Vic OPP seeks and gets extension

[chuffer]

Is Everything ok guys?

Did you find a place to live?

How's the court stuff going, do you have a hearing date yet?

[flatcat_auz]

The said people have had their membership to OS removed.

[chuffer]

how come? Were they forcibly removed by a moderator? had they done something bad? Whats the story?

Too much was happening for this thread to just stop without any kind of explanation

[jabez]

There was a incident that they didn't agree with and instead of trying to peacefully work it out they started abusing the admin like angry little children!

[chuffer]

I'm sorry to hear that. I'd been reading about the troubles they were having with accomodation and court prosecution and had wished to offer them support during the court stuff when the hearings finally came up. Oh well them's the breaks I guess...

thanks for the update tho, it can be freaky if someone disapears mid-thread

[ohmbudsman]

Sadly not to be

 

Hopefully they can make the county court Judge see some sense

 

 

1. This is an application to remove a cause in the County Court of Victoria, Melbourne, to this Court pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

2. The applicants are married and self-represented. They have each been charged with one count of cultivating a narcotic plant and one count of possession of a drug of dependence (cannabis L), contrary to ss 72B and 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). The applicants have pleaded not guilty. They rely on a defence of necessity based on an alleged medical need to use cannabis for pain relief. They have also challenged the validity of the legislation under which they are charged on the basis that it conflicts with "international obligations and treaties" and on the basis that it breaches s 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution. In that regard they contend that a law requiring abstinence from cannabis is a religious observance imposed by law. They further allege that the legislation is rendered invalid by s 51(ii) and s 109 of the Constitution.

3. There is no doubt that Judge Gaynor has jurisdiction to determine the constitutional points: Judiciary Act, s 39(2).

4. The application must be dismissed for three reasons.

5. First, there has been no ordered indication of what statutes and what treaties are relevant, and, if any evidence is necessary, it has not been filed.

6. Secondly, the constitutional points appear to be baseless.

7. Thirdly, no reason has been shown why the criminal proceeding should be fragmented and disrupted in the manner desired by the applicants.

8. The application is dismissed.

9. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

 

J.D. Heydon

23 September 2009

 

V.M. Bell

[chuffer]

This is so sad to see, they really should have sought some legal advice before going off half-cocked like that. Registrars can be ruthless when folk try defending themselves.

[ohmbudsman]

Not such a bad result,

 

If the High Court had allowed the application then heard the arguements and refused to accept the arguements none of us would ever be able to use the same arguement in any Court in Australia.

 

Very important to look closely at the reasons why the application for removal was dismissed

 

The High Court has not said there is no medicinal value toCannabis, If they had, well........

[chuffer]

Yes you have a good point there

[bufo marinus]

Hopefully they can make the county court Judge see some sense

 

 

 

4. The application must be dismissed for three reasons.

5. First, there has been no ordered indication of what statutes and what treaties are relevant, and, if any evidence is necessary, it has not been filed.

6. Secondly, the constitutional points appear to be baseless.

7. Thirdly, no reason has been shown why the criminal proceeding should be fragmented and disrupted in the manner desired by the applicants.

8. The application is dismissed.

 

23 September 2009

 

Lets have a look at this

 

Point 5. They were told to get as much evidence in place as possible, saying you like smoking to stop you from dieing means nothing in court without evidence to support this.

Point 6. It's my understanding the religious crap that went into their argument would probably be referring to this. The Bible is not law, neither is the Koran and neither is worshipping Humpty Dumpty.

7. Pages and Pages of dribble do not beef up an argument. Stick to the law. It is the only way to win.

 

One day someone will walk into court with all their paperwork in place and point out flaws in regards to the law surrounding Cannabis, it hasn't happened yet.

Those pair were offered legal assistance, they were given money, plus they had the support of a lot of people here before they started believing their own crap, they have no one to blame but themselves if they loose.

If I was them I'd chuck the religious shit out the window and stick to a medical defense, like they were told.

The High Court has not said Cannabis has no medicinal value, that is exactly the point to work on imo, prove the state law is invalid, once again a lot of work by 'other people' one McKenzie friend in particular, was given to them to use and was then bastardised to suit their argument, bad move

If I have any of this wrong I'm sure someone will point it out, but thats my understanding.