Friday, June 13

th
, 2014

To All Interested Parties:

I would first like to take a moment to thank each of you for your interest in our proposed
class action lawsuit to be filed at the Federal Court of Canada. I am sorry to hear about
your suffering under cannabis prohibition.

My family and I also understand what these past years have been like to endure. We
know, all too well, the horrific toll which otherwise preventable and manageable ailments,
and diseasesand the mainstream toxic pharmaceuticals prescribed to treat them, has
had upon each of our own, and loved ones lives. Although our stories as individuals may
differ in details, two common pillars emerge:

1. The suffering caused to each of us under the prohibition of cannabis is immenseand
mounting; and,
2. We must demand our liberties, such as the right to choose to treat ourselves in our
own natural, non-toxic traditionswithout fear of state intervention or sanction
including safe and effective access to medical cannabis strains of our own choosing.

I am not a lawyer; I abandoned that path shorty after moving to Cambridge,
Massachusetts in the 1990s. I have, however, studied the lawand have been known to
use it in order to achieve justice from time to time as a prosecutor, as a litigant (both with
and without representation by a lawyer), and as an amicus curiae (friend of the court). I
view lawyer John Conroys federal court actionand in particular, the interlocutory
injunctive relief granted by the federal court this spring, as very encouraging signs. In fact,
we have taken part of what Mr. Conroy and the applicants share in common with others,
and re-drafted an action which may now be applicable to others who feel that their rights
have also been deprived.

Unlike Mr. Conroys action, ours asks that the court to permit the representative
plaintiffs to act pro se, or in person without representation by lawyers. Although
lawyers will continue to be involved with assisting our efforts, both in terms of providing
legal advice and strategies, as well as assisting with the drafting of materials, acting pro
se, saves the initial expense of hiring a lawyer or a firm to represent the plaintiffs. If, in
the future, a lawyer or firm seeks to become further involved, the litigants themselves
will decide how best to proceed based upon options which are presented. In addition, we
have invited other parties to become involved as amici curiae (friends of the court).
These parties can include individuals or groups with strong interest or views on the
subject matter of the action, but who are not parties. An amicus curiae can educate the
court on points of law that may be in doubt, gather / organize information, or raise
awareness about some aspect of the case which the court might otherwise miss.



-2-
Amici curiae are usually, but not necessarily, lawyers, and are usually not paid for their
expertise. An amicus curiae must be neither a party to, nor an attorney in the case, but
must have some knowledge or perspective which makes her or his views valuable to the
court. The most common arena for amici curiae is in cases where issues of public
interestsuch as social questions or Charter Rights (civil liberties)are being debated.
Since I connected to Rick Simpson in January, 2010, I have worked with many others who
have dedicated much of their lives to seeing the end of cannabis prohibition in Canada. I
have assisted many in the courts in order to fight for their right to self-medicate using
cannabis. I became the first Canadian officer for a group known as Legalize Cannabis
International, and have helped patients from around the world to access cannabis for
personal medical purposes. This class action is the fruit of many of our combined efforts.
I have also personally helped self-represented defendants to obtain withdrawn charges
in respect of personal amounts of cannabis for which they had faced criminal
prosecutions since the 1990s; I have never seen such a request denied by any court to-
date. This is part of why I feel strongly that the case for personal cannabis prohibition
and moreover, for medical cannabis prohibition is no longer defensible. If I am right, it is
only a matter of time before safe and reliable access to cannabis as medicine will be
available to all Canadians. But the time for me to wait for this day to come has now run
out.
In my view, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. Parker (2000) was clear; justice Taliano in R.
v. Mernagh (2011), even clearer: the right to safe, effective access to cannabis for
medical purposes by patients who require its use cannot be justifiably suppressed by
any level of government. It seems to me that as Canadians, we need to exercise this
right. Given that so many of us have so much in common, as well as so much to lose by
remaining silent, I suggest that the time has come to set aside fear, indifference, apathy
and victimization and to stand together as a class of citizens who will seek justice against
those who have perpetrated and prosecuted a war against the most vulnerable.
You can expect an update from me each Friday in order to keep you informed. Please
contact us with any questions via email anytime. Your participation and feedback is
valued, and considered by us to be vital to a successful and effective collaboration.
Thank you again for your interest and show of support,


Jason Bowman
Cannabis Class Action Canada June 13
th
, 2014 Weekly Update to Interested Parties