR is simply not permitted anywhere in the world.

Some will ask: Why do you want to stir up the POT?

Because the last thing we want is to be regulated by the NWO
- It's a health issue & a remedy to protect our best interests
NAMELY: We don't want GMO or irradiated pot, (or) natural
plant extraction processes controlled by the CDSA's stock
holders /harmaceutical interests AND we actually are a safeguard to protect
us from the CDSA charging 3 to 4 times more taxes than they now levy

THE REST OF THE STORY IS BAD NEWS FOR MOST DISPENSARIES

1] The Crown demanded the shutting down of these growers
who supply retail dispensaries, because it's hard to argue with
the fact that the present situation is harming these new legal
MMPR growers from getting a foot-hold in their illegal market.
2] They pointed to the prices offered by these new MMPR
growers is about the same $5-to-$12/per gram average as the dispensaries,
so no monetary loses will encour by buying from these new legal suppliers.
BOTTOM LINE: they made it clear that a 10-day notice to comply with
whatever this ruling hands down is coming into effect real soon.

BUT MOST OF ALL: it's a Sovereignty issue. We can only

attract those who believe that the return of the Supremacy of
common law is actually a really important human rights issue.
BOTTOM LINE: Why not take a chance by knocking on this open-door to
file our Declaration that could restore our fundamental human rights, without
disturbing a reed - AS IN without endangering others with what could fail.
The challenge is actually with Authority All we can do is make an offer to
Peacefully fix the form that they deliberately destroyed. The form is broken
Once again, we are asking them to do good, so that good can result