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

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

Some excerpts of the transcripts. Lightning is accused M.P. Littlbit is Accused E.P. Persecutor is Mr C. It is a real eye opener to the state of law in Australia. HER HONOUR: I am obliged at the end of the trial to instruct the jury as to the law which it must apply to its deliberations. If I feel, or if my decision is, that what you have to say about the constitution, international covenants and treaties and human rights legislation is not correct at law, I will not instruct the jury to consider it. I will in fact tell the jury that that is not a matter that they should consider. The jury is not here to decide the law. The jury here is here to apply the law to the facts. ACCUSED M. P: With the greatest respect, Your Honour, we have exercised our constitutional and common law rights to trial by jury not trial by judge and jury. HER HONOUR: Yes. ACCUSED M. P: While we agree, with respect, that Your Honour has no jurisdiction to decide guilt or innocence in the case, or interpret the constitution, the jury is not so constrained. They are granted the constitutional right and responsibility stated under the Magna Carta which is still in force in Australia to judge the evidence, convict the guilty and free the innocence and therefore do have the jurisdiction to have hear anything we raise in our defence. HER HONOUR: That's actually not right and as a judge of the law that's actually not right and I do not agree with that submission, which is a legal submission, that you are making. ACCUSED M. P: Your Honour we are constantly told that we live in a democracy and democracy is not flagged by universal suffrage, it's flagged by the right of the jury to judge the justice of every act of law enforcement. HER HONOUR: By applying the law. ACCUSED M. P: Yes, the whole law, Your Honour. Now the - there's a famous jury from the Old Bailey who completely ignored the law and completely ignore the judge and - - - HER HONOUR: You'll have to tell me which famous jury that is. I'm not aware of it. ACCUSED M. P: The one that's actually flagged on the plaque outside the Old Bailey, Your Honour, with regard - - - HER HONOUR: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the plaque outside the Old Bailey. You will have to tell me which one it is. ACCUSED M. P: I haven't got a copy of it with me, Your Honour, but I will have tomorrow morning. HER HONOUR: OK. Fine. ACCUSED M. P: They were actually fined for their decision and it got off at an appeal at a higher court because they were completely within their rights to do what they did, and we simply seek to have the same option available to the jury. HER HONOUR: Until you can tell me more about that case, I can't be - I certainly can't be acceding to that sort of submission because I'm not aware of what particular case you're talking about. ACCUSED E. P: Your Honour, in the case of the law under which we've been charged, if it's attached to an international treaty, does that treaty not come into the case? ACCUSED M. P: Automatically. HER HONOUR: The law - - - ACCUSED M. P: If it's there - - - HER HONOUR: - - - under which you've been charged is not attached to a treaty. ACCUSED M. P: It's there to fulfil the single treaty. ACCUSED E. P: It's there to (indistinct) single treaty, on my copy. It states that. ACCUSED M. P: It's references. HER HONOUR: I beg your pardon. ACCUSED E. P: It states that. ACCUSED M. P: It's in the document. ACCUSED E. P: It states that it's there to fulfil it's obligations under the single treaty. HER HONOUR: As to some international (indistinct) - can you help me there, I'm not aware of that. Have a seat please. MR C: I'm not certain what Ms P is referring to, Your Honour. There's certainly nothing at the - - - HER HONOUR: It says it's, "an Act to re-enact with amendments of law relating to Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances to amended the Health Act and the Crimes Act and for other purposes". There's no reference to a treaty. MR C: No. ACCUSED M. P: Your Honour. HER HONOUR: Yes. ACCUSED M. P: I believe it's in s.6(6) where it refers to "other parallel legislation". HER HONOUR: Yes. Treaty is not legislation. "In this Act the expression 'corresponding law' means any law stated in the certificate purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the Government of any British possession outside Victoria, any foreign country, to be a law providing for the control and regulation in that possession or country of the manufacture sale use export or import of drugs in accordance with the provisions the International Opium Convention signed at The Hague, the convention which is referred to the Geneva convention in the preamble to the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom known as the Dangerous Drugs Act and the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961". How would that appear to have any effect? MR C: Your Honour, the sections under which Mr and Mrs P have been charged, as I check them quickly, don't appear to make reference to or rely upon any corresponding law. HER HONOUR: What is the purpose of the section referring to corresponding law? There's nothing in the definition schedule. MR C: No, Your Honour. The answer is I don't know. .... HER HONOUR: ....it's not just a question, as I said, of me being arbitrary about what you can and cannot do. I am equally bound by the law which governs this court, and this court cannot - I cannot entertain - I do not have the power to deal with the legislation that you're dealing with. ACCUSED M. P: We understand that, Your Honour - - - HER HONOUR: Well then, how do you propose to run this in front of a jury, because I am bound to instruct them as to the law, and I am prohibited from dealing with legislation of the type that you have brought up. I can certainly instruct them on the defence of necessity, but as to the international sanctions and legislation, I have no power. ACCUSED E. P: Can we just have one moment, Your Honour? HER HONOUR: To do what? ACCUSED E. P: To - I - - - ACCUSED M. P: Converse amongst ourselves. Just give me a sec. Your Honour, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, and with all due respect, the jury represents the public in these trials. HER HONOUR: Yes. ACCUSED M. P: Government and yourself are public servants. HER HONOUR: Yes. ACCUSED M. P: The jury are the masters of the servants. HER HONOUR: No, that's not the way it runs. What happens is that - I tell this to all juries - juries and judges have similar and parallel roles. I am a judge of the law and what I tell them about the law, they are bound by. They are the judges of the facts and I have no part in their determination of the facts or their role in determining what is the appropriate verdict beyond ensuring the trial is run according to law and instructing them as to the law. So there's no question of superior positions, if you want to put it that way. Now, this court is specifically limited in operation to certain legislation, if you like. I am limited to hearing matters which arise under particular legislation. I am not able to determine, rule upon or advise upon international covenants, the Constitution or international treaties. ACCUSED M. P: But are you not required to take into account Australia's obligations under international law when applying the law, Your Honour? HER HONOUR: No. ACCUSED M. P: I understood that was the Practice Direction No.18 from the Government Solicitor, Your Honour. HER HONOUR: Well, it might be but it's not part of what I regard as my - as I understand my function to be. This is where you've hit the impasse with your - - - ACCUSED M. P: Absolutely, Your Honour. HER HONOUR: - - - with your barristers. ACCUSED M. P: Absolutely, Your Honour. HER HONOUR: They've told you precisely what I'm telling you. ACCUSED M. P: They told us they have no ability to even put these arguments - - - HER HONOUR: That's right - - - ACCUSED M. P: - - - but suggested that we - - - HER HONOUR: - - - because I have no power to deal with them. ACCUSED M. P: - - - we - we are obliged, Your Honour to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, we have no further obligations, apart to defend ourselves to the fullest ability we have. HER HONOUR: Yes. ACCUSED M. P: And to put anything we believe to the jury and it is for the jury to decide the evidence. It is for the jury to decide - - - HER HONOUR: Yes, but you're making it - you are failing to distinguish between evidence and law. What you are seeking to put is an argument about the way things run under certain international obligations. That is not the same as evidence. You are seeking to run a legal argument in line with certain international and - international treaties and convention and in line with Commonwealth legislation, which this court does not have the power to hear or determine or deal with. ACCUSED E. P: Your Honour, is there any way that we could take this before the High Court and let them rule on the (indistinct) - - - ACCUSED M. P: Points of law. ACCUSED E. P: - - - and then come back before you? HER HONOUR: No, I don't think there is. ACCUSED E. P: There has been precedence of it, but I'm not sure of how - - - HER HONOUR: I need to know them precisely. Simply telling me there are precedents is not sufficient. ACCUSED M. P: Couldn't pull it off the top of my head. ACCUSED E. P: I quite understand, Your Honour. I just don't have them here. ..... ACCUSED M. P: Your Honour, my understand with regards to the comment made by my wife just a few minutes ago about going to the High Court, Judiciary Act 1903 s.72, Reservations of points of law. "When a person is indicted for an indictable offence against laws of the Commonwealth, the court before (indistinct) shall, on application on behalf of the accused person, may before verdict and may in it's discretion either before or after judgment without such application reserve any question of law which arises on the trial with the consideration of the Full Court of the High Court." HER HONOUR: Yes, that's Commonwealth law, you're being charged under State law. ACCUSED M. P: Is Victoria not part of the Commonwealth, Your Honour? HER HONOUR: Yes it is but there is a difference. There is a Commonwealth hierarchy of courts and there is a State hierarchy of courts and you are being dealt with by a State Court. ACCUSED M. P: We're therefore in the wrong jurisdiction. HER HONOUR: No, you've been charged with a criminal offence under legislation of Victoria and you're being dealt with by a Victorian court, it is entirely appropriate that you be dealt with there. The question as to whether to not the government should or should not allow use of marijuana for treatment is a legal question which stands on it's own and is independent to this. You are confined, as a matter of law, to the defence of necessity. You are not denied a defence, but this court cannot determine that legal question, nor can a jury be asked to determine that legal question. ACCUSED M. P: So a jury of the people, who decide and have the power over the Constitution (indistinct) - - - HER HONOUR: No jury has power over the Constitution, only the High Court itself can interpret the Constitution in particular ways. A jury has no power over the Constitution at all. ACCUSED E. P: Can the jury find that a law is unworkable? HER HONOUR: No. That's a legal question. That's to be determined by judges, not by a jury. A jury determines whether on the facts a person is guilty or not guilty, that is the extent of the jury's function. ACCUSED E. P: OK. You just said that was to be determined by judges, which judges? HER HONOUR: Legal questions relating to application of international treaties but more particularly that's an argument that usually comes in under constitutional argument, are determined by judges of the High Court. Not by a jury in a Victorian - - - ACCUSED E. P: (indistinct) in breach of international legislation - - - ACCUSED M. P: And the Constitution. How do we get that addressed? HER HONOUR: Well you get it addressed by making argument before the appropriate court, which is the High Court. It's not an argument you can run for a jury to determine in this case. The jury here is to determine whether or not, according to the laws of Victoria, you are guilty or not guilty of the charges against you. And you can run a defence of necessity. ACCUSED M. P: Your Honour, I'm going to raise something here because I believe it needs to be raised, I think this is part of where we're really running into a bit of a problem here. Both E and I have been diagnosed as having Asperger's. We view things in a very black and white way, we have no other way we can view them. It is the way our brains are wired. So we have read and read and read up on the law and statements by judges and High Court decisions and everything that we can put our hands on and the bottom line for me comes down to, you say you are required to uphold the law and I understand that - I totally understand that. But that is what the German judges said at the Nuremberg trials for having sent Jews to concentration camps, they were upholding valid laws passed by the validly elected government. It did not make what they were doing right, it did not mean that they were protecting the human rights of the citizens. Same thing in apartheid in South Africa. I see it in the same ball park here, Your Honour, because that's how my brain works. HER HONOUR: (indistinct) upheld unjust laws, yes, certainly. Nothing new, sadly, in that. ACCUSED M. P: So why can we not put the arguments as to why the laws are unjust in this court. HER HONOUR: Because this court is not a court which deals with those questions. There are other courts in Australia where you can put that argument, but not this court and not in a jury trial. I'm telling - I'm know I'm not telling you anything new, Mr and Mrs P. ACCUSED M. P: So the jury - - - HER HONOUR: I know this is what your counsel have advised you and what your solicitor has advised you. ACCUSED M. P: So the jury statement in the Magna Carta article 29 which states that the jury should judge the evidence, convict the guilty and free the innocent, is simply not in application in Victoria? HER HONOUR: It is in application because, again, the Magna Carta says the jury shall judge the evidence and what you are bringing before this court in terms of this last point, is not - - - ACCUSED E. P: And if they see this - - - HER HONOUR: Excuse me, is not evidence, it is legal argument and legal argument relating to these particular laws are not dealt with by juries and by judges. It is for the jury to judge the evidence, juries do not judge the law. That's what you need to understand. ACCUSED E. P: Your Honour, we are not intending to upset Your Honour. HER HONOUR: I know you are not, I know that you have got fervent convictions and I am in no way seeking to belittle those, I am simply telling you what the state of the law is, insofar as this court is concerned and insofar as this trial is concerned. Your counsel are perfectly capable of running a defence of necessity. ACCUSED E. P: Our counsel told us on Friday they didn't even believe they could get (indistinct) into a court. HER HONOUR: They did not believe - pardon? ACCUSED E. P: They didn't believe that necessity would even be heard. ACCUSED M. P: That's what they told us. ACCUSED E. P: That's why we ended up here - - - ACCUSED M. P: Doing what we are doing. HER HONOUR: All right, very well, I'm telling you that I will not instruct the jury as to the law relating to international covenants and the constitution. I cannot and I'm telling you that a jury cannot decide questions relating to the constitutional and international covenants, or indeed, evidence in relation to it. It is not the jury's function. The jury's function is to decide on the evidence that can be presented before it whether or not verdicts of guilty or not guilty should be lead. What I might do, it might be sensible at this point in time, given we can't get a jury panel, in any event, if I adjourn this matter until 10.30 tomorrow morning so you've got some time overnight to digest what I have said. All right? ACCUSED M. P: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. The next morning........The judge has now read our brief. HER HONOUR: I still am not sure about what I'm going to do in relation to the arguments relating to constitutional and international law that you wish to raise. I am telling you, however, that if I do decide that you can talk about those matters in your final address, as a matter of law, because at the end of it all, I then tell the jury about the law that they must apply to their deliberations. I will be telling them what you have to say about international treaties and obligations has no relevance to this trial. Yes? ACCUSED E. P: Just one question, Your Honour, and it may help you. I received some letters from Government ministers and the Attorney-General explaining the reasons why the law is in place and why we have to obey because of the treaty, if that helps at all with your deliberation on whether or not we can bring up the treaty. HER HONOUR: Yes, the reason I'm still undecided about what I will do with that has got not to do with the content, the correctness of your argument, because it's perfectly clear that those international obligations, those international treaties and the constitutional questions you wish to argue have no place in this court room insofar as the law is concerned. There are other courts you can take that question to, but you cannot raise it here. They are not defences at law. So, no matter what the content of that letter might be, I will be telling the jury, if I allow you to talk about those matters that that law has no application here and at law that is the correct position. What I'm concerned about is that there appears to have been some sort of agreement that you would obtain Legal Aid on the basis that you were not going to argue those matters in this court, and it was on that basis that the defence response was put in on your behalf. If that is what I discover from the transcript, then that - I will be sticking to what is in the defence response, which is that you have certain disagreements with the legality of those laws, if I can put it that way, but I do not propose to litigate it in this case, which is what's contained in the defence response, as well as the fact that you intent to run the defence of necessity. So I just need to check that, but you need to understand that no matter what you tell me about international obligations, international treaties and constitutional law, they have no place at law in this particular trial in a state court, and that's what I will be telling the jury. ACCUSED M. P: Your Honour, yesterday afternoon, you asked me to provide information with regards to the Old Bailey jury I referenced. HER HONOUR: Can I tell you now, that is not going to change the situation. I was exploring with you what it is you were trying to raise but it is quite clear that anything about Old Bailey juries, international covenants and the Constitution are matter which cannot be entertained by this court. They are not part of the law that relates to this court and they cannot be dealt with here. And they cannot be part of this trial. As I said, I may allow you to talk to the jury about those issues but if I do, I will be telling the jury they should not be part of their deliberations and they have no application here. Now you have been told this over and over and over. ACCUSED E. P: We keep asking to go to the High Court, Your Honour. HER HONOUR: I'm not sending you to the High Court. I don't have the power to do that. That is a matter that you undertake yourselves, but insofar as this trial is concerned, this court cannot - and this is where this trial will be heard and this is where this matter will be dealt with. If you go on appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to a possible adverse outcome as a result of this trial those matters can be raised there. If you are not successful there you can then go to the High Court, but you cannot at this point in time in this trial talk about or argue or have a plight, those arguments relating to the constitutional and international law that you have referred to. This court will be running this trial and this trial cannot at law include those arguments. ACCUSED M. P: Your Honour, can it include the common law right of the jury to overturn the law as this is what it's about? HER HONOUR: No. ACCUSED M. P: Aren't we here under common law, Your Honour? HER HONOUR: You are here because you have allegedly broken or offended under a particular law of Victoria; that's why you are here. ACCUSED M. P: ` HER HONOUR: No, it's not under - it's under the legislative dictates of the Parliament. That's the situation. End of transcript excerpts After a bit more banter about medical evidence and expert witnesses the case was adjourned to September 09 and we are now drafting our application under S78b of the Judiciary act to have the case removed to the high court where we can argue our points. So we now have confirmation that we are no longer living in a democracy but under a tyranny. Jury nullification of bad laws has been usurped by the pollies and we no longer have true trial by jury. Welcome to Australia in the 21st century a fascist state where “Officials” rule and the people are the servants.........The law is the law and if you admit your heresy we may “show you mercy”

Spoke to Alex a while back he is not a pain management specialist and therefore cannot speak to necessity and could only speak to drug and alcohol abuse and treatment ie alcohol/tobacco Vs illicit in a court of law he is prepared to do that but felt it would not help much.

Ta guys will follow up on your suggests this week We are expecting a full transcript of the hearing some time this week and will post it for all to see when it arrives, read the judge's comments for yourselves, it is a real eye opener. The Australian justice system in action!!!

ta for the doc info sina and cisum

Thanks for that shruman and aaron I will modify the brief to suit. my statement was based on an article I read on a science website, obviously dodgy.

any ideas on their names or contact details

Buggger bugger bugger The bad news Proceedings have been adjourned to Sept 2009. 9 months away. Jury was not impaneled, Court refused to hear our defence, or let it be put to the Jury on the Grounds of Jurisdiction. So we said if you have no jurisdiction to hear our defence and you refuse to allow us to put our case to the jury then are we not in the wrong court and how do we get to the right court? She refused to refer the points of law that we raised and she could not rule on to an "Appropriate Court" for a decision. So she can't decide and won't let us ask somebody who can. Is this justice or tyranny???? Today the judge came in and in a complete turn around from yesterday absolutely beratted me as soon as I opened my mouth, I bearly got 5 words out and said nothing offensive and she accused me of all sorts of things and wasting the court resources and even said that our now ex legal aid lawyers would not have said we should not call expert testimony (even though they did) and that we argued the point and gave them the details of a GP, a Psychologist (Expert in Aspergers )and Chiro but they would NOT summon the witnesses or request reports or anything else even though the legal aid grant contained funding for such and they had control of that, without the lawyers we dont have the fund. The judge virtually called us liars until we challenged her to call them and ask, suddenly she offered us a choice an adjornment to sept next year or or go ahead with our case without being able to even put our arguments to the Jury as to the Nature of the necessity as stated in the brief and she told us with no expert witnesses we would NOT get a medical necessity argument up. the TOTAL OPPOSITE of what we had been told by the lawyers. We tried to explain to the judge that any doctor that even hints that cannabis may help alleviate our pain and other ailments is open to deregistration and the sort of whitch hunt that Andrew Kat copped when he spoke up and helped people. She said without that testimony we cannot win a necessity argument of ANY KIND so rock and hard place. and legal aid were trying to SHAFT US....I am soooo shocked... not Guess why we SACKED THEM???? . we will take the adjournment she has offered, and try to get experts for testimony Finally here is a copy of the long awaited brief in pdf format the court REFUSED to allow to be put to a Jury....So read it for yourselves and make your own decision. All comments welcome . but please do not just say it wont get up without first checking all the references, daily we find more High court decisions and statements that confirm it is correct and of the 7 Legal professionals and 20 or so others with legal experience or nouse that have so far read it NOBODY has said we are wrong at law so please read carefully, If any body finds any errors in logic please explain them so we can keep improving the argument while we work out where to jump next and HOW DO WE GET TO THE HIGH COURT to put the argument. If anyone can add any further supporting evidence to help improve the arguments please post ideas to the thread for discussion, If you had seen the Persecutors face when he read the brief ... his head nearly exploded. So we contemplate the next step and will update on any further developments, By the time we get to go to court again we will be 2 1/2 YEARS since the bust!!!!! They keep saying if we plead guilty we will be shown mercy......snowflake...... hell......chance....... The good news is The arresting officer walked up to littlbit after the hearing and apologized for starting this in the first place...

CASE UPDATE Real quick update then I have to get back to do some home work the judge gave me. So far so good as the base jumper said. Good news first, Judge is onside mostly and prepared to allow a claim of necessity to go before the jury but her hounor is not so quick to grab hold of the idea that the government breaching their obligation under the treaty to "ensure adequate supply for medical and scientific usage" has compelled our necessity to grow our own medicine. She was "shocked" to know the TGA system for special Access scheme was broken and unworkable or that no doctor in Melb can get up and say that Cannabis helps us with our pain without being deregistered. Two minutes in we had her honour and the persecutor reaching for their law books. She has asked me to back some of my statements with legeal precedent which is my homework to print off the highcourt decisions that back our claims She is entertaining the idea that the points of law we have raised, as they are out of her jurisdiction, may have to be referred BY HER (which would be an urgent special leave application which completely jumps the queue) to the High court for a decision of law before the case continues to trial!! find out tomorrow how we go Niall will update more later me go do HW