Looming Constitutional Challenge on plant use as religious freedom

[Torsten]

jondoe, your arguments cover a very big topic which [depending on who you talk to] may be helpful or completely unhelpful in this matter. As this is a long and ongoing matter and we are trying to get as many people interested in this as possible, I have decided to split your tangent from this thread into its own thread. Anyone interested should check it out.

Let's keep discussion in this thread to facts and the established process.

[SunChaser]

The problem that I have noticed for the last few years ever since I've been following this case is that Australia does not reconize cannabis as being medically valuable. So agruing that you have the right to use it medically has always seemed fairly pointless to me, unless you have a doctor or medical professional to confirm it dies have medical value, which you don't. Maybe someone can clear this up for me if I'm missing something.

BTW, any updates niall?

[t st tantra]

also doesnt recognise recreational use of drugs.

t s t .

[freakazoid]

also doesnt recognise recreational use of drugs.

except alcohol and tobacco which they've deemed safe

[Neoshaman]

The problem that I have noticed for the last few years ever since I've been following this case is that Australia does not reconize cannabis as being medically valuable. So agruing that you have the right to use it medically has always seemed fairly pointless to me, unless you have a doctor or medical professional to confirm it dies have medical value, which you don't. Maybe someone can clear this up for me if I'm missing something.

BTW, any updates niall?

I think there are substanial amounts of evidence which disprove the whole not medically valuable arguement no matter what the government thinks anyone that denies the medical value of this plant can only do so on sheer ignoranace or fear , this arguement of no medical value only holds ssway with the uninformed masses who choose to swallow the spoonfed bullshit our government trys to pass off as reality

[SunChaser]

I think there are substanial amounts of evidence which disprove the whole not medically valuable arguement no matter what the government thinks anyone that denies the medical value of this plant can only do so on sheer ignoranace or fear , this arguement of no medical value only holds ssway with the uninformed masses who choose to swallow the spoonfed bullshit our government trys to pass off as reality

I'm a medical cannabis user, so you don't need to convince me. My point is the federal and states governments do not reconize it as having medical value, there also is no 'australian study' that confirms it has medical value, they also have NO medical professional that will stand up in court to confirm it has medical value.

So how do you get the courts to except they have the right to use it medically when no one in authority will confirm it has medical value?

This is something I havnt been able to get my head around ever since I first heard of this case, since the whole agrument is based on the government being obligated to supply poeple in pain medicine, but the government or mainstream medical profession doesn't reconize it as medicine.

If I'm missing something, please enlighten me?

Edited August 29, 2009 by jabez

[niall]

I'm a medical cannabis user, so you don't need to convince me. My point is the federal and states governments do not reconize it as having medical value, there also is no 'australian study' that confirms it has medical value, they also have NO medical professional that will stand up in court to confirm it has medical value.

So how do you get the courts to except they have the right to use it medically when no one in authority will confirm it has medical value?

This is something I havnt been able to get my head around ever since I first heard of this case, since the whole agrument is based on the government being obligated to supply poeple in pain medicine, but the government or mainstream medical profession doesn't reconize it as medicine.

If I'm missing something, please enlighten me?

The Single Convention itself recognises cannabis as having legitimate medical applications and that it should be made available for such purposes:

Recognizing that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of

pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs

for such purposes

One point of law in this case is that we are in violation of the Treaty, not having made it available for scientific and medical purposes. Once it is available for scientific purposes, it can be studied and its medical value proven once and for all. But there is already a wealth of information on its medical application, the US Government patented it and lightning's submission to the High Court mentions this as well as many other studies and evidence.

The law as currently implemented is discriminatory, disproportionate, and not based on science and evidence. In this country we enjoy freedom of religion, as well as freedom FROM religion. This law not being based on sound science and evidence, is therefore based on moral belief rather than the facts, safety and effectiveness of this plant as medicine i.e. this belief is being forced upon us.

There's about another dozen or so core arguments as part of the brief, lightning is tackling this from many angles simultaneously and giving the High Court every possible opportunity and reason to declare the law unconstitutional and force Parliament to rewrite it so that it abides by the Single Convention, Human Rights, the Australian Constitution etc.

Or think about it this way - to prohibit cannabis there must be sound logic and reasoning to do so.

Still no updates. Paperwork has been with the High Court for over 9 weeks now, so it's clear they are taking this seriously and they will rule on removal if not the whole thing when they are ready and not a moment sooner. It could be days, weeks, months - we just don't know.

[niall]

Quick update guys, the High Court will be ruling on this case tomorrow. I'm not sure if this is the final ruling, or just ruling on the application for removal to the High Court, but the decision should be up on their site by COB tomorrow. Fingers crossed!

[hutch]

Quick update guys, the High Court will be ruling on this case tomorrow. I'm not sure if this is the final ruling, or just ruling on the application for removal to the High Court, but the decision should be up on their site by COB tomorrow. Fingers crossed!

Lets hope and prey!!!!

[niall]

Application for removal dismissed, still waiting to see if they're publishing their reasoning or if it's been referred elsewhere to Federal or something. Could be heading back to County for a jury trial before they can appeal, might be a procedural technicality or something - hopefully know more soon.

[notguilty]

dissapointing, but all should keep in mind this was an application for removal not an appeal

round 3?

[Garbage]

I hate to break the bad news,but...

Not going to happen,why would lawmakers give a tinkers cuss about some junkies,'Religion'.

[notguilty]

# This is an application to remove a cause in the County Court of Victoria, Melbourne, to this Court pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

# The applicants are married and self-represented. They have each been charged with one count of cultivating a narcotic plant and one count of possession of a drug of dependence (cannabis L), contrary to ss 72B and 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). The applicants have pleaded not guilty. They rely on a defence of necessity based on an alleged medical need to use cannabis for pain relief. They have also challenged the validity of the legislation under which they are charged on the basis that it conflicts with "international obligations and treaties" and on the basis that it breaches s 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution. In that regard they contend that a law requiring abstinence from cannabis is a religious observance imposed by law. They further allege that the legislation is rendered invalid by s 51(ii) and s 109 of the Constitution.

# There is no doubt that Judge Gaynor has jurisdiction to determine the constitutional points: Judiciary Act, s 39(2).

# The application must be dismissed for three reasons.

# First, there has been no ordered indication of what statutes and what treaties are relevant, and, if any evidence is necessary, it has not been filed.

# Secondly, the constitutional points appear to be baseless.

# Thirdly, no reason has been shown why the criminal proceeding should be fragmented and disrupted in the manner desired by the applicants.

# The application is dismissed.

# Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application

[sweeet]

# This is an application to remove a cause in the County Court of Victoria, Melbourne, to this Court pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

# The applicants are married and self-represented. They have each been charged with one count of cultivating a narcotic plant and one count of possession of a drug of dependence (cannabis L), contrary to ss 72B and 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). The applicants have pleaded not guilty. They rely on a defence of necessity based on an alleged medical need to use cannabis for pain relief. They have also challenged the validity of the legislation under which they are charged on the basis that it conflicts with "international obligations and treaties" and on the basis that it breaches s 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution. In that regard they contend that a law requiring abstinence from cannabis is a religious observance imposed by law. They further allege that the legislation is rendered invalid by s 51(ii) and s 109 of the Constitution.

# There is no doubt that Judge Gaynor has jurisdiction to determine the constitutional points: Judiciary Act, s 39(2).

# The application must be dismissed for three reasons.

# First, there has been no ordered indication of what statutes and what treaties are relevant, and, if any evidence is necessary, it has not been filed.

# Secondly, the constitutional points appear to be baseless.

# Thirdly, no reason has been shown why the criminal proceeding should be fragmented and disrupted in the manner desired by the applicants.

# The application is dismissed.

# Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application

I assume 1) is due to necessary paperwork not being lodged in accordance with the courts requirements...? Or the level of information provided was not enough for the High Court's liking...? From what I saw all the relevant details were provided by the defendants (in the County Court)... not too sure about this...

I assume 2) is a consequence of 1).

I assume 3) means the High Court wants the case heard through the lower courts first (and then appealed to the High Court) based on Judiciary Act, s 39(2).

I don't believe the arguments raised against the illegitimacy of current laws have not been rejected (or even considered) by the High Court... at least that's my reading of the situation. My understanding is that the High Court is saying 'we have not received paperwork how we want it', and 'deal with it in the State courts'.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/con...903112/s39.html

s39

(2) The several Courts of the States shall within the limits of their several jurisdictions, whether such limits are as to locality, subject‑matter, or otherwise, be invested with federal jurisdiction, in all matters in which the High Court has original jurisdiction or in which original jurisdiction can be conferred upon it, except as provided in section 38, and subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

(a) A decision of a Court of a State, whether in original or in appellate jurisdiction, shall not be subject to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, whether by special leave or otherwise.

Special leave to appeal from decisions of State Courts though State law prohibits appeal

© The High Court may grant special leave to appeal to the High Court from any decision of any Court or Judge of a State notwithstanding that the law of the State may prohibit any appeal from such Court or Judge.

[jondoe]

I assume 1) is due to necessary paperwork not being lodged in accordance with the courts requirements...? Or the level of information provided was not enough for the High Court's liking...? From what I saw all the relevant details were provided by the defendants (in the County Court)... not too sure about this...

I assume 2) is a consequence of 1).

I assume 3) means the High Court wants the case heard through the lower courts first (and then appealed to the High Court) based on Judiciary Act, s 39(2).

I don't believe the arguments raised against the illegitimacy of current laws have not been rejected (or even considered) by the High Court... at least that's my reading of the situation. My understanding is that the High Court is saying 'we have not received paperwork how we want it', and 'deal with it in the State courts'.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/con...903112/s39.html

s39

(2) The several Courts of the States shall within the limits of their several jurisdictions, whether such limits are as to locality, subject‑matter, or otherwise, be invested with federal jurisdiction, in all matters in which the High Court has original jurisdiction or in which original jurisdiction can be conferred upon it, except as provided in section 38, and subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

(a) A decision of a Court of a State, whether in original or in appellate jurisdiction, shall not be subject to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, whether by special leave or otherwise.

Special leave to appeal from decisions of State Courts though State law prohibits appeal

© The High Court may grant special leave to appeal to the High Court from any decision of any Court or Judge of a State notwithstanding that the law of the State may prohibit any appeal from such Court or Judge.

So one of the Justices of the High court has made this statement,

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application

Were his instructions complied with by the Registrar of the High Court ?

Where is this bogus order, is it too embarrissing to post the SEALED ORDER for all to see the OFFICE STAMP displayed on it ?

You can assume what ever you like but you wont beat these grubs at their own game.

I assume 1) is due to necessary paperwork not being lodged in accordance with the courts requirements

You have hit the nail on the head here as the paperwork was only ever LODGED and never actually FILLED in or issued from the Registry of the Court.

It was only ever LODGED in the High Court OFFICE and never actually FILLED in the Registry of the High Court of Australia.

If you cant read and understand the rules of this club you are wasting your time going in there.

Do I have to remind you about my previous posts on this subject.

[lightning]

Having considered the wording of the judgement over the weekend we believe what it came down to is that our "Evidence" lodged as a series of reports from medical practitioners had not been "tested" and challenged in a court and therefore could not be considered. We must go through the process of the County Court trial to put them on the record as "Evidence" and have been granted the right to put our constitutional arguments in the state court. If the issues are ignored by the lower court we will then have the right to return to the HCA with the "evidence" on the record and "proof" that our Constitutional rights have been abused by the system. We get to put the argument to a jury and go for jury nullification. So all is not lost

The fight continues, and if they admit their lies and hypocrisy, we may show them mercy.

And Jondoe yes the document has the Stamp of the "Seal of the High Court of Australia" that matches exactly the design of the True Seal signed across by the Registrar.

I understand your arguments and do not disagree with all you say but simply do not have the time or inclination to argue with you.

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Either jump on board and use your obvious intellect to help in the fight or stay out of the thread please.

[jondoe]

Having considered the wording of the judgement over the weekend we believe what it came down to is that our "Evidence" lodged as a series of reports from medical practitioners had not been "tested" and challenged in a court and therefore could not be considered. We must go through the process of the County Court trial to put them on the record as "Evidence" and have been granted the right to put our constitutional arguments in the state court. If the issues are ignored by the lower court we will then have the right to return to the HCA with the "evidence" on the record and "proof" that our Constitutional rights have been abused by the system. We get to put the argument to a jury and go for jury nullification. So all is not lost

The fight continues, and if they admit their lies and hypocrisy, we may show them mercy.

And Jondoe yes the document has the Stamp of the "Seal of the High Court of Australia" that matches exactly the design of the True Seal signed across by the Registrar.

I understand your arguments and do not disagree with all you say but simply do not have the time or inclination to argue with you.

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Either jump on board and use your obvious intellect to help in the fight or stay out of the thread please.

Lightning, I will post what ever I like on this thread and you can choof up as much dope as you like.

You have admitted that your doocument is not SEALED and only stamped with a rubber stamp that displays the design of the seal on the stamp on the page.

You have also admitted again that you had only LODGED the documents, they have to be FILLED in accordence with the rules of court but you appear to disregard these procedures.

As for the alleged ORDER of the High Court of Australia, its not SEALED with the SEAL OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA so this process has not been ISSUED out of the Registry of the High Court, because it never got FILLED, it has never been in there but if you snort up some more of the medical grass it wont really matter anyhow.

As for the alleged signature of the Registrar on the pretend HIGH COURT ORDER, can you read the full legal NAME of the person who allegdly signed the so called ORDER, no you cant because its not anybodies signature, its an autograph by an unidentified person.

You wont find the full legal signature of any person on any government or court document anywhere in Australia and they know exactly why they have to conceal their identity, it will attach full commercial liability to the legal person who is identified by their signature being displayed on the documents.

I suggest that before you dig the hole any deeper for the defendants you read all of the legal definitions in the Black's law dictionary as this is all that applies in our LEGAL SYSTEM, not judicial system, it just does not exist in this country where we do not have a Sovereign Government.

You should start with the words sign, signature, sign-manual, autograph, file and lodge

Either jump on board and use your obvious intellect to help in the fight or stay out of the thread please.

Why would I wish to jump on board a sinking ship that is bound to run aground anyway, and I have no intentions of staying out of the thread.

Was it too embarrissing to display the alleged HIGH COURT ORDER, put it up on the site for all to see or stop your pretence that is having a very detrimental on some other person's life.

Edited September 29, 2009 by jondoe

[t st tantra]

jondoe,a bit less agro please.

isnt your lawyer being paid to get you successfully through this process?

should this have happened?

t s t .

[jondoe]

jondoe,a bit less agro please.

isnt your lawyer being paid to get you successfully through this process?

should this have happened?

t s t .

Where is the agro you goose, have another joint, dont you like to hear the truth about the illusion you have all been sucked into.

[Rabelais]

jondoe

Where is the agro you goose, have another joint, dont you like to hear the truth about the illusion you have all been sucked into.

I have just read through this thread and I do not believe the others who have followed this thread have been sucked into an illusion...seems to have been some healthy skepticism. I was highly skeptical from the outset and like you said; I could not imagine this being successful against government and AMA policy. I do not believe this case will work.

I am curious to know if you personally support prohibition?

And for the record, I don't see why you need to drop in the snide comments...what is the point, unless you just enjoy belittling people. Many people here do not use MJ, but they still do not support prohibition - myself included. MJ laws are the epitome of hypocrisy, you do not have to be a user to see that.

[Neoshaman]

Where is the agro you goose, have another joint, dont you like to hear the truth about the illusion you have all been sucked into.

John I really think thats crossing the line TST is a very respected member of this community and his knowledge would exceed yours on so many levels I really dislike your conspricay theory bullshit as thats all your arguements seem to amount to your may actually be a very smart guy but the way you are presenting yourself is the way of an arrogant fool , all you do is repeat yourself over and over but your not really helping in anyway Torsten already started your own thread so you could debate discuss this whole topic , but instead you persist on attacking lightning and nialls effort which indicates to me your are not trying tio be constructive in anyway , actually you come across as though you have a chip on you9r shoulder for one reason or another and are sol;ely intent on derailing or discouraging the efforts of niall and lightning and the support for them from other board members IMO if you want to effectiveluy contribute here you should be presenting solutions to the problems you are raising with this case otherwise me and many others here will continue to take what you say with a grain of salt

[jondoe]

I have just read through this thread and I do not believe the others who have followed this thread have been sucked into an illusion...seems to have been some healthy skepticism. I was highly skeptical from the outset and like you said; I could not imagine this being successful against government and AMA policy. I do not believe this case will work.

I am curious to know if you personally support prohibition?

And for the record, I don't see why you need to drop in the snide comments...what is the point, unless you just enjoy belittling people. Many people here do not use MJ, but they still do not support prohibition - myself included. MJ laws are the epitome of hypocrisy, you do not have to be a user to see that.

Dale,

As for prohibition, they can choof up and drink as much grass and mushrooms and all of the other shit as they like, I could not care less as long it has no direct effect on myself or my family and I am not expected to pay for the after effects and any harm caused. I have had plenty of friends that use more than a bit of harmless grass.

No I dont support prohibition on anything except the vile lying corrupt coppers, public servants and the grubs on the bench in the pretend courts conducting their LEGAL PROCEEDINGS under their rules.

As for the snide remarks, they dish it out and I give it back. Do you want some examples ?

This case will never be successful even after the conviction in the lower court and any belief that it could be successful at a later date in any higher court is fancyful.

The system is designed and has been manipulated in the way it has for this very reason.

Time will tel and that will be another two or three years before they get back to attempting to get into the OFFICE of the High Court of Australia.

[botanika]

There's valid points raised alround. IMO Jon you are being constructive to the topic - after all legal matters are all about arguments and evidence - a suggestion would be to keep it concise or where directed.

Edited September 30, 2009 by botanika

[Torsten]

jondoe, I have separated your 'broken record' rants once before because they are not helping in this thread. I would have thought you were getting the hint when that thread died. You have made you position clear and we all know what you think, so why don't you just let Niall and Lightning get on with their attempt at what they think rather than putting them down at every step of the way. If you perspective of the legal system is so interesting, then why isn't your other thread moving along?

I am not saying niall is right, but change never happens if people listen to naysayers like yourself. You've had your say in this thread [twice] and you are getting on people's nerves [non-participating bystanders are reporting you as spam!], so please butt out and start your own threads.

[Alice]

Why are you here jondoe?

These are forums for people that have an interest in ethnobotanical plants/cacti/fungi. As far as I can see you have no interest in this whatsoever. In fact, your attitude would suggest that you are rather opposed to ethnobotanicals in general:

they can choof up and drink as much grass and mushrooms and all of the other shit

and seem lack even a basic understanding of their use:

snort up some more of the medical grass

So whats the go?

From reading your posts its getting more and more difficult to imagine you as anything other than a shit stirrer. In all seriousness, have you any interest in ethnobotanicals?