edited transcript of CC hearing

[Naycha]

Thanks for putting all that effort in to keep us updated on what's going on.

 

They are really going to find out what happens when you push someone with aspergers too far aren't they!

[lightning]

Thanks for the encouragment all. yes they are going to find out what happens when you push an aspie too far.

 

Rule 1 Lightning HATES paperwork, if ya make lightning sit down and do the paperwork he WILL make you regret it.

Rule 2 if all else fails see rule 1

Rule 3 If ya keep pushing littlbit will push back. dont go there just stick with rule 1 its safer.

[Nooby]

Not sure if this is worth chasing up?

 

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5260.html

 

It relates to Canada but they're in the commonwealth too?

[lightning]

good article nooby, yes it is exactly what we were trying to do, get the jury to nullify the law.

The judge knew it, the persecutor knew it!! The lawyers we had said, they were prohibited from telling the jury under the barr rules but we did not have that restriction as self represented defendants. one of the reasons we sacked them and tried to go ourselves.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullific...n_law_precedent

In 1982, during the Falklands War, the British Navy sank an Argentine Cruiser – the "ARA General Belgrano". A civil servant (government employee) named Clive Ponting leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to a Member of Parliament (Tam Dalyell), and was subsequently charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act. The judge in the case directed the jury to convict Ponting as he had clearly broken the Official Secrets Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence, that it was in the public interest that this information be made available, was rejected on the grounds that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is", but the jury nevertheless acquitted him, much to the consternation of the Government. He had argued that he had acted out of 'his duty to the interests of the state'; the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government.

 

 

The tyrants don't like jury nullification because it removes their bullshit.

 

 

Prohibition in america was defeated by juries refusing to convict bootleggers.

These laws could be stopped the same way.

As we have now had that removed as an option the only chance is the high court, so we is going there.

[Nooby]

Good luck guys, it's nice to have someone to look up to these days. ;-)

[lizardtub]

this was a really interesting read. thanks heaps for posting all that. like most of the other peeps posting here: its great to hear a tale of a persocuted individual(s) being met with predjudice and contempt, standing tall for his/her/their beliefs. I often run similar theoretical legal scenarios through my mind, and i pretty much see the exact scenario youve explained, over and over, its like one's voice is falling on def ears, eveytime. starting to sound like it comes down to a question of authority, or maintaining the "status qoue" (spellling?). what does that have to do with laws and legistaltion? very little! yep- its tyranny. i hope you can make the pricks squerm and swet! oh bugger i forgot this post #1 for me, soz and hi all. plz concider this a non jacking post and continue on with the tales and adventures of your rebelion uprising Edited November 26, 2008 by lizardtub

[lightning]

Ta Lizard, and er welcome to the boards, great first post.

 

[Major Overgrow]

The court seems to be a cross between Monty Python & Yes Minister - Severely Wacko.

 

There has to be a way to stop this bizarre blocking of your legal & human rights ???

[lightning]

Yes Major, the court is a bit pythonistic but it is fun at times.

I got to tell the judge she was only a public servant and the jury were her masters and did not end up on a contempt charge for it!!

It is all a great big word game kind of a cross between chess and scrabble and if you pick them carefully and logically you can say almost anything and get away with it.

They do not like a citizen standing up for their rights and making them live up to the LETTER of the law they are shoving in our face.

[ConvexConepiece]

Well this is a pleasant suprise. This has to be the best put legal argument ive seen, well im sure youve already gotten further than bringing some plants to court with you as 'evidence' hah.

 

Wishing you both the best, fight the good fight, never back down.

peace