Subscribe to our mailing list
Get
Amongst It
Get
Amongst It
Due to the passage of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Act 2018, it is now possible (in theory) for a small number of humans in Aotearoa to legally possess cannabis products. This means they can be allowed to have human rights for the first time ever. The person needs to have cancer or an advanced progressive life-limiting condition and is nearing the end of their life.
Yet the police have been shown to show little regard for human rights. Such as the right not to suffer Indirect Discrimination arising from:
Under Section 65 of the Bill of Rights, Cannabis users, suppliers and growers should find some kind of protection from indirect discrimination, which is described as:
Where any conduct, practice, requirement, or condition that is not apparently in contravention of any provision of this Part has the effect of treating a person or group of persons differently on 1 of the prohibited grounds of discrimination* in a situation where such treatment would be unlawful under any provision of this Part other than this section, that conduct, practice, condition, or requirement shall be unlawful under that provision unless the person whose conduct or practice is in issue, or who imposes the condition or requirement, establishes good reason for it.
* I will argue that it is on the basis of race, culture and religion. Similar to if a ban on Indian curry could lead to discrimination of Indians, other races also enjoy curry so it may affect them and other cultures. Since the aroma of a freshly cooked strongy curry carries in the air, they would be unfairly punished if such a curry ban were to exist, I say the cannabis prohibition has the effect of a ban on culture due to the use of smell. Something that you can’t take a photo of.
This is a case with no victim, no complainant, and yet he is looking at 3.5 to 5 years according to recent sentence indication. No other people are mentioned in the charges. Yes he may have been able to protect himself, but this is the country remember. The “tip off” in this case was purely the sense of smell. The aroma of cannabis is all that lead to this grow room.
A grass-roots campaign to reach all jury members in Hamilton is thus underway, please help us to get the message out, in the hopes of reaching some members of this jury! A jury trial costs around $100,000, and each year of maximum security prison is $95,000, all of which comes out of tax payers pockets, when in reality he should be able to make produce like any other farmer.
Juries primary role is to protect society from unjust persecution – rare in New Zealand but relevant in this case. Since it has a conscience a jury can nullify a law that it believes is unjust.
Flyer to be handed to the jury each day of court:
http://www.legalise.org.nz/pdf/jury-biasing-flyer.pdf
A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ
Roll Your Own Injunction!Join the class action lawsuit, subscribe to this newsletter! |
|
Adobe Reader PDF File |  (1.6 MB) |
MS Word DOCX File |  (3.6 MB) |
As a random act of kindness, I quit my job at the time, and spent about 300 hours learning law and raising up this interim injunction to help in the case of a stranger, a man I had never met but who had been accused of growing 500 plants in Cambridge. I offered him accommodations at my house in Auckland (after his trip from Whangarei) and a lift to Hamilton to face the charges and travelled their with him that day.
This is a class action interim injunction against various agencies of crown this year. I did not actually serve the notice to the crown – well actually I did try but it was not accepted for filing by the registrar – but don’t worry, in 2017 I fully intend to serve this to the crown at the High Court in Auckland.
Without further ado… the action: Â (The following is a full text paste from the official documents linked above)
In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton Registry
IN THE MATTER OF THE Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, The Health Act 1956, Bill of Rights Act 1990, UN DRIPs 2007, Magna Carta 1215, King v Penn 1670 (Tower of London); Orders of King Henry 1533 and Elizabeth 1563; A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ
Crown versus Xxxxl                        CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 (upcoming hearing 0X# November 2016)
Crown versus Xxxxxxxn      CRI-2014-0X4-029XX; CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365 (sentenced 29/10/2015, high court appeal 15/12/2015)
Crown versus Citizens        class action interim injunction on behalf of 46% of NZ citizens hereby initiated
BETWEEN Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl, of Whangarei, Engineer Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Auckland, Professional Drummer, Website Consultant, Law Enthusiast Applicant
The Citizens of New Zealand Class Action Applicants
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health Respondent Section 3A Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Function of Ministry of The Health Act 1956
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Respondent breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Una Jagose Solicitor General and/or Chris Finlayson Attorney General of New Zealand Respondent general and systemic failure in parliaments poor response to UNHRC5; Law Commission 20112; clarification of Mckenzie friend counsel T Xxxxxxxn; claim of right; jury nullifcation by direct address to jury to strike the prohibition with fresh bias and great prejudice.
To the Registrar In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton
This document notifies you that that the self represented applicants, Xxxxl, Xxxxxxxn, and the Citizens of New Zealand, hereby apply for the following interim and permanent injunctions, restraining the police and enforcing duty on the EACD:
You must file in this registry of the court a statement of defence to the plaintiff’s claim (a copy of which is served [1] with this notice). You must do this within 25 working days after the date on which you have been served with this notice. If you do not, the plaintiff may at once proceed to judgment on the plaintiff’s claim, and judgment may be given in your absence.
If a trial of the proceeding is necessary, it will be held in this court at Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton at a time to be fixed by the court.
The grounds on which the each order is sought are as follows:
I promise to the best of my knowledge this is made in accordance on Rules 3.52.5 3.52.28 of the District Court Rules 2009.
Signature:Â Â _________________________________________
Rxxxx Xxxxl, Applicant in person
Date: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â /Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â /
Signature:Â Â _________________________________________
Xxm Xxxxxxxn, Applicant in virtual, and authorised counsel to the Applicant like Rxxxx Xxxxl.
Date: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 29/12/16
If you file a statement of defence in the court, you must also provide the applicants with initial disclosure o          f documents in accordance with rule 8.4.
If you file a statement of defence in the court, you will be notified of the date and time of the first case management conference.
The purpose of the conference is to assist the parties in the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the proceeding, to make directions as to the conduct of the proceeding, and, where practicable, to make interlocutory orders. The parties will also be assisted to identify, define, and refine the issues in dispute.
You must prepare for and attend the first case management conference. You will be expected to have discussed with the applicant the matters set out in Schedule 5 of the High Court Rules. You or your solicitor must file a memorandum relating to the procedural matters set out in rule 7.3 of the High Court Rules.
Signature:Â Â _________________________________________
Name:
Date: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â /Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â /
(Registrar/Deputy Registrar*)
*Select one.
Note: Please carefully read the memorandum attached to this notice.
In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton Registry
IN THE MATTER OF THE Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, The Health Act 1956, Bill of Rights Act 1990, UN DRIPs 2007, Magna Carta 1215, King v Penn 1670 (Tower of London); Orders of King Henry 1533 and Elizabeth 1563; A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ
Crown versus Xxxxl                        CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 (upcoming hearing 29 Sept 2016)
Crown versus Xxxxxxxn      CRI-2014-0X4-029XX; CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365 (sentenced 29 October 2015, high court appeal 15 December 2015)
Crown versus Citizens        class action interim injunction on behalf of 46% of NZ citizens hereby initiated
BETWEEN Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl, of Whangarei, Engineer Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Auckland, Professional Drummer, Website Consultant, Law Enthusiast Applicant
The Citizens of New Zealand Class Action Applicants
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health Respondent Section 3A Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Function of Ministry of The Health Act 1956
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Respondent breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand Respondent general and systemic failure in parliaments poor response to UNHRC 5; Law Commission 20112; clarification of Mckenzie friend counsel T Xxxxxxxn; claim of right; jury nullifcation by direct address to jury to strike the prohibition with fresh bias and great prejudice.
Advice: Although you do not have to employ a solicitor for the purpose of this proceeding, it is recommended that you consult a solicitor about this matter immediately. However, a company or other corporation that wants to defend this proceeding or appear at any hearing must consult a solicitor immediately because—
(a) it can only carry on a proceeding in the court by a solicitor; and
(b) it cannot appear to conduct a proceeding except by counsel (unless there are exceptional circumstances).
Legal aid: If you cannot afford to meet the cost of the proceeding, you may be entitled to assistance under the Legal Services Act 2011.
The plaintiff has applied for legal aid for the purpose of this proceeding.
Statement of defence: If the last day for filing your statement of defence falls on a day on which the registry of the court is closed, you may file your statement of defence on the next day on which that registry is open.
In calculating the time for filing your statement of defence you must disregard the period that commences with 25Â December and ends with 15Â January.
If you file a statement of defence, you must serve a copy of it on the applicants who have given an address for service. This must be done within the same period of time you have for filing the statement of defence.
Counterclaim: If you have a counterclaim against the plaintiff, you must file a statement of that counterclaim in the registry of the court, and serve it on the applicant and on any other person against whom the same claim is made. This must be done within the same period of time you have for filing a statement of defence.
Witnesses: Summonses for the attendance of witnesses will be issued on application at the registry of the court.
Registry hours: The registry hours of the court are from 9Â am to 5Â pm, except on court holidays.
Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl
Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn
Applicant, and council to Xxxxl
International Drummer, Recording Artist, Web Designer, Law Reform Enthusiast
xxxxxxs@legalise.org.nz
The Cannabis Consuming People of New Zealand
Future Class Action Applicant
THE EACD
Dr Keith Bedford
Respondent
Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. The Committee is administered by a Secretariat comprised of Ministry of Health officials and advisers, as required.
EACD Secretariat
c/o Regulatory Practice and Analysis
Medsafe
Ministry of Health
PO Box 2013
Wellington
eacd@moh.govt.nz
keith.bedford@esr.cri.nz
THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH
Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health
Respondent
Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013
Wellington 6140
chai_chuah@moh.govt.nz
SSC-Media@SSC.govt.nz
psychoactives@moh.govt.nz
THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission
Respondant
Level 7, The AIG Building, 41 Shortland Street, Auckland
PO Box 6751, Wellesley Street, Auckland 1141
infoline@hrc.co.nz
roberth@hrc.co.nz
Una Jagose Solicitor General and Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand
Respondant
Level 3
Justice Centre
19 Aitken Street
Wellington, 6011
New Zealand
c.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz
oia@crownlaw.govt.nz
Filed by                                   Rxxxx Xxxxl, the applicant in person.
And; for many other persons:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Citizens of New Zealand and Rxxxx Xxxxl.
The plaintiff claims: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Right to an injunction and Judicial Review
UNDER THE Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FAILURE OF THE STATUTORY DUTIES OF THE EACD AND INTERIM ORDER FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING RECLASSIFICATION OF CANNABIS
IN THE MATTER Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â of breach of natural justice, breach of democracy.
AND                                        of removing, in its capacity of administration of the act, and due to overwelming evidence in support of the medicinal use of Cannabis Sativa and it’s variant straings, all mention of Cannabis plant and extracts in any schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, an act which is solely administered by the Ministry of Health.
AND                                        of breach of Section 3A of The Health Act 1956 in regards to the Function of Ministry in relation to public health; by failure to carry out it’s core founding function of improving, promoting, and protecting public health in relation to Cannabis.
ANDÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â of contravention of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 in relation to Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Namely that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.
ANDÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â of contravention of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007; expressly that Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services.
AND IN THE MATTER               of the resulting financial, physiological and psychological damages arising from punishments out of all proportion to the “crimes†commited, and resulting from the lack of access to appropriate herbal medicine
Â
Causes of action:
Â
I, Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Ponsonby, Auckland, 39 years of age (13/0X/19XX) hereby wish to make this formal application for an emergency interlocutory with a crown representative, a member of the EACD, the Auckland commissioner for Human Rights, in Auckland, before Thursday 29 September 2016, that being the day of an upcoming prosecution of a wholly innocent man of thought crime in the Hamilton district court:
Crown v Xxxxl CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 Thursday 29 September 2016;
15019008168 Cultivates (lead charges for 500 plants in Cambridge found 1 October 2015)
All charges: 15019008169 / 15019008170 / 15019008171 / 15019008172 Possess Equipment to Cultivate / 15019008767 / 15019008768 / 15019008769 / 15019008770 / 15019008772
And my own personal application for Habeas Corpus to overturn or hide my conviction and sentence on 29 October 2015, and my requeset to be able to work as a musician which were dismissed at the High Court on 15 December 2015.
Crown v Xxxxxxxn CRI-2014-0X4-029XX and CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365
And a class action lawsuit I’m preparing against the government on behalf of the 400,000 people in New Zealand whom have tried the prohibited cannabis once in their lives, seeking potential damages of $4 billion but including a waiver settlement in return for our remedy.
I hereby seek an urgent interlocutory order or a direction relating to a matter of procedure; subject to the Supreme Court Act 2003Â [3].
The matter of procedure relates to at least eight areas:
During the April 2016 meeting of the following minutes are noted, shown below in italics, where members note that only “one molecule of a controlled substance to be present in preparation†whereas cannabis is not a molecule.
[redacted] advised that currently, if a practitioner wishes to prescribe a cannabinoid or products that contain cannabinoids, they have to make an application to the Minister. Currently there are no products containing only CBD that are approved medicines both domestically and internationally. There are however, a number of non-pharmaceutical products available. It was noted that there was a difference of opinion between ESR and MoH regarding whether or not CBD should be considered a controlled drug or not. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia have recently down-scheduled CBD to a prescription only medicine with less than two percent of other cannabinoids as most CBD extracts contain small amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) due to the difficulty and associated cost to separate the two substances. The Misuse of Drugs Act (MoDA) only requires one molecule of a controlled substance to be present in a preparation for it to be captured as a controlled drug.
There is an entry in the Medicines Regulations for CBD as a prescription medicine, however, if it is also considered a controlled drug, then MoDA acts as the dominant piece of legislation.
Dunne approves one-off use of ‘Elixinol’ on compassionate grounds; a cannabidiol (CBD) product from the United States to be administered by clinicians treating Wellington patient Alex Renton:
“I have also considered the absence of any other treatment options, the low risk of significant adverse effects, and the conclusion reached by the hospital ethics committee from an individual patient perspective.†– Peter Dunne
THC – Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, THCA – Tetrahydrocannabinolic Acid, THCV – Tetrahydrocannabivarin, CBD – Cannabidiol, CBN – Cannabinol, CBG – Cannabigerol, CBC – Cannabichromene, Terpenes – diverse group of organic HydroCarbons (C5H8).
Yet thought crimes are indefensible.
In NZ, recently bills have been proposed to reverse the convictions of homosexual men accused of performing sodomy or anal sex – this non-crime is essentially similar to drug non-crime in that it is a non-crime of thought as well as prosecutor-led court action that is victimless, lacks a witness and is also complainant-free.[19]
The cases are:
In both cases the jury acquitted the accused of “thought crimes†despite considerable evidence, due to the fact that a thought crime is not defendable.
The right of defence was that they acted urgently to save another life.
In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton Registry
IN THE MATTER OF THE Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, The Health Act 1956, Bill of Rights Act 1990, UN DRIPs 2007, Magna Carta 1215, King v Penn 1670 (Tower of London); Orders of King Henry 1533 and Elizabeth 1563; A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ
Crown versus Xxxxl                        CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 (upcoming hearing 29 Sept 2016)
Crown versus Xxxxxxxn      CRI-2014-0X4-029XX; CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365 (sentenced 29 October 2015, high court appeal 15 December 2015)
Crown versus Citizens        class action interim injunction on behalf of 46% of NZ citizens hereby initiated
BETWEEN Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl, of Whangarei, Engineer Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Auckland, Professional Drummer, Website Consultant, Law Enthusiast Applicant
The Citizens of New Zealand Class Action Applicants
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health Respondent Section 3A Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Function of Ministry of The Health Act 1956
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Respondent breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007
AND Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand Respondent general and systemic failure in parliaments poor response to UNHRC 5; Law Commission 20112; clarification of Mckenzie friend counsel T Xxxxxxxn; claim of right; jury nullifcation by direct address to jury to strike the prohibition with fresh bias and great prejudice.
To: The Registrar of the District Court
I, Rxxxx Xxxxl, the applicant in this proceeding, undertake that if, by reason of the granting of the order for injunction sought by the applicant, the respondants sustain any damages that in the opinion of the court the applicant ought to pay, the applicant requests, in accordance with wording of the law – to let the costs lie where they fall.
On the above basis the plaintiff seeks the following remedy:
THC, THC-A, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and potentially about 80 other chemicals in the class of compounds known as cannabinoids and terpynes, found in abundance in the cannabis plant. Cannabinoids are responsible for many of the effects of cannabis consumption and have important therapeutic benefits.
Signature: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (sign here)
Laws are weak guarantees of outcomes.
We outlaw murder, theft, but they still happen.
This is not to say those crimes are OK, and this is not to say that all laws are bad. But sometimes there are better alternatives.
The law is no substitute for consciousness. The legality of a thing is no guarantee of the morality of it.
Sometimes a humane approach is the right approach; we should be allowed to consider when they are appropriate, and be allowed to request the jury to consider it, not prevented from depositing this historic, scientific, and cultural evidence.
And if ethics and humanity can by fact provide greater guarantee of desired outcomes and protection of individual human rights than legislation is – then it’s that moment when the actual laws and policies themselves are left forlorn and obsolete, and they become a tool of abuse of the state, and a way to discriminate and segreate communities with violnce and promotes a culture of gang warfare.
Yours sincerely, Xxxxxs and Rxxxx.
Thursday, 29 September 2016 at the District Court of Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton
PS Thank you and thanks in advance for your eagerly awaited reply! Some further information about the drugs found in the plant cannabis sativa are in my appendix. As you can see I have actually purposefully held back on the questions for my interlocution, as their is a lot more material I have not covered in Appendix B.
Xxm Xxxxxxxn – Director
The Xxxxxsachi Corporation
M: 021 xxxxx22 | Web:
Subscribe to Auckland Music Update
Bands: Xxxxxsachi.tv | tripxxxxxxx.com
Date: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â /Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â /
Name: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn
This document is filed by the plaintiff in person. The address for service of the plaintiff in this proceeding is
Suite 6734
PO Box 83000
Johnsonville
Wellington 6440
New Zealand
Next event date: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Thursday 29 Sept 2016 Hamilton District Court
Crown versus Xxxxl     CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 v
Filed by Xxm Xxxxxxxn, the plaintiff in person.
And; for many other persons: The Citizens of New Zealand and Rxxxx Xxxxl.
To the Registrar of the High Court at Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton
and
To Dr Keith Bedford, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, Dr Chai Chuah, Director General Ministry of Health, Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand, David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission
Guillermo Velasco, Cristina Sánchez & Manuel Guzmán; Nature Reviews Cancer 12, 436-444 (June 2012) | doi:10.1038/nrc3247UN Universal Human Rights 1939.pdf
Grotenhermen, Franjo (23 Jul 2012). “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. PMC 3442177. PMID 23008748. Franjo Grotenhermen, Nova-Institut, Goldenbergstrasse 2, 50354 Huerth, Germany. franjo.grotenhermen@nova-institut.de
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81616306/Thirty-years-on-from-NZs-tumultuous-gay-law-reform-bill
Â
A 2009 review of nearly 200 scientific trials assessing the therapeutic utility of cannabinoids for the treatment of nineteen clinical indications: Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, dystonia, fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal disorders, gliomas, hepatitis C, HIV, hypertension, incontinence, MRSA, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, sleep apnoea, and Tourette’s syndrome.
interlocutory application—
4 Application for review
On an application which may be called an application for re view, the High Court may, notwithstanding any right of appeal possessed by the applicant in relation to the subject matter of the application, by order grant, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposed or purported exercise by any per son of a statutory power, any relief that the applicant would be entitled to, in any one or more of the proceedings for a writ or order of or in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari or for a declaration or injunction, against that person in any such proceedings.
Excerpts from point 5: Cannabidiol (CBD)
[redacted] (Senior Policy Analyst, MoH) and [redacted] (Principal Advisor, Medicines control) attended the meeting at 10.21am.
Dr Stewart Jessamine chaired the discussion as Assoc. Prof. Cynthia Darlington had declared a conflict of interest due to her involvement in preclinical research into cannabinoid pharmacology. The Committee had no issues with Assoc. Prof. Cynthia Darlington being present for the discussion given her expertise in the area but she would be excluded from the decision making process due to the outcome potentially impacting the regulatory environment for research.
[redacted] gave a brief contextual overview within the Ministry of Health (MoH). [redacted] has been involved in therapeutic uses of controlled drugs for the last few years, with her main area of interest recently being around medicinal cannabis. The MoH policy unit are of the understanding that Minister Dunne is comfortable around the current legal framework regarding access and use of controlled drugs, but he is interested to see if the policies and processes are as streamlined as they can be regarding patient safety and access.
The policy unit are currently doing work around medicinal cannabis classification in line with the EACD meetings consideration. [redacted] gave a brief overview of the function of Medicines Control. Medicines Control is a regulatory unit that regulate the medicines supply chain, which includes controlled drugs. The classification of medicinal cannabis has been quite topical in the last year and whatever final recommendations are made by the Committee will affect Medicines Control as they administer licences, approvals, permissions etc.
[redacted] advised that currently, if a practitioner wishes to prescribe a cannabinoid or products that contain cannabinoids, they have to make an application to the Minister. Currently there are no products containing only CBD that are approved medicines both domestically and internationally. There are however, a number of non-pharmaceutical products available. It was noted that there was a difference of opinion between ESR and MoH regarding whether or not CBD should be considered a controlled drug or not. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia have recently down-scheduled CBD to a prescription only medicine with less than two percent of other cannabinoids as most CBD extracts contain small amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) due to the difficulty and associated cost to separate the two substances. The Misuse of Drugs Act (MoDA) only requires one molecule of a controlled substance to be present in a preparation for it to be captured as a controlled drug.
There is an entry in the Medicines Regulations for CBD as a prescription medicine, however, if it is also considered a controlled drug, then MoDA acts as the dominant piece of legislation.
The technical paper looked at the potential therapeutic effects of CBD in comparison to the abuse potential. The Committee had been asked to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to make a recommendation for de-scheduling CBD from being captured under MoDA so that it is classified as a prescription medicine only. The Committee was also asked to consider an amendment allowing CBD preparations to contatin THC and other cannabinoids found in cannabis up to a certain threshold to enable the de-scheduling of CBD to take effect. The Committee considered the options for streamlining medical access to CBD as a controlled drug.
[redacted] advised that there were some controlled drugs that had been exempted from the ministerial approval requirements process as they had been specifically named as exempt as medicines under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. Blanket or general approvals, permissible under Regulation 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, have also been issued to supply prescribe and administer certain controlled substances . There are multiple avenues that could be considered with regard to what mechanisms are available to streamline the process to access CBD based medicines, however, the main driver for the reclassification of CBD is the TGA decision because they have set a new approach to cannabinoid based medicines.
[redacted] spoke to the notes submitted by [redacted] which covered a few issues with the current legislation. [redacted] also advised that although CBD does have the same molecular formula, ESR do not consider CBD as an isomer of THC within the specific chemical designation under MoDA as CBD is significantly different in structure from THC and is not explicitly named under the legislation. ESR also do a lot of testing for hemp growers who have expressed interest in information regarding CBD content of hemp plants and hemp fibre for therapeutic use. Another point of consideration is that more clarification around what is considered the definition of medicinal cannabis is needed.
Research in this area can be difficult due to the bureaucratic layers to obtain permission. Moving CBD out of MoDA would remove those controls but would still need to address the THC component of the argument as THC is specifically named as a controlled drug under MoDA. More research is required regarding the potential associated risks, however, the risk of CBD causing psychoactive harm is very low as CBD on its own does not produce psychoactive effects. It was also noted that approved prescription medicines have to meet quite stringent requirements regarding controls around dosage, concentration and stability among other testing criteria.
Currently, under section 29 of the Medicines Act 1981, there is an exemption for medical practitioners to prescribe unapproved medicines. Non-pharmaceutical forms do not need to meet the same requirements as approved prescription medicines.
MoH considers that CBD, even in the absence of THC, is a controlled drug under the isomer provisions of MoDA and it has administered the Medicines and Misuse of Drugs Acts in accordance with this view. If CBD is de-scheduled from MoDA to be a prescription medicine only, prescriptions will still be required to be in possession of CBD. There was a discussion around what the potential implications would be for de-scheduling CBD regarding over prescribing and abuse. Though CBD can be converted to THC, abuse and conversion of CBD to THC is considered unlikely as CBD based medicines would most likely cost much more than buying cannabis off the street as well as having to go through the process of gaining a prescription to access the CBD medicine. Currently, individuals can carry on their person up to a month’s supply of controlled drugs into NZ with appropriate overseas prescriptions and proof that it was lawfully supplied overseas for the purpose of treating a medical condition..
To address the issue around THC content in CBD medicines, it was suggested that a THC content threshold be set, similar to the allowable threshold of THC in hemp. It was discussed if the limit should be two percent, in line with Australia, or 0.35 percent in line with the threshold for THC in hemp.
The Committee queried whether there was enough evidence presented to make a recommendation for an allowable THC threshold in CBD preparations. They were particularly interested in the processes that led to the 0.35 percent threshold of THC allowed in hemp in NZ and the two percent threshold of other cannabinoids allowed in CBD medicines in Australia. The question was also raised of what the THC content of cannabis generally is.
Outcome: The Committee deferred the decision to the next meeting as more information is needed regarding the process that lead to the 0.35 percent of THC content threshold being allowed in hemp and the two percent threshold of other cannabinoids allowed in CBD medicines in Australia. Research around the effects of consumption of two percent of additional cannabinoids in a CBD product also needs to be looked at by the Secretariat and brought to the Committee.
Action: Secretariat to find out the process that lead to the 0.35 percent threshold of THC content allowed in hemp and report back to the Committee.
Action: Secretariat to find out what the process was for the TGA reaching the two percent threshold of other cannabinoids allowed in CBD medicines.
Action: Secretariat to find out more information around concentration levels of THC in the average cannabis that is circulating in the NZ market.
Action: Secretariat to find out more information regarding effects of consumption of products containing different concentrations of THC.
Action: Secretariat to add CBD to the next agenda.
[redacted] and [redacted] left the meeting at 12.04pm
Guillermo Velasco, Cristina Sánchez & Manuel Guzmán; Nature Reviews Cancer 12, 436-444 (June 2012) | doi:10.1038/nrc3247UN Universal Human Rights 1939.pdf
Grotenhermen, Franjo (23 Jul 2012). “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. PMC 3442177. PMID 23008748. Franjo Grotenhermen, Nova-Institut, Goldenbergstrasse 2, 50354 Huerth, Germany. franjo.grotenhermen@nova-institut.de
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81616306/Thirty-years-on-from-NZs-tumultuous-gay-law-reform-bill
Â
A 2009 review of nearly 200 scientific trials assessing the therapeutic utility of cannabinoids for the treatment of nineteen clinical indications: Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, dystonia, fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal disorders, gliomas, hepatitis C, HIV, hypertension, incontinence, MRSA, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, sleep apnoea, and Tourette’s syndrome.
THC, THC-A, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and about 80 other chemicals are all in a class of compounds known as cannabinoids, found in abundance in the cannabis plant. Cannabinoids are responsible for many of the effects of cannabis consumption and have important therapeutic benefits.
Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol or (THC) is a psychoactive cannabinoid responsible for many of the effects experienced by the cannabis user.
Mild to moderate pain relief, relaxation, insomnia and appetite stimulation.
THC has been demonstrated to have anti-depressant effects.
The majority of strains range from 12-21% THC with very potent and carefully prepared strains reaching even higher. Average THC potency is about 16-17% in Northern CA.
Recent research that suggests patients with a pre-disposition to schizophrenia and anxiety disorders should avoid high-THC cannabis. Cannabidiol or (CBD) occurs in many strains, at low levels, <1%. Â In rare cases, CBD can be the dominant cannabinoid, as high as 15% by weight. Popular CBD-rich strains (>4% CBD) include Sour Tsunami, Harlequin and Cannatonic.
It can provide relief for chronic pain due to muscle spasticity, convulsions and
inflammation. Offering relief for patients with MS, Fibromyalgia and Epilepsy.
Some researchers feel it provides effective relief from anxiety-related disorders.
CBD has also been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth when injected into breast and brain tumors in combination with THC.
Cannabinol or (CBN) is an oxidative degradation product of THC. It may result from improper storage or curing and extensive processing, such as when making concentrates. It is usually formed when THC is exposed to UV light and oxygen over time.
CBN has some psychoactive properties, about 10% of the strength of THC.
CBN is thought by researchers to enhance the dizziness and disorientation users of cannabis may experience.
It may cause feelings of grogginess and has been shown to reduce heart rate.
Cannabichromene or (CBC) is a rare, non-psychoactive cannabinoid, usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.
Research conducted has shown CBC has antidepressant effects, 10x those of CBD.
CBC has also been shown to improve the pain-relieving effects of THC.
Studies have demonstrated that CBC has sedative effects, promoting relaxation.
Cannabigerol or (CBG) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. It is commonly found in cannabis. CBG-acid is the precursor to both THC-acid and CBD-acid in the plant usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.
Researchers have demonstrated both pain relieving and inflammation reducing effects.
CBG reduces intraocular pressure, associated with glaucoma.
CBG has been shown to have antibiotic properties and to inhibit platelet aggregation, which slows the rate of blood clotting.
CBC has been shown to increase the viability of progenitor (stem) cells in the brains of mammals, and is therefore likely to be a form of brain growth stimulant.
Terpenes are a diverse range of hydrocarbons that make up the smell constituents of cannabis. The sense of olfaction was the first sense to evolve in animals and eukaryotic multi-celled organisms, and the olfactory senses are those closest to the brain.
Â
Case ID: 110054
Good morning Xxxxxs Xxxxxxxn,
Thank you for your emails of 17 & 18 February 2016.
You are complaining that you have been discriminated against on the grounds of ethical belief, religious belief, and political opinion due to being unable to use cannabis sativa, indica and ruderalis for medicinal and therapeutic use. You also contend that the inability to use cannabis sativa, indica and ruderalis contravenes the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, affirmed in section 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
In addition, you complain that that the inability to use cannabis sativa, indica and ruderalis also contravenes Article 24(1) of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which sets out Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals.
You set out your linkage to Indigenous peoples as being on your father’s side, emigrants from the UK who arrived in NZ in 1852, and on your mother’s side, her being a Jewish refugee from Austria who arrived in NZ in 1939.
You also ask how you can best establish your Customary right to plant based employment, medicine and freedom of thought and the right to develop your consciousness and personality as a European citizen of NZ.
Your suggested remedy is that the HRC and the ACLC seek an injunction removing cannabis from the Schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act.
There is no indicator in the information provided by you that the matters you complain about could arguably amount to unlawful discrimination in breach of the Human Rights Act.
The Commission will take no further action in relation to this matter.
Kind regards,
Â
Robert Hallowell
Legal Counsel
Â
9 June 2015 Beehive Press Release https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/minister-approves-one-use-cannabidiol-product-%E2%80%98elixinol%E2%80%99
Associate Minister of Health Hon Peter Dunne has today approved on compassionate grounds the one-off use of Elixinol, a cannabidiol (CBD) product from the United States to be administered by clinicians treating Wellington patient Alex Renton.
…
“I have also considered the absence of any other treatment options, the low risk of significant adverse effects, and the conclusion reached by the hospital ethics committee from an individual patient perspective.â€
Sativex® (Datasheet) GW Pharmaceuticals Ltd. UK; 2006 http://www.gwpharma.co.uk/sativex.asp
Signature of plaintiff
                                                                                               (sign here)
Full name and address: Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn
XX Xexxxnt St
Xoxxonxy
Auckland
Date:
29/12/16
[1]
Statement of claim
[2] The plant name Cannabis is from Greek κάνναβις (kánnabis), via Latin cannabis,[1] originally a Scythian or Thracian word,[2] also loaned into Persian as kanab. English hemp (Old English hænep) may be an early loan (predating Grimm’s Law) from the same Scythian source.
[3] Supreme Court Act 2003.pdf
[4] Judicature Amendment Act 1972
[5] Judicature Amendment Act 1908
[6] Error! Reference source not found.
[7] UN Declaration Righs Indigenous Peoples DRIPS_en.pdf
[8] OIA 2015150639-0001 Alex Renton Peter Dunne 2407.pdf
[9] Error! Reference source not found.
[10] Error! Reference source not found.
[11] Error! Reference source not found.
[12] Error! Reference source not found.
[13] Error! Reference source not found.
[14] Error! Reference source not found.
[15] “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoidsâ€. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. PMC 3442177free to read. PMID 23008748. Franjo Grotenhermen, Nova-Institut, Goldenbergstrasse 2, 50354 Huerth, Germany. E-mail: franjo.grotenhermen@nova-institut.de
[16] Error! Reference source not found.
[17] Error! Reference source not found.
[18] Error! Reference source not found.
[19] Petition delivered to parliament in regards the homosexual law reform bill http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81616306/Thirty-years-on-from-NZs-tumultuous-gay-law-reform-bill
[20] Error! Reference source not found.
[21] Error! Reference source not found.
[22] Error! Reference source not found.
[23] Law Commission Review 2011.pdf
[24] Error! Reference source not found.
[25] OIA 20160197 Sue Grey – Economic Cost of Prohibition.pdf
Quiz: In New Zealand, is the defence forbidden from advising the jury on it’s purpose?
A jury is designed to
protect society from lawbreakers, but it is also a means to
protect society from bad law
Jury independence is your power to
judge the law as well as the evidence
Since it has a
conscience
A jury can nullify a law
that it believes is unjust
No matter what the evidence, it’s your moral obligation and natural right to
declare the defendants of non-violent drug charges NOT GUILTY!
Judges are not required to inform you of
Jury Nullification Power!
In many jurisdictions it is forbidden for
attorneys to advise a jury of the possibility, and jurors must learn of it through extra-legal sources – like this art.
Fear of jury anarchy guides
such restrictions, and there are examples of nullification gone awry (e.g., racist juries refusing to convict white supremacists for killing black people)
If a cop “smells weed” in the air and appears to be preparing a full search, pull out this handy pre-printed interim injunction form done in the format the courts expect and serve the police right then and there ideally on camera!
When before the judge, force him to reply to the question asking to let costs lie. This is in the law as something the judge can choose so in theory you can ask him to consider it early on, and appeal it in 20 days if not.
Another idea I am examining, is a pre-emptive injunction. This would involve an interogatory with a member of the system to ask the following questions carefully, and in the exact order prescribed, gaining a “yes” answer to each as you go:
The judge can order for security deposit of costs of failure, so for a pre-emptive injunction an indication of the size of this security would be a smart first move.
Before preparing a form, check whether a High Court Rule applies. The relevant rule number appears at the top of each form. If a rule applies, you must comply with it.
Formal requirements for documents
Take care, subpart 2-5.2 on non-complying documents says a document that does not comply with rules 5.3 to 5.16 may be received for filing only by leave of a Judge or the Registrar.
Costs and Disbursements
Here you open yourself to not only your own legal costs – which are called disbursements – but to the opposing sides legal costs incurred by your injunction:
The cost of an application under subclause (1) must be borne by the party making it, and may not be claimed as costs against another party under Part 14.
However, it’s not that bad, you can ask the judge to order that costs lie where they fall, so no party is ordered to pay for the costs of the other (that is, the parties pay their own costs) if the injunction fails.
If you are the successful party, you cannot claim costs such as loss of income due to time taken off work to prepare for the proceeding. However, you can claim disbursements.
Today is the birth of a new category on the website: How to defend your self in court or “Rep Self” as I like to say!
I’ll update this category with useful information relevant to the self defence in court as it comes to hand!
Request a Pre sentencing indication – simulates a Guilty plea, buys your more time to prepare your defence. Here you can ask for a jury trial and they will be able to strike out your charges because they do not feel cannabis is serious enough for it.
Consult a duty solicitor.
A good article about the Pre Trial Process is here on the Community Law website.
Finally, Appeal your sentence in the High Court. More info soon…
Toward the end of the alcohol prohibition in USA, juries ceased convicting good honest people for alcohol, and the same will happen in New Zealand soon I believe.
For charges that are to be heard by a judge alone, without a jury, the case review will take place 30 working days after the defendant pleads not guilty.
For Category 3 offences (that is, offences carrying a prison term of two years or more), defendants have the right to choose a jury trial, and if they do so, the case review takes place 45 working days after the not guilty plea.
Here is a beautifully formatted application form you can use to give to your doctor to ask him to prescribe you some non-pharmaceutical medical cannabis:
Application under Reg 22 MOD Regs for Approval to Prescribe a Cannabis Product (PDF)
It’s 13 pages mind!
Update: This page has recently become the number 2 landing page on the site next to the homepage. Now that’s saying something isn’t it?
This is a really good video.
Dec 5
2009
Some notes about the test and some strategies for dealing with it. Pesky Cops.
(1) Step 1: Preliminary action
(2) Step 2: Eye assessment
(3) Step 3: Matters to be recorded
(1) Step 1: Preliminary action
(2) Step 2: Walk and turn assessment
(3) Step 3: Matters to be recorded
(1) Step 1: Preliminary action
(2) Step 2: The one leg stand assessment
(3) Step 3: Matters to be recorded
Excerpt from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2009/0335/latest/DLM2494019.html
Excerpt from: http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/Pages/LandTransportAmendmentAct2009.aspx
Last updated on 2/11/2009 8:43 a.m.
The Land Transport Amendment Act 2009 (the Act) gives Police greater powers to deal with the problem of people driving under the influence of drugs. Provisions for combating drugged driving came into force on 1 November 2009.
People who drive when their judgement and reactions are impaired by drugs are a danger to themselves and other road users. The Act aims to reduce this hazard by:
Read the questions and answers on the new law to combat drug impaired driving.
The Act also reforms the law regulating the registration and licensing of motor vehicles. These changes are planned to come into force mid to late 2010. Further information on this will be available on this website closer to that time.