edited transcript of CC hearing

[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 21^st 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”

Edited November 26, 2008 by lightning

[entheofarm]

:) :)

 

I can find no reason why the words of the Constitution should not be given their full effect, whether they be expressed in a facultative or prohibitory provision.

Barwick CJ

 

From the County Courts own website

 

What is the jurisdictional limit of the County Court?

The Court has unlimited jurisdiction

Edited November 26, 2008 by entheofarm

[WantDaChronic]

that was terrible to read

it seemed like every time you made a good argument they shot it down with ignorance or simply saying you dont have the legal right to make your case in this court and we wont move you to one where you can

facist bastards...i hope the court house burns down with all the judges inside

[lightning]

Makes one wonder about the concept of "seperation of powers" does it not.

 

the judge was not to bad really she could have forced us to go ahead and not adjourned and with the restrictions in place we would have lost outright unless we got a rogue jury. So at least she gave us time to go to the high court and I have now found out how to get there and am writing the application... bloody hard work that.

[entheofarm]

Source: Wiki (not to be relied on)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_109_o...an_Constitution

 

 

In Australia, legislative power is held concurrently by the Commonwealth and the States. In the event of inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws, section 109 of the Constitution of Australia provides that the laws of the Commonwealth shall prevail over those of a State to the extent of any inconsistency.

 

The meaning of "invalid" in s 109 does not mean that a State law is invalid in the postitivist sense that the State Parliament lacks power to pass it. The State law, though enacted with full validity, merely ceases to operate. Hence, in order for s 109 to come into operation at all, there must be a valid State law and a valid Commonwealth law. (Carter v Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board (Vic)).

 

When s 109 takes effect, the State law yields to the Commonwealth law, but remains a valid law of the Parliament which enacted it. The practical significance of this will become apparent if, at some later date, the overriding Commonwealth law ceases to operate.

 

In the absence of s 109, this function might have been fulfilled by covering clause 5 of the Constitution, which makes Commonwealth laws "binding on the courts, judges and people ... of every part of the Commonwealth".

 

The evolution of High Court doctrine in s 109 cases has led to three broad approaches to determine when there is inconsistency.

[lightning]

The Australian Constitution Act is an act of the Commonwealth Parliament.

The narcotic drugs act is Commonwealth

The DPCS act in Victoria is a state law.

The constitution wins. It is TRUMPS in all cases the courts and parliament and judges and everyone in fact is UNDER the Constitution.

 

So one set of rules or no rules the choice is theirs.

I suggest they choose VERY carefully,

I for one prefer a peaceful country not one in which we constantly delcare war on this or that.

[entheofarm]

[lightning]

Rebellion does not have to be violent and I for one have no desire to raise arms, I will however ignore their fascist law and publicly and with reason, science, and truth rebel against tyranny, confront hypocrisy and expose lies. They picked the fight and when I have a public forum ie when ever they take me to court I will respectfully tell them they are full of S**t. I will use the words of their own laws against them and hold them to the letter of the law. they CANNOT PUNISH me for that. If they decide to jail me for my medical choices and religious beliefs I will simply invoke my international rights and cause a diplomatic incident and we go to the Hague to finish the argument. their choice once again.

 

I did not pick the fight but I will finish it. how messy it gets we will find out but I do not play well with others and neither does littlbit.

[thedarkestone]

Thanks for sharing this - it was so inspirational to read. I'd pretty much never done anything illegal until I got hit by a car and got my leg smashed. Marijuana saved my life. I had never tried it until I was going crazy from pharma meds. I got an infection as well and had to take about 20 tablets a day + intravenous antibiotics. I'm now down to zero pharma meds - I just came off my last - antidepressants. I feel clear-headed, function better as well as feel happier. Most importantly, I feel like I can cope. I had falls in public on pharma meds which was scary as well as dangerous. Medical marijuana gave me and my wife hope for a quality life together.

 

I'm on my 3rd grow - I only bought weed once. I don't want to pay for crap soaked in chemicals or make other people rich, so I grow my own - I don't want to make money, I just want to self-medicate. I try to grow as as close to organic as I can. We make cookies or brownies out of the fluff and trimmings which is really good when you're in public or a situation when you can't have a smoke.

 

Anyway, the point of all this is to say thanks for your bravery. It takes real courage to stand up and say 'I'm not just taking this crap'. My wife and I worry about being caught growing. Stories like yours on this forum gives us hope. It's because of people like you that the future might be different.

 

Hope it all goes well and keep us posted.

[torture]

fuck yeah lads... its nice too see people take a stand on this... keep up the good work and best of luck guys