Subscribe to our mailing list
Get
Amongst It
Get
Amongst It
Secrets.
Good secrets are possible: things like a tasty recipe, your unfinished album, or company staff payrolls. Privacy is lovely, but we swap it for convenience often.
But the cesspool of bad secrets farmed by the CIA and NSA are a toxic wasteland of bad secret information. Harbouring the waste is risky, in 2015 the NSA got hacked revealing the home address and personal details of 4 million employees! One good way to protect against such a breach would be to just delete the stuff and recycle the hard drives. Here is an astonishing one hour lecture by a hero named Kevin Shipp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092GA Turns out the CIA put in charge of Kennedys assassination was fired by Kennedy earlier. That shows how quick the shadow government took control over. All attempts to curtail so far get sunk in classified quagmires, odd suicides and hits.
Jun 17
2017
Film maker Arik is raising funds for part two of his excellent Druglawed doco!
DRUGLAWED is the explosive documentary exposing how New Zealand has been co-opted by the US into fighting the failed War On Drugs.
Filmed in six countries over four years, this is the documentary that finally clears the smoke around the international prohibition of cannabis.
Over the last 100 years the US government has forced its disastrous drug policies on almost every country on earth. 40 years since Richard Nixon declared the War On Drugs in 1972, 22 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana. Only one country in the world has higher arrest and conviction rates: New Zealand.
DRUGLAWED examines how New Zealand fell in lockstep with US policies, and shows how smaller countries can break out.
See also: druglawed.com
Our naval-military style courts evolved from some nasty kind of martial law “prize courts of the sea” back in the 1939 Prize Courts Act. I believe this hints are their illegitimacy, as I will show in this ground breaking article!…
UK dignitary Prince William may have been embarrassed not so see his Flag of the King when opening the new Supreme Court in 2010. This non-appearance of what was once our national flag drew attention to the illegitimacy of our courts, according to Tongan newspaper Kele’a:
On 22 December 2009 the New Zealand Police issued case file number 091218/6055 against Prime Minister John Key, his Minister for Justice on charges under the Crimes Act 1961. […] Since March 2009 the NZ government knew that the courts operate outside the law. This information was denied to the Queen with no knowledge of such unconstitutional practices happening in the NZ courts. […] To save The Queen and Prince William from embarrassment, all members of the NZ Parliament including the executive Brand of Government were notified on 22 December 2009 that the Supreme Court can not produce a “Statement of Confidence” which would meet The Queen’s constitutional standards. […]
It will concern Prince William that the 1835 “Flag of the King” that he is named after was not in the court seal when he opened the Supreme Court on 8 January 2010. […] What was the founding document signed by the NZ Natives Chiefs on the 12 June 1902 that allowed the current NZ flag to become the flag of the courts including the Seal for the Courts, Parliament, and Police?
Subterfuge
The Māori, well aware of stories of colonisation in the pacific were keen to avoid losing Aoteroa. They had seen what happened in Tahiti, Solomon, Papua New Guinea, etc and made sure it would not happen here, travelling to meet with King William and creating his Flag of the King.
But our country was stolen by subterfuge in 1840 in the treaty.
To the Māori the 1835 Declaration of Independence of New Zealand was key to it: NZ was already an independent sovereign nation* in 1835. Our first governer and co-author of the Treaty of Waitangi – Hobson – was dispatched from London in August 1839 with instructions to establish a British colony in New Zealand by way of a “voluntary transfer” of sovereignty from the Māori to the British Crown.
On 21 May 1840, in response to the creation of a “republic” by the New Zealand Company settlers of Wellington, who were laying out their new town under the flag of an independent New Zealand (The Flag of The King shown above with the All Blacks), Hobson decided to assert British sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand, despite not asking The Queen and despite the incompleteness of the treaty signing!
He sent soldiers to Wellington on 25 May 1840, and the council of the settlers was disbanded. Their leader, William Wakefield, later travelled to the Bay of Islands to pledge allegiance to the Crown. His suggestion to make Wellington the capital was rejected in favour of Hobson’s plan for a new town on Waitemata Harbour, to be named Auckland after the Earl of Auckland.
A cover up was instituted when the Queen became so embarassed and upset that another way had broken out in her newest colony, she dispatched Ponsonby Peacocke in 1858 to hustle Hobson out of his job and punish him by sending him onto an island in the Harbour.
This begs the questions:
See also: Prince Williams speech at opening of NZ Supreme Court in 2010 – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10620850
The Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key charged by NZ Police under Crimes Act 1961 for Prince William opening New Zealand Supreme Court without a Statement of Confidence of the Monarch Queen of England Court seal or oath of office to Queen Elizabeth II who is the Head of EU Parliament. Prince William was left red faced being a namesake of KING WILLIAM IV and no mention of his Great Ancestor in this Supreme Court.
https://web.facebook.com/john.wanoa/posts/10204684701418716?_rdc=1&_rdr
John Wanoa <moaienergy@gmail.com> Attachments3:39 PM (31 minutes ago) to complaints NA ATUA E WA AOTEA LTD 426/2 Tapora Street Auckland New Zealand Wednesday 3rd September 2014
AFFIDAVIT Report a serious fraud or corruption SFO CONFIDENTIAL Anne Tolley
Douglas RIKARD-BELL Fraud Land Transaction Case 2.8 Hectare Property at 61 Cook Street Auckland New Zealand Minister Responsible for the Serious Fraud Office 21 Queen Street Auckland New Zealand
Dear MP Anne Tolley
Please put these Fraud Cases on your record, that are on the record in the High Court of Admiralty in London. As a complaint from me and our “Moai Crown Federal State Corporate Company’s KING WILLIAM IV Flag SEAL of Admiralty Jurisdiction against the New Zealand Corporate Government Company’s Agents ranging from the Prime Minster John Key to the Governor General Jetty Mateparae linked to the Chief Justice in the New Zealand Supreme Court to the Queen of England who is a Defaulted Convicted Criminal Felon in the World Court with an Arrest Warrant of her head from there and from the MOAI CROWN FEDERAL STATE KING WILLIAM IV ADMIRALTY COURT MARTIAL here in New Zealand and in London. As well as from our new Private company there in London MOAI POWER HOUSE GROUP.She is convicted by the Judges who are not going to be ignored of their profession and challenge the “Crown” System with Laws of the Courts I will be there soon in London to sort out King William IV Titles from the Queen in our cases here in Auckland involving the New Zealand “Crown” Corporate Government Blue Collar Corruption and Fraud committed by your ministers colleagues displayed on facebook in front of the whole world watching and waiting for your reply to me. If you fail to respond to this Affidavit then we accept youir silence as Consenting to our KING WILLIAM IV ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION is higher than your High Court and Supremee Court Systems enough to form a conviction of Guilty and Bill Charge Levy Debtored those who have corrupted 61 Cook Street Property in this Fraud Case of a very serious nature and allegations.against the whole Parliament Members of Parliament can go ahead
I am handling this case here through an online facebook “High Court of Admiralty” direct to the Rolls Building in London though Judge Mackie. But if it presents a problem then it will be coming to you as a last resort on our behalf of our MOAI CROWN King William IV Queen Victoria Trust Fund. The Queen of England is the HEAD TRUSTEE of this Trust Fund which she has stolen and taken off England soil to the EU Parliament and Germany we alleged. This is our own Indigenous Native Tahitian Chiefs “QUEEN VICTORIA TRUST FUND” She set up in 1844 for my people and I am now the Legal HEAD TRUSTEE of the TRUST since she has left Westminster Parliament but this TRUST belongs in Westminster Parliament fixed into Statute Law Extant for ever more in our MOAI HAPU name and KING WILLIAM IV Private Commercial Contract Flag Seal Authenticated Documents of Business Partnership which I am a Director of here and tight now for the Beneficiaries.
You will see here a Fraud land Transaction case involving “Crown” Land from British Title that is making Britain Liable for letting the Queen act Fraud under England “Crown” Corporation and her Crown on her name here on this land block their Courts are still using her Name and “Queen of New Zealand Crown” on their Documents of Ttle that I want you to Investigate for MOAI CROWN FEDERAL STATE and the KINGS BENCH who I represent in our KINGS ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION of KING WILLIAM IV SEAL AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS of land TITLES and AUTHORITY we hold over these Lands in New Zealand and pacific Islands Moai Pacific Ring of Fire Boundary Area of Title with you in direct Partnership with you and the BRUTISH GOVERNMENT and not the “Crown” Corporation in New Zealand and Britain UK So bear in mind this Legal Title of the KING of England is still our British Moai Crown State Sovereign Flag Seal Legal Title Commercial ownership.
Here are some of the Debtor Levy Search and Seizure Arrest Warrants that have not been refuted ready to salvage their debts back into our MOAI CROWN FEDERAL STATE TRUST FUND KINGS ROYAL REVENUE Creditors Bank Account now.
I am lodging this Fraud Land case as the most serious Corrupted Land Title in my history of a past Real Estate Agent. The names of the affected third parties are Simon ROUNDTREE and James BROWN of Auckland New Zealand who I notified has to go back to LINZ Land Information New Zealand and the Land Conveyance Lawyers and get their money back. While we re Occupy our Organic Lands back to our own British KING WILLIAM IV Acts of Parliament 1830 to 1837 Laws and Admiralty Court Martial Land Laws of England Land Titles. With our Original names MANUKAU, PARAPARA, KAWHARU, WANOA, MOAI CROWN SOVEREIGN MONARCH, “MOAI NATIVE HAPU”, “KING WILLIAM IV CROWN SOVEREIGN MONARCH” on this Original Land Title. The Government of New Zealand LINZ failed to put our CAVEAT and names on the LINZ Title as an Interest in the Land Block, As you will note this for the record. I will be coming there with my legal team to sort teh Queen position of our TRUST out as myself the new HEAD TRUSTEE and KING WILLIAM IV reinstated under myself the KING OF ENGLAND. The Government here is having elections and it is highly likely that the MAORI GOVERNMENT will TAKE OVER this country of the present Government of New Zealand while the Elections are on and in Britain Alex Salmond First Prime Minister of Scotland Independence Party FLAG SOVEREIGN NATION STATE teamed up,with the MOAI CROWN FEDERAL STATE KING WILLIAM IV SOVEREIGN STATE FLAG, HRH Prince Regent Jeffery Foley Lord High Constable & Magistrate of Llawhaden Castle. .
Please be aware that should the 61 Cook Street Auckland Property have a challenge from Mew Zealand Corporate “Crown” and or its LINZ Land Agents and or Land Owners then we will instruct you to go ahead on MOAI CROWN KING WILLIAM ADMIRALTY COURT MARTIAL LAW Orders to Assist teh British Military Police to ARREST all those involved in this LAND TRANSFER Sale and Purchase Agreement Fraud Corrupted Title.
Affidavit I John Kahaki Wanoa, “Moai Crown” Customary Legal Advocate and Private Prosecutor of Auckland New Zealand, swear in front of you God this my solemn sovereign truth so help me God these people I accused refute my Affidavits at once
Here is my video to you that the whole world is watching and the SFO London david Green and High Court of Admiralty Judge David Lynsey Mackie for this 61 Cook Street Fraud land Title Transfer Case.
Affidavit to SFO Serious Fraud Office Minister in charge of Fraud Ann Tolley for 61 Cook Street Auckland Serious Fraud Case sent to SFO Office London as David Green well as a complaint to the High Court of Admiralty Judge David Lynsey Mackie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGFg7D2YoO0
We did this update video today in Auckland New Zealand Matt Taylor is a lead up to “Crown” Property Seizures off Queen Elizabeth II Fraud lady. We stop the Ground Rental Payments going to her in England and make payments of Occupation on all Commonwealth Lands to go to King William IV Crown Admiralty Jurisdiction and Queen Victoria Trust Fund. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HClo_AvVwM
The second of the Videos to Anne Tolley SFO Serious Fraud Office looking into 61 Cook Street Fraud Land Title Sale and Purchase Agreement. These are some of the names accused of the Fraud in that land Section 145 Land Transfer Act 1952 where fraud on a large scale was commuted by “Crown” New Zealand Government Ministers. Who can’t get out of it. 1/ Chris Finlayson, Attorney General, 2/ Don Grant, LINZ Managing Director, 3/ Robert Andrell Land Surveyor General, 4/ Robert Muir, Registrar of Lands, 5/ John and 6/ David Bayley, Real Estate Agents, 7/ Andrew Macdonald and 8/ Mark Hornabrook Lawyers, 9/ Robert Platt, Bayleys Real Estate Agent, 10/ Jaymie Peters Property Developer, 11/ Douglas Rikard-Bell Property Developer, 12/ Maurice Williamson Minister of Lands and many others not listed here as yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSBWkf_tAoc&feature=youtu.be
WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT BUCKINGHAM PALACE LONDON UK! This is great Matt Taylor you have doe well with your family to get King William IV flag seen by the Royal Constabulary is a historic moment you all should be proud of. Letting Britain know that King William IV is PM David Cameroons Ancestor and he should be ashamed not to have King William IV 50 years of Navy Service Flag of Admiralty Jurisdiction recognized to the world. King William IV designed the Acts of Parliament in 1835 for this Flag as the only Declaration of Independence Flag in the World with his Military Protectorate black seal locking himself to the Indigenous Moai Native Hapu Spirit People he trusted the most with his Sovereign Authority Seal! You will find the Queen Cameron Popes Vatican Rothschild Obama and World Bank NATO UN EU British Westminster Parliament and Commonwealth Countries US federal State Washington DC and City of London is abusing and usurping his Admiralty Court Martial Law belonging to Moai Crown British Sovereign Flag Jurisdiction and not telling anyone this is the Biggest Secret Bank of England Moai Crown British Sovereign Flag of the King of England Admiralty Jurisdiction.busted open now by exposing and waving these flags in front of them to make them look tile bandits. And yes Moai will show them as thugs and thieves that King William IV Despised in all his hard work making tis flag of War for Commercial Trading Bank Private Contract Partnership between himself his Sovereign Crown and Moai Crown Hapu now we are here with you Matt. And you will see they will not be popular with the Queen gone with no King William IV Flag but Moai standing there with you and the good British. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsmEQOqWC_g
Crown New Zealand Government Agents and the retired Australian Land Surveyor General Don Grant corrupted the 61 Cook Street Sale and Purchase Agreement by forging the Land Transfer Title Crown Road running through the middle of the land block. the land could not be sold until the Government got a Licensed British land Surveyor to tamper with the Good Title and convert it into a Bad Title. In order to do this the New Zealand Government Crown State Attorney General Christopher Finalization had to sign this Forged land Title signature of a Dead land Surveyor Sutherland and cut and paste his signature onto the little road that now had a date on it in order that it can be used to transfer the investors names onto this road then discharge them off the road Title which resulted in them all losing their NZD $300 million Investment in Jaymie Peters Property Development Complex worth an estimated NZD$3 Billion now worth $5 Billion to complete under our MOAI CROWN FEDERAL STATE GOVERNMENT KING WILLIAM IV QUEEN VICTORIA GOLD TRUST FUND Development Project Planning. The Government Ministers have Fraud Businesses inside parliament such as Judith Collins Minister of Police in John KEY National Government SCAM Milk Company and FRAUDSTER caught in a Corrupted Government MOAI wants a Full AUDIT of the New Zealand Government TRUST TREASURY Department under KINGS BENCH ROYAL REVENUE ORDERS with the British Military Police to assist me and our AUDIT TEAM to investigate our QUEEN VICTORIA TRUST FUND here now as we Collect the Ground Rentals in this Country to be paid to the KING OF ENGLAND QUEEN VICTORIA TRUST FUND and not teh QUEEN ELIZABETH II TRUST FUND any more. I am the HEAD TRUSTEE of this TRUST now making the KINGS ROYAL REVENUE LEVY DEBTORS Recovery ORDERS now on this Block of Land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErtIaM0EMtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6F2selVPk4
Regards
John Kahaki Wanoa
PS I am awaiting your response and this Affidavit is admissible evidence in the HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY in London published internatuionall;y on facebook with this Video to go with t today 3rd September 2014
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: (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 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 Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
AND 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 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 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: _________________________________________
Rxxxx Xxxxl, Applicant in person
Date: / /
Signature: _________________________________________
Xxm Xxxxxxxn, Applicant in virtual, and authorised counsel to the Applicant like Rxxxx Xxxxl.
Date: 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: _________________________________________
Name:
Date: / /
(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 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 Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
AND 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 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 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 25 December and ends with 15 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 9 am to 5 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: The Citizens of New Zealand and Rxxxx Xxxxl.
The plaintiff claims: The Right to an injunction and Judicial Review
UNDER THE 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 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.
AND 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.
AND 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
Causes of action:
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 2003 [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 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 Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
AND 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 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 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: (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: / /
Name: 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: 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
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
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%. 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.
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,
Robert Hallowell
Legal Counsel
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.”
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 Cannabinoids”. 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
Dec 25
2016
Earlier this year – March 20 – there was some bad ass brawls in lower Queen st in Auckland. It is my position that if these people – instead of drinking alcohol – had been toking on the high grade cannabis ciga-joints or vapes, they would not have been in such a fighting mood? They would have been extolling the virtues of reggae music and one love instead!!!
Stuff video:
Video source: stuff.co.nz/…police-concerned-over-fights-in-auckland-cbd
The Fuzz say:
A team of Detectives have spent much of the day investigating the circumstances that left two men in hospital in a serious condition.
Police were called to multiple reports of disorder, with fighting outside the Ferry terminal in Quay Street, the McDonalds Britomart in Queen Street and the intersection of Quay and Queen Streets. It has also been established now that a large brawl occurred over many minutes in Fort St.
Two men, aged 18 and 24 years old remain in hospital this evening in a moderate condition as a result.
“Footage that has been posted on social media paints a very poor picture of what took place last night. Yet again, alcohol is right in the middle of this” says Inspector Ross Barnaby, Auckland City Police. Source: police.govt.nz/…/police-appeal-cellphone-footage-fights-central-auckland-overnight
NZCity:
There were fights in the early hours of Sunday morning outside the ferry terminal in Quay Street, the McDonalds Britomart in Queen Street, at the intersection of Quay and Queen streets and in Fort Street. The latter was a large brawl. Source: nzcity.co.nz/…article…223240
It also occurred to me that this is primarily associated with the new national law which instantly terminated all the 24 hour liquor licenses and forced places to close all at the same time, instead of allowing the bar managers to decide on their own volition – whether it be to close earlier or later than usual, de-synchronicity is useful at reducing these build ups of drunken crowds, competing for taxi space, sexual partners, kebabs, and hookers.
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
(1)
Neither section 20 nor section 24 shall prevent—
the supply by any person to any medical practitioner, on the medical practitioner’s request, of any medicine required by that medical practitioner for the treatment of a particular patient currently under that medical practitioner’s care; or
the administration by any medical practitioner of any such medicine to any such patient.
(2)
Every person who, for the purposes of subsection (1), sells or supplies to any practitioner any medicine that is a new medicine by virtue of paragraph (a) of the definition of the term new medicine in section 3(3) before the consent of the Minister to the distribution of that medicine has been notified in the Gazette shall, as soon as practicable after the end of every month in which he has so sold or supplied any such medicine, report that sale or supply to the Director-General in writing, naming the practitioner and patient, describing the medicine, and identifying the occasion when and the place where the medicine was so sold or supplied.
(3)
Without limiting section 48, if any person fails to comply with subsection (2), the Minister may, in the manner prescribed in that section but without complying with subsection (2) of that section, prohibit that person from selling and supplying any new medicine to which subsection (2) applies before the consent of the Minister to the distribution of that medicine has been notified in the Gazette.
Sep 15
2016
This just in (takes a while in this office) from the Rose Renton files. .
|
We, New Zealanders who understand cannabis as a beneficial, safe medicinal plant, are holding a National Rally outside 26 police stations this Saturday, 17 Sept.
Our rallies are peaceful, requesting an immediate stop to all cannabis arrests.
We ask the NZ Government to subsequently change the law to protect our people.
Cannabis is a medicine used by many, not just in smoking form but also in edibles, tinctures, balms and oils. It is a lifeline for many people facing critical health issues.
Increasing awareness of cannabis as medicine has resulted in 80% of New Zealanders supporting a change to current cannabis laws, according to recent polls. The majority of New Zealanders also now support cannabis being legalised or decriminalised for all people.
We are requesting the support of the NZ Police in our rally. Police are underresourced and understaffed. By removing cannabis arrests from their workload, hundreds of millions of dollars would be saved every year, and time would be freed up for police to address serious crime and more dangerous drugs.
The rallies are planned for Saturday, 17 September, 4-5pm. A full list of rally locations is available on the ‘National Stop the Arrests’ page on Facebook, which has a strong following of supporters.
Not all of us use cannabis, but we are united in our desire for a more just and compassionate law. A non-cannabis user is organising Christchurch’s rally; Tania Jordan wishes to see greater access to natural cannabis medicines for pain relief in elderly and chronic health patients.
Brian Borland from Whangarei began planning the initial rally in his town, and I joined Brian in support of the cause. Since then, people all over New Zealand have added their own events.
Source: cannabis.org.nz
A medical cannabis patient from Golden Bay has become the first person to openly bring raw cannabis and concentrates into New Zealand.
Rebecca Reider was discharged without conviction for importing cannabis laced chocolates earlier in the year after her lawyer Sue Grey discovered a “loophole” in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Now Reider has used the same “loophole” to bring several ounces of medicinal cannabis and concentrates into the country, which were prescribed to her in Hawaii.
Documentary maker Arik Reiss, director of Druglawed, described it as a huge victory for patients and progress as a whole for New Zealand.
“Rebecca Redwood Reider breezes through Auckland Airport customs on 19 August 2016 with several ounces of medicinal cannabis and concentrates prescribed to her in Hawaii,” he said.
“Kudos to her lawyer Sue Grey! This is the first legal raw cannabis flower in New Zealand since medicinal cannabis was outlawed in the 1960s.”
The full story of Rebecca’s legal cannabis importation is documented in the upcoming Druglawed 2 film.
Maybe I was stoned and missed it, but a momentus event occurred in April!
You are receiving this newsletter because Re-Legalise NZ decided to “carry” a transmission from Damien O’Connor. This was a decision SecretStoner made and is a one off – for more you would need to subscribe to Damien O’Connor’s news list personally on his website. We respect your privacy and will not share your details with any 3rd party.
Copyright © 2016 Re-Legalise NZ
|