Looming Constitutional Challenge on plant use as religious freedom

[lightning]

Torsten from my understanding the reason these laws have never been beaten is that if you don't raise at trial a point of law you wish to rely on you can't raise it at the superior court. That has been the issue in many attempts to challenge the laws. If you read the high court cases that have failed that has been the common point.

Also we were going to try for jury nullification of the law and therefore we needed to get the treaty in to show the vic law is in breach of the treaty it is supposed to be there to ratify.

At least we got to expose that we are not under common law in Victoria but the legislative dictates of the Parliament.

Something most people do not realize

[Torsten]

thanks for clarifying that. so I guess the fact that she will let you talk about these issues [even though she will instruct the jury to disregard them] is already a victory as it allows you to bring them up in the high court later on, right?

[lightning]

Yes that is correct, Now the court has said they cannot rule on what we have raised and only the high court can rule on those points, we are going to try to use that to go direct to the high court under sections 40 and 78b of the judiciary act and request the cause be removed to the high court for hearing.

That will bypass the "be convicted and appeal up the chain to the high court" to get justice and these draconian laws struck off

[lightning]

case update to all interested,

On 6 April we lodged application for removal to the high court for our case to be heard there. The court has accepted our application paperwork and we have a case number. we have served the OPP and the Attorneys general of fed and states with the required paperwork re notice of a constitutional matter.

We will know in about 28 days if we have been successful in our app for removal and if successful a date will be set for highcourt trial and if so we will be "Off to see the wizards, the wonderful wizards of OZ"

The constitutional challenge has begun officially. Let us all hope it is successful and brings freedom for the plants and their consumers/self growers. And licensing of the commercial supply to ensure saftey and quality control for all.

[Neoshaman]

YOU GUYS ARE LENGENDARY ALTHOUGH ITS SAD YOU GUYS HAVE HAD SUCH A STRUGGLE TO BE HEARD WHEN SOME SELF RIGHTEOUS PRICK CAN CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT STIMULUS PACKAGE AND SOMEHOW GET INTO COURT THE NEXT DAY . THE BEST OF LUCK TO YOU AND ONCE AGAIN THANKYOU FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT WILL BENEFIT EVERY SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED IN THE CANNABIS AND ETHNOBOTANICAL COMMUNITIES i THINK YOU GUYS DESERVE TO HAVE A PLANT OR CACTUS NAMED AFTER YOU FOR SUCH A TIRELESS CONTRIBUTION COME ON ALL YOU GROWERS OUT THERE HOW BOUT SOMEONE NAMING A HYBIRD AFTER THESE GUYS

[Yeti101]

I agree with neo, you guys do deserve to be the patrons of some fnky strain of something.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I can't believe you have gotten this far - it's a profound acheivement.

[lightning]

Thanks for the nice words guys, I do not see what we have done as a major achievement yet, All we have accomplished is to put the bastards on notice. If we get the removal to the high court I believe we will win. That will be an achievement

In the mean time we have certainly ruined somebodies' Easter at the AGs departments.

I expect they will try to drop the charges but we have a plan for that.

Law is a cross between scrabble and chess and I have always been pretty good at both of them.

What we have done is read the law and hold them to the letter of it.

Most people defending charges focus on the charges. the trick is to focus on the law, the whole law not just the paragraphs referenced in the prosecution. Follow the clues like treaties named in the act other corresponding legislation etc. use their own words against them.

The natural word meaning of the text of the legislation is ALWAYS relevant in a court of LAW. The law cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts that text. If a law is there to ratify a treaty then the treaty is part of the law and the text of the treaty is in.

Also READ THE CONSTITUTION, everybody should, The number of laws that breach it, if you really study it, is quite extraordinary.

By the way have you guys heard about the new sport of polly bothering? It is where you write/email members of parliament state and federal and remind them that they MUST ensure adequate supply of indispensable medical cannabis for relief of pain and suffering as agreed to, recognised by and obliged under the Single Convention on Narcotics 1961. To which Australia is signatory and has ratified.

Give them heaps and remind them they are our servants not our masters

After you get the form letter in response you put in a complaint to the secretary general of the united nations about the governments failure to fulfil obligations under the treaty and it gets brought up at the next meeting of the UN, if enough people put in complaints the bastards can't ignore it and the OZ govt gets to do a please explain in the UN general meeting,

Remember if they hold us to the letter of the law it is only fair that we hold them to it.

[Neoshaman]

Thanks for the nice words guys, I do not see what we have done as a major achievement yet, All we have accomplished is to put the bastards on notice. If we get the removal to the high court I believe we will win. That will be an achievement

In the mean time we have certainly ruined somebodies' Easter at the AGs departments.

I expect they will try to drop the charges but we have a plan for that.

Law is a cross between scrabble and chess and I have always been pretty good at both of them.

What we have done is read the law and hold them to the letter of it.

Most people defending charges focus on the charges. the trick is to focus on the law, the whole law not just the paragraphs referenced in the prosecution. Follow the clues like treaties named in the act other corresponding legislation etc. use their own words against them.

The natural word meaning of the text of the legislation is ALWAYS relevant in a court of LAW. The law cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts that text. If a law is there to ratify a treaty then the treaty is part of the law and the text of the treaty is in.

Also READ THE CONSTITUTION, everybody should, The number of laws that breach it, if you really study it, is quite extraordinary.

By the way have you guys heard about the new sport of polly bothering? It is where you write/email members of parliament state and federal and remind them that they MUST ensure adequate supply of indispensable medical cannabis for relief of pain and suffering as agreed to, recognised by and obliged under the Single Convention on Narcotics 1961. To which Australia is signatory and has ratified.

Give them heaps and remind them they are our servants not our masters

After you get the form letter in response you put in a complaint to the secretary general of the united nations about the governments failure to fulfil obligations under the treaty and it gets brought up at the next meeting of the UN, if enough people put in complaints the bastards can't ignore it and the OZ govt gets to do a please explain in the UN general meeting,

Remember if they hold us to the letter of the law it is only fair that we hold them to it.

I was under the impression there was also aUN convention that outlawed cannabis which Australia is also a signatory to. ( although I could be wrong )

this would mean there are actaully two conflicting UN conventions if I'm right in my way of thinking would the most recently signed be the course of action the government is expected to take and if this is the case which is the most recent

[lightning]

I was under the impression there was also aUN convention that outlawed cannabis which Australia is also a signatory to. ( although I could be wrong )

this would mean there are actaully two conflicting UN conventions if I'm right in my way of thinking would the most recently signed be the course of action the government is expected to take and if this is the case which is the most recent

The there are 3 conventions on drugs in international law the convention you reference is the single treaty on narcotics 1961 it has been adjuncted by updates in 1971 and 1988 both of which state they are subject to 1961 treaty.

That is the treaty I reference, the statement that it outlaws cannabis is simply wrong

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 New York, 30 March 1961; Australian Treaty Series, 1967 No 0031, Australian Treaty Series Library, Health and Social Services was ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1967. Cannabis is listed in Schedule IV to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 does not specifically proscribe the medical use of cannabis, but is concerned with the health and welfare of mankind.¹ The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 provides general obligations of the Parties, which include Australia, that drugs such as medical cannabis “must” (emphasis added) be made available for the relief of pain and suffering. 1Legislative Options for Cannabis use in Australia 1994 Monograph No 26.

The claim that it outlaws cannabis is just bullshit spun by prohibitionist politicians and the like. Google the treaty reference above and read it for your self. The preamble of the treaty states it very clearly. That is one of the points made in our case the vic law contradicts the treaty it is meant to ratify rendering it unworkable and invalid.

[gilligan]

Lightning... Where is the best place to view or download a copy of the constitution? I've googled, but there is a whole heap of stuff, and if you don't know where to start, it seems a little confusing/daunting...

You have me intrigued... and i can't help but think that if more people were to take an interest in the law and wise up in their own lives, we might all be better off.

Thank you, i think you've turned on a light... It may just be an LED, but hey, better than nothing.

Edited April 9, 2009 by gilligan

[cisumevil]

Good stuff lightning.......

Been doing abit of reading of the 1961 Narcotics Convention and found this.......

"f)

The use of cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be

discontinued as soon as possible but in any case within twenty-five years from the coming

into force of this Convention as provided in paragraph 1 of article 41. "

So yeah Cannabis should be totally legal for medicinal use as far as I can tell!

[lightning]

http://fedlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf ://http://fedlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw....itutionAct.pdf

right click and save link as for pdf or or click here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/

[gilligan]

Cheers!

[lightning]

Being 21 days since we lodged proceedings in the High Court M28 of 2009 Melbourne Registry we expected that we would receive the opp submissions today in the mail, we did not. We have however just been notified that the Vic OPP has sought and received an extension of time to lodge their summary of response argument in the High Court to our application.

The letter we got from the high court says High court time extensions under Rule 26 of the high court rules are only granted in "Exceptional Circumstances"

So what was the "exceptional circumstances"? the fact that the OPP has suddenly realised it does not have a leg to stand on?

Summary of responses from the Attorneys General of Australia within the time limit (21days) set by high court rules to notification of a constitutional matter are

Federal AG will "Write to you again when the order of removal has been decided"

NSW AG is still contemplating and the crown solicitor will "notify you directly of the Attorney's decision"

QLD AG will "Reconsider intervention if the HCA grants removal for trial"

WA AG same as QLD

Tas AG and NT AG "Do not wish to intervene" ie somebody else's problem

SA and ACT have not replied at all.

in response to a letter littlbit sent 6 months ago,We also just got a letter from Krudds office noting our HCA paperwork and our demands of medical cannabis but pushing the standard "it's the TGAs responsibility to control drugs and they say there is NO medical evidence to say cannabis is a medicine",

Curious timing me thinks.

Littlbit is writing back to KRudd at the moment!!!!!

and so we wait another 7 days to find out what argument the government are going to put up to our application, must be keeping them up nights, me thinks.

If they admit their guilt we MAY show them mercy!!!

[MindExpansion]

By definition 'Health' includes both physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing, and a medication could be seen as anything which aids in increasing the individual's standard of any one of these aspects of health.

Thus even if cannabis does not improve physical health it may be benificial to SOME people's spiritual health.

Just a thought.

Peace

[mac]

Someone i spoke with via email recently brought the Cannabis anointing oil / Christianity debate to my attention as it was the first i had heard of this subject

The use of the oil for healing aches pains etc (much like emu oil) ,, & some who go a little further & use it like the "Holy Anointing Oil" cure all miracle oil like some of the "testimonials" over at places like the THC Ministry

Anyhow a interesting subject Holy Anointing Oil? or Snake Oil?

This Wiki link has uses in half a dozen other cultures / religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_use_of_cannabis

(i may be a bit off topic but its just something i have been wondering about & i thought it had some relevance to this thread (Mods feel free to move or delete this post )

Edited April 28, 2009 by mac

[triskele]

Interesting thread! Just in terms of what you were saying about treaties on Narcotic Drugs to which Australia is a signatory....you do realise that signing a treaty doesn't give Australia any overarching legal obligations, until or unless we have enshrined it in domestic law?

[lightning]

Interesting thread! Just in terms of what you were saying about treaties on Narcotic Drugs to which Australia is a signatory....you do realise that signing a treaty doesn't give Australia any overarching legal obligations, until or unless we have enshrined it in domestic law?

The treaty referred to is the Single Convention on Narcotics 1961 which has been adapted into Australian law in it's entirety under schedule 1 of the Narcotic Drugs act 1967, Commonwealth Law.

So it is in and can cause obligations

Further in the NDA1967 in section 6 it states

"The Minister for Health, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, th

Secretary or the CEO shall, in exercising any power or performing any function

conferred on him by this Act, have regard to the obligations of the

Commonwealth under the Convention and to no other matter."

[triskele]

The treaty referred to is the Single Convention on Narcotics 1961 which has been adapted into Australian law in it's entirety under schedule 1 of the Narcotic Drugs act 1967, Commonwealth Law.

So it is in and can cause obligations

Further in the NDA1967 in section 6 it states

"The Minister for Health, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, th

Secretary or the CEO shall, in exercising any power or performing any function

conferred on him by this Act, have regard to the obligations of the

Commonwealth under the Convention and to no other matter."

Well, that makes things a whole lot more interesting! Good job lightning - keep it up!

[lightning]

Update!!!

The final paperwork for the challenge has been lodged and ACCEPTED by the High Court,

The Application book goes before the justices over the next couple of weeks(depending on their work load) and we should hear shortly after they read it what is their decision.

It could all be over shortly....

[ThunderIdeal]

for your sake and everyone's, lightning, i wish you luck in the coming weeks.

[lightning]

thanks thunder I will ost update as soon as we have a date for hearing

[Light&Love]

Hey lightning, any new updates? Is there any way that any of us can help you to get your case heard? i.e. word of mouth, i have a few friends who work for the local paper, maybe they can write an article about what your trying to achieve? Maybe contact some local members of parliament? Write a letter to some people who sympathise with your cause? Do you think it would be wise to stir up some media attention on the issue, if at all possible? Id really like to try and do my bit for this cause, as this is an issue that is close to my heart, as it is to most of the members in this community. Good luck, for everyones sake ill be praying for the best outcome possible.

Peace

[lightning]

Hey lightning, any new updates? Is there any way that any of us can help you to get your case heard? i.e. word of mouth, i have a few friends who work for the local paper, maybe they can write an article about what your trying to achieve? Maybe contact some local members of parliament? Write a letter to some people who sympathise with your cause? Do you think it would be wise to stir up some media attention on the issue, if at all possible? Id really like to try and do my bit for this cause, as this is an issue that is close to my heart, as it is to most of the members in this community. Good luck, for everyones sake ill be praying for the best outcome possible.

Peace

As the docs are currently before the court the media issue is a bit touchy, contempt of court rules being what they are. So at present we are playing safe and just waiting quietly for the courts response.

When/if we get the "removal" into the high court(which we believe we will) then we will be able to mention the "nature" of the case but not the detail.

If you want more information on how to help the cause it can be found at http://www.cannabisfacts.info/constitutional

Thanks for the interest

will update again once we have heard from the HCA

[niall]

Quick update - documents were filed with the High Court 8 weeks ago today. Vic OPP requested the case in County Court be pushed back 3 months around 2 weeks ago, which the Judge granted with quite a smile in the direction of the accused :-)