Matt and Elizabeth Pallett, medicinal cannabis saga

[PainMan]

Some of you probably know that Matt and Elizabeth Pallett provided vital medication to a lot of very sick people and saved lives. They did so without any aim to profit, gave medication away when it was necessary, and took the financial burden on themselves to keep others alive, out of pain, etc. Then they got busted.

They of course refused to have a magistrate preside over them. Outside of Common Law Courts with actual jury trials, our current courts are a combination of admiralty courts and courts designed to deal with civil/business affairs. This is a dodgy situation. These courts never had that legal authority, but pretending they did sped up the court system to no end. The officers of the court (cops, DAs, magistrates) try and create (I think the term is rejoinder) to prove you chose to let a magistrate preside over you, and will do so by trickery. In NSW some judges have even claimed IN COURT that a given defendants refusal to be presided over by a magistrate is "immaterial" (which is a direct violation of the law).

That is a long discussion in itself Regardless so here are some general quotes/info on the Commonwealth Courts
(http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au/pdf/THE%20COMMON%20LAW%20COURTS%20OF%20AUSTRALIA.pdf)

- and back to the Palletts.

the Pallets wouldn't bite and sit still for a magistrate p certainly not in the current social atmosphere. They would not go into that system.  They chose trial by the ACTUAL Common Law Courts. And now here is "the kicker" so to speak. On Friday the 6th of May 2016 they lodged a constitutional challenge to the Australian Drug laws in the Melbourne High Court Registry. If successful it will effect everyone Australia wide.

If I understand what Elizabeth and Matt have been saying (and I am not perfect here) they seem to be taking the odd tactic of using the constitution (most especially) as well as the common law in their defence ... against a set of laws that have NEVER actually met the burden of the Constitutional or the Common Law standards for *being* Australian law in the first place.

The last time a constitutional challenge was tried (to my knowledge) was back in 2008, and those involved used a different tactic. At that time the Australian public, medical and scientific folk were not as well informed on Cannabis as they are today. Worldwide opinion was still in the hands of the propaganda masters and the WOD.

Back then the tide of public opinion was not on the side of cannabis, and was not as overwhelming in the Palletts favor, and the propaganda drug warriors were believed by a lot of people. However today, not so much. Today the majority of Aussies think canaibis ought to just plain be legal for adult people to use, and the vast majority want it legal as a medication (the whole plant, not just franken-pharma) for sick people.

The Harvard Medical Journal does not consider cannabis to be a dangerous drug, or a drug of abuse, or to cause harm to any part of the body. They do consider it to be wonderful treatment for quite a few problems. So we will see what we see.

 

Edited May 7, 2016 by PainMan

[MongyMan]

is this a new case on new charges or is this more to do with the case linked below?

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCASL/2009/188.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=matthew%20pallett

 

 

 

MATTHEW PALLETT http://www.austlii.edu.au/images/dispright.png & ANOR v THE QUEEN
[2009] HCASL 188
M28/2009

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

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCASL/2012/110.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=matthew%20pallett

 

 

MATTHEW JOHN PALLETT
v
THE QUEEN

ELIZABETH PALLETT
v
THE QUEEN
[2012] HCASL 110
M34/2012
M35/2012

1. The applicants are husband and wife. Each was found guilty in the County Court of Victoria of one count of cultivating, and one count of possessing, cannabis contrary to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). No conviction was recorded against either applicant. Each was fined $250 on each count.
2. Some months after these orders were made, each applicant sought leave to appeal (well out of time) against the orders to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Court of Appeal (Neave and Weinberg JJA and Beach AJA) refused to grant both applicants an extension of time in which to bring their appeals on the basis that the grounds of appeal which each sought to advance were without substance. Each applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against the orders made by the Court of Appeal.
3. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal. Neither applicant points to any arguable ground on which this Court would disturb the orders made by the Court of Appeal.
4. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
15 August 2012

S.M. Crennan

 

MongyMan

[Razz0r]

This is a new case  and one I will \ have donated to MM> 

[FullCircle]

Wow... I'll be looking forward to seeing what happens. Best of luck to them! Hope they are successful.

[MongyMan]

This is a new case  and one I will \ have donated to MM> 

 

Any idea what the charges are? Wishing them luck and hope they got some decent legal advice this time and have their ducks in a row alot better. Do you know if they are representing themselves again?

 

MongyMan

[Razz0r]

Any idea what the charges are? Wishing them luck and hope they got some decent legal advice this time and have their ducks in a row alot better. Do you know if they are representing themselves again?

 

MongyMan

 

Honestly I dont have all those finder details - but I have asked about them and offered advise as well. 

It was something I wanted to start a kick starter fund for and get a shit load of cash together and some top end suits on it.