lightning

Thunder while I understand and in fact agree with much of what jondoe said, I see no gain being made by denying the jurisdiction of the courts or challenging the integrity of the court to their face. The legal basis of the sovereignty of the Parliament given the Treaty of Versailles and Australia's standing as a nation state is tenuous at best and we urgently need a new constitution and bill of rights. however that is a very separate issue to dealing with criminal charges under the current regime and laws. Holding the government to the letter of their own law (regardless of thoughts about the overall validity or otherwise of the current regime of laws) is the only approach that can change the law. Standing outside and throwing stones accomplishes nothing. Working within the system, showing due respect for the rule of law and turning their own rules against them will expose their hypocrisy for all to see. We may as the nay sayers contend fail in our quest but at least we are giving it our best crack. Constructive criticism to strengthen our arguments may help us achieve the goals we all seek for freedom of the plants, shit canning us for trying to bring change is petty and counter productive and shows an agenda well removed from the principles espoused by this site

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.

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

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

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....

There is an organisation in India which was reported on by sbs last week I think it was dateline and they have successfully challenged a use patent for Tumeric that was granted to a US company for medical treatment of certain ailments on the basis that Tumeric being a natural plant is the domain of all creatures not just man and it's use in medicine has been known for centuries and therefore cannot be patented, they won in US supreme court I believe. The group is in process of translating the ancient medical texts of India to prevent the patenting of the plants listed, they are backed by the Indian Govt. and Indian Traditional Medical establishment. /So hopefully that will put an end to this vile practice.

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."

Last night on SBS melbourne thay had a show on the history of the Catholic Inquisition which started in the early 1300s. They made reference to a book printed in the 1500s Drafted by Pope Paul 4 that was called the "Index of prohibited books" and was NOT REPEALED until 1966!!!! Anybody who was found to be in possession of a book named in the index was guilty of heresy and sentenced to DEATH by Burning up until the early 1700s So I would suggest that Hitler followed the Catholic Churches lead and wrote his own list to control the minds of the people, our mob of bastards are simply no better that is all, we live not in a democracy but a bureaucratic tyranny. Over the centuries the nature of the despot has not changed, If we were to follow the Bibles suggestion to "Cut evil off from amongst you" we would definitely have to start with the pollies would we not? These laws actually breach International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to which Australia is a signatory!! Article 19 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; ( For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Although they would probably try to justify it under 3b, would be an interesting argument, but kind of hollow if we roll the drug laws in the HCA

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!!!

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/

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.

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.

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.

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