Nimbin cannabis crusaders argument nonsense: court

[freddie]

Nimbin cannabis crusader's argument nonsense: court

Christine Kellett | April 11, 2008 - 2:49PM

 

Nimbin dope smoker Peter Till has hit yet another stumbling block in his crusade to have Queensland authorities recognise his right to self-medicate with cannabis, after a third Brisbane judge rejected his argument as nonsense this week.

 

Till, who has racked up several convictions for drug possession, was pinged twice last year after attempting to bring mature cannabis plants into the Brisbane Magistrates Court as evidence.

 

On both occasions, he got as far as putting the specimens - one of them more than a metre tall - through the building's security x-ray machine before they were seized by guards and handed over to police.

 

One of those attempts, in January last year, netted Till a two month suspended jail term in spite of his dramatic protests that the drug was nothing more than a harmless "herb".

 

The disability pensioner insists he should be allowed to take cannabis to relieve pain, including headaches, backache and an injured leg he received in a motorcycle crash in 1996, although it has never been medically prescribed to him.

 

He also points to the wording of the Drugs Misuse Act which associates drug possession with trafficking, a crime he claims he has never engaged in.

 

Till launched an appeal against two previous convictions for cannabis possession and the severity of the two month suspended jail term on those grounds last month, and also invoked a bizarre claim to sovereign immunity.

 

But the argument was thrown out of the District Court yesterday.

 

Judge Douglas McGill SC said two documents outlining Till's position and tendered to the appeal hearing made no sense at all.

 

"The contents are essentially unintelligible, and do not constitute anything in the way of a coherent argument addressing any of the grounds in either notice of appeal, or advancing anything relevant to the question of whether either appeal should be allowed." Judge McGill said.

 

"He stated, for example: 'I am a sovereign being living in a sovereign estate in the greater universe continuum. ... Sovereignty is not subject to law, it is the law, and its greatest claim to power is that IT and nothing else is the law...'"

 

Till's performance at the March 11 hearing had also failed to help his case, which was put by a man who did not identify himself.

 

"Whoever it was said some things which were broadly consistent with the content of the outline of argument: that he was a sovereign being, that the prohibition on possession of cannabis did not apply to him, and that he had authorised himself to possess cannabis," Judge McGill said.

 

"After a time he announced he was going for a walk, and left the courtroom."

 

In his findings handed down yesterday, Judge McGill ruled Till had misinterpreted the Drugs Misuse Act and had no legal justification for possessing cannabis. He also found Till, who lives in his car in the northern New South Wales town, had not been too harshly punished.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queen...7856805938.html

 

I guess this was bound to happen. Still admire him for giving it a go.

[lightning]

Yeah I didn't think they would wear his argument either, I don't think it can be won by trying to hold oneself outside the law only by acknowledging the courts right to adjudicate and proving the law is flawed and the offences charged can not be proved.

 

time will tell

 

but good on him for giving it a crack, at least he tried unlike most that give up and just plead guilty cause they believe the bullshit that "ya just can't win".

They kept telling Eddie Mabo that too..... until he won. then they all shut up

Edited April 13, 2008 by lightning

[Al Fish]

The Rule of Law is a concept that most people never understood anyway. Now it doesn't matter because in Australia we no longer have the Rule of Law.

 

Regarding the issue of sovereignty:

“...the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony...” Clause 8 The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (UK)

On 30th June 1997, Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom. It had a monarch - Queen Elizabeth II, a Governor - Christopher Pattern, a Chief Secretary - Sir Joseph Ford, a constitution, a 60 member Legislative Council and Letters Patent from the monarch. All Bills required the assent of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the Queen's Representative - the Governor.

On 1st July 1997, Hong Kong was no longer a colony of the United Kingdom. It no longer had a monarch - Elizabeth II, a Governor - Christopher Pattern, a Chief Secretary - Sir Joseph Ford, a constitution, a 60 member Legislative Council or Letters Patent from the monarch. Bills no longer required the assent of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or the Queen's Representative - the Governor.

On 9th January 1920, the Commonwealth of Australia was a self-governing Dominion or Colony of the United Kingdom. It had a monarch - King George V, a Governor General, six governors, six State Parliaments, one Federal Parliament, a constitution and Letters Patent from the monarch to the governors and the Governor General. All Bills required the assent of the Governor in the case of a State or the Governor General in the case of the Commonwealth, plus the assent of the monarch.

On 10th January 1920, Australia was no longer a Dominion or Colony of the United Kingdom. On 1st July 1997, Australia has a monarch - Elizabeth II, six governors, six State Parliaments, one Federal Parliament, a constitution and Letters Patent to the six governors and the Governor General from the monarch. All Bills require the assent of the Governor in the case of a State or the Governor General in the case of the Commonwealth plus the assent of the monarch.

China and Australia were Member States of the League of Nations which became part of international law on 10th January 1920. Their sovereign nation status was guaranteed under Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations. China and Australia are Member States of the United Nations – an organization which became part of international law on 26th June 1945. The League of Nations was terminated in 1946. Their sovereign nation status guaranteed by Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Every Australian of average intelligence knows the above is true or can easily verify it. Even Australian politicians, judges, lawyers and members of the Legal Academe all agree the above is 100% historically accurate and Australia has been an independent sovereign nation for most of the twentieth century.

How can Australian Law, State and Federal be dependent upon the current validity of British laws in Australian sovereign territory? The Australian High Court stated in 1988, (Robert Woods case), "Despite the historic link with the British Crown, the United Kingdom was still a foreign power".

The British Government states their laws are not valid in Australia. The chief law officer of the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretary General of the United Nations states British Laws are not valid in Australia after Australian independence on 10th January 1920. Who then says they are? You guessed it - Australian politicians and their minions! Which do you believe?

 

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2007/11/895764.shtml

 

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2007/11/895749.shtml

 

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2007/11/895756.shtml

 

www.members.westnet.com.au/unrealneil

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmen...ney_general.htm

 

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/young_and_free.htm

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/leg...ons/sublist.htm (No. 258)

 

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine.../timebomb.shtml

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20001204204400/...onstitution.htm

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20001204150500/...itutetr.com.au/

 

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/young_and_free.htm

[Gee]

Good on him for giving it a go. I for one would never be able to give a compelling argument so it's something I wouldn't have the balls to do. I think I'd be the type of bloke to go down quietly.

[mullray]

Yeah I didn't think they would wear his argument either, I don't think it can be won by trying to hold oneself outside the law only by acknowledging the courts right to adjudicate and proving the law is flawed and the offences charged can not be proved.

 

time will tell

 

but good on him for giving it a crack, at least he tried unlike most that give up and just plead guilty cause they believe the bullshit that "ya just can't win".

They kept telling Eddie Mabo that too..... until he won. then they all shut up

 

Eddie Mabo had a very strong legal case from day one. When the English invaded Australia and robbed the Aboriginals of their land they did this by declaring Australia Terra Nullus which basically meant that no civilised culture lived here (no culture, no laws etc) and therefore the laws of England should prevail and the land automatically fell to England. This of course was utter bollocks and the Mabo case contested Terra Nullus which became the legally binding precedent in the case. All Eddie Mabo had to do to win the case was to prove Terra Nullus was not valid when it was declared and therefore the land stolen from the Aboriginal people could be legally contested. I.e. The Aboriginal (which is a white mans term so apologies for using this term) had a culture, a civilisation and a system and laws so therefore the declaration of Terra Nullus was illegal. In other words the Mabo case had a very strong legal argument based on Australian law and International law and therein lies the problem with Rocks defence - he simply did not have any legal argument that would hold in a court of law.

 

You can win - smoke, grow and enjoy and tell them to stick their laws up their bums but don't expect to win in a court of law in Australia.

[Reverend]

Have the Aboriginals ever used MJ for medicinal purposes? How do we know that it wasn't grown here as a weed.

Curiosity.

Gills

[mullray]

I don't know - I don't think the plant is native to Australia.

[two2time]

i know from what happen to me the system always wins ,its hard to beat a system were the cops lyers and cheats .and were if you are charged with durg charges your just fucked there is no way to beat it.

what i mean is they slowly ware you down and the system never stops and goes away. What these cunts forget is they go home they dont live it , but the poor cunt who is on charges lives 24/7 untill the end. its a hard one to think about untill you been there and looking at jail time. i know i am strong but there were some tough times . But i argee with this and not only what he is saying but i must be dumb becuase i was never ask for my opion when this law come in..WE MENT TO LIVE IN A FREE PLACE but in fact we are controled more than ever no such thing as free... FUCK THE SYSTEM MATE AND GIVE THE CUNTS HEEPS!

[bufo marinus]

Hey Al thanks for those links, mind boggling?

[loylty gets u nothing]

wat ???

and people thought itd be a diff outcome?

bil