Looming Constitutional Challenge on plant use as religious freedom

[niall]

Just got back - the case is now adjourned until September 2009. Legal Aid appear to have given lightning bad advice, or at least advice that the Judge disagrees with, and so the case is adjourned for lightning to get all of his expert witnesses and evidence in order. She (the judge) has flat out refused to hear any Constitutional arguments as County Court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear this defense, which leaves him in a catch 22 as no Doctor will risk de-registration to stand up in Court and support the defense that Legal Aid wanted lightning to run.

Lightning wants to defend himself with the WHOLE truth, but it appears the Court is not interested in hearing this. Therefore he is before the wrong court - this much was admitted. I'll let lightning fill in the rest of the details but now the brief has been lodged I believe he's going to post it here for all to read. We've now got 10 months to get expert witnesses on board, or to figure out how to apply directly to the High Court and bypass a long and drawn out appeal process through County and Supreme.

lightning can't survive another 10 months on disability pension with the expenses that this case requires, so if anyone is able to donate some money to assist with living expenses (i.e. food) then please PM him for details. If you're in Melbourne and would like to participate in some brainstorming sessions with us as far as legal tactics then please get in contact.

[Ace]

the case is now adjourned until September 2009

What a nightmare

no Doctor will risk de-registration to stand up in Court and support the defense that Legal Aid wanted lightning to run.

Would it be possible to look to docs from the US where cannabis is currently being used in medicine? Might be worth a shot?

Best of luck guys, what a shame it's going to take so long for them to hear your point on this topic.

[sweeet]

the case is now adjourned until September 2009

What a nightmare

It's not ideal to drag out the case but given the circumstances surrounding legal advice given prior to this week, and the subsequent witnesses required for defence, I believe an adjournment is a positive advancement. Today wasn't a big win but it certainly wasn't a big loss... and with a different judge it may have been.

Having witnessed the court system (and the case) over the last two days I must say it has been a massive educational experience! When you wish to challenge the status quo you are met with a stiff wall of resistance at every corner. It's not just about defeating the charges (and defeating the law), it's also about defeating the legal system.

I understand lightning will make available additional information about the defence of the charges. I must admit I was at first skeptical when I heard about this case (in this thread), but the defence is extremely comprehensive and I am impressed by the level of research and knowledge. You should read it if/when it becomes available.

If you can support lightning and this case I suggest that you do.

Edited November 6, 2008 by sweeet

[lightning]

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...

[AndyAmine.]

What about the Drs who were prescribing MJ in australia while the trials were on?

Im guessing they would have positive views toward this subject and if they cant help you then they may have some good leads?

[lightning]

any ideas on their names or contact details

[cisumevil]

I really hope you can find a Dr to help but it will be a battle as I’ve been thru the same thing!!!

“The president of the NSW branch of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Choong-Siew Yong, said it supported the trial.”

Some links that you might get some more Dr’s names from........

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/...3196582046.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/20/1053196584933.html

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RN/2003-04/04rn13.htm

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=1778

http://www.medical-cannabis-information-se...submission.html

http://www.druginfo.nsw.gov.au/medicinal_u...nal_cannabis_uk

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=1677

It took me 5+ years to find the strains of cannabis that would help with my circadian rhythm sleep disorder & Narcolepsy. After years searching I found certain Haze, landrace Sativa, landrace Indica & some Hybrids that in combination worked wonderfully for my condition for 10+ years. Then just like you I was visited by the boy’s in blue & my life was turned upside down. My specialist agreed 110% that Organic Cannibis administrated via a vaporisor was better for treating my condition & also better for my long term health than the Dexamphetamines, Modafinal, Vallium & Blood Pressure tablets that he prescribes for me. My Blood pressure was always fine why I was treating myself with Medical Cannibs!!! My medications now cost me about $30+ a week and they are NOT as effective as Cannibis!

But my Specialist just “LAUGHTED” at me when I asked him if he would like to tell that to the Judge at my trial!!!!!!!!

Best of luck guy’s

[apothecary]

Dr David Caldicott comes immediately to mind lightning, but the doctors which Andy referred to will be a good choice to contact also.

Some of them are mentioned in this article

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/vic/content/2003/s868583.htm

Not sure if overseas doctors are qualified to give expert testimony in state courts but if they are you could try these guys?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=75320

[dream_is_destiny]

Page 36, paragraph 2, line 3 on Calamus; needs to be amended.

Calamus is also highly toxic, metabolizing in the liver as MDMA or Ecstasy, making its

inclusion in the Holy Anointing oil very unlikely.

This statement is untrue. I understand the explanation is used to counteract the claims that the Holy Anointing oil may in fact be Calamus instead of Cannabis but the claim that Calamus is

highly toxic, metabolizing in the liver as MDMA or Ecstasy,

is very inaccurate.

I admire your courage and hard work challenging this, it's a great opportunity. I'll be sure to donate what I can, when I can.

Aaron

Edited November 7, 2008 by dream_is_destiny

[shruman]

"is very inaccurate."

Is'nt it metabolised as TMA-2?

Good luck with it all.

[dream_is_destiny]

Is it metabolised as TMA-2? Someone else here could probably answer that.

I do know Asarone is the precursor to TMA-2, not MDMA; and I also know that the effects of calamus vary from that of TMA-2.

Very different molecules, very different effects, very different duration.

Edited November 7, 2008 by dream_is_destiny

[t st tantra]

asarone a and/or b are not the only possible actives in calamus[saffrole also may be present for instance]........varies with strain/chemotype.............metabolisation prob depends on what enzyme systems you have so seems to vary from person to person..........roughly it could be said depending on chemotype calamus may or maynot metabolise into mdma or tma2 or both or neither.

thats my current understanding.

t s t .

[dream_is_destiny]

But to use it as legal fact is potentially very crumbly when in court right?

I'd expect better evidence.

Edited November 7, 2008 by dream_is_destiny

[shruman]

"(7) The 2,4,5-trimethoxy pattern. There is an essential oil called asarone that is 2,4,5-trimethoxy-1-propenylbenzene. It is the trans- or alpha-isomer, and the cis-isomer is known as beta-asarone. It is the isomerization analogue of the much more rare 1-allyl-2,4,5-trimethoxybenzene, gamma-asarone, or euasarone, or sekishone. Asarone is the major component of Oil of Calamus obtained from the rhizomes of Acorus calamus, the common Sweet Flag that grows wild on the edges of swamps throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. It has been used as a flavoring of liqueurs and, as almost every other plant known to man, has been used as a medicine. In fact, in Manitoba this plant was called Rat-root by the Cree Indians in the Lake Winnipeg area known as New Iceland, and Indian-root by the Icelandic pioneers. It was used externally for the treatment of wounds, and internally for most illnesses. There apparently is no report of central effects. The corresponding propanone, acoramone (or 2,4,5-trimethoxyphenylacetone), is also present in Oil of Calamus. The styrene that corresponds to asarone is found in a number of plants, and is surprisingly toxic to brine shrimp. The older literature describes an allyl-trimethoxy benzene called calamol, but it has never been pinned down as to structure. The isolation of gamma-asarone or euasarone from Oil of Xixin (from wild ginger) has given rise to a potential problem of nomenclature. One of the Genus names associated with wild ginger is Asiasarum which looks very much like the name asarone, which comes from the Genus Acorus. And a second Genus of medical plants also called wild ginger is simply called Asarum. There is an Asarum forbesi from central China, and it is known to give a pleasant smell to the body. And there is Asarum seiboldi which is largely from Korea and Manchuria. It has many medical uses, including the treatment of deafness, epilepsy, and rheumatism. The amphetamine that would arise from this natural treasure chest is TMA-2. "

From shulgins bit on essential amphetamines in Pihkal.

Did'nt know safrole had been found or suspected in calamus. Does'nt safrole convert to MDA anyway?

"(3) The 3,4-methylenedioxy pattern. One of the most famous essential oils is safrole, or 4-allyl-1,2-methylenedioxybenzene. This is the mainstay of sassafras oil, and it and its conjugated isomer isosafrole have a smell that is immediately familiar: root beer! These are among the most widely distributed essential oils, being present in most of the spices, including the heavies such as cinnamon and nutmeg. I am not aware of the 2,3-isomer ever having been found in nature. Adding ammonia to either would give MDA."

http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online...pihkal157.shtml

Edited November 7, 2008 by shruman

[lightning]

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.

Edited November 7, 2008 by lightning

[lightning]

ta for the doc info sina and cisum

[shruman]

U should note lightning that is only Sasha's speculation & as far as I know asarone to TMA-2 is still unproven though biogenic amination has been proven with myristicin to MMDA

PDF in 1st post of this link: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...mp;hl=amination

Edited November 7, 2008 by shruman

[Torsten]

NO propenyl benzene has been shown to be aminated in vivo. Only the allylbenzenes have been shown to do this, in particular myristicin.

Tantra is right that the activity of calamus is unlikely to do with asarone. Just because it is the major consituent doesn't make it the active one. eg the north american calamus is the most stimulating of the calamus varieties and contains no beta asarone at all.

Lightning, contact some of the hemp crew in nimbin for medical contacts. They are mostly a bunch of disorganised hippies, but they have been at this for a long time and know all the right people to talk to. Hemp embassy might be a start if the organisation still exists.

As sina mentioned, try Dr Caldicott. I don't know if he is actually a supporter of medical pot, but he is certainly not someone who shys away from controversy. Also, contact the democrats in SA, in particular Sandra Kanck. She fights hard for such causes and would know all the right people. She might even be able to give you some legal contacts.

[apothecary]

On that note Sandra Kanck is retiring soon to give her successor a 12 month run up for the Democrats in SA, so you should get onto her ASAP if you want her help.

Her and Dr Caldicott are in the public light on a lot of these issues together, and that two front exposure (political and medical) could provide you exactly the exposure you need (or don't, as is your own discernment) if you can get them on side.

[lightning]

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!!!

[inpsyght]

.

Edited February 7, 2012 by inpsyght

[niall]

EDIT: Renamed thread title so it's more accurate - sadly we've learnt it's a long way to the High Court

[lightning]

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.

[lightning]

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”

[Torsten]

wow, patient judge ;)

seriously, you guys are being given a lot of time to argue points [it's a fun read ]

I wonder... why are you so insistent on getting international treaties into a victorian lower court? why not just go though the motions, get convicted and then challenge at the next level? isn't that how you normally get things to the High Court where you can then introduce all the other angles?