Subscribe to our mailing list


I’ve Made a Supreme Court application for an interlocutory hearing with the crown

Time to rark up the government, tired of waiting, been long enough now…

To: “” <>

CC:,, “High Court, Auckland” <>,,, Parliament NZ <>, Parliament NZ <>, LegaliseWeedNZ <>, Chris Fowlie <>, Julian Crawford <>, Jarom Keung <>, Ataraiti Whyte <>, Jenni <>, Supreme Court NZ <>,, Alica Burrow <>, Helen Broome <>,,,,,,,,,, Damien O’Connor <>,,,,, Jacinda Ardern <>,,,,,,,,,,, Chester Borrows <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Jo Goodhew <>, Kennedy Graham <>,,,,,,,,,,, John Key <>, Annette King <>,,,, Iain Lees-Galloway <>, Andrew Little <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Sue Moroney <>,,,, Alfred Ngaro <>, Damien.O’,, Denis.O’,,,,,,,,,,, Adrian Rurawhe <>,,,,,,,,, Su’,,,,,,,, Metiria Turei <>,,,,,,,,, Megan Woods <>,,

BCC: Nick Wright, Jeremy Bioletti, Pure, John Wilson, Jan, Bomber, Mitch Busdriver Native, Seala, Geeksunited, Andy Tonegreen, Rust In Space, Ben Brixton, Ben The@Symbol, SWF, BlKMN, Emmeline, Jerome ‘Trumpet’, Kara on gat, Kat Styling, Kiri Anahera, ‘Monza’, Nick Supergroove, Paaka, Penny, Richard Republic, Seala, AtkinsonAAA, Kp26, Alicia Burrow, Fiona Connor


To The Supreme Court of New Zealand I primarily direct this email in the To: field.


To those in the CC: field should take note of my application and duly consider it, especially the Hamilton and Auckland district courts, the EACD, and the minister of Health.


A substantial portion of the recipients are hidden in the BCC: field of this email to maintain their privacy.


Notice is given. An email shall be sent after this revealing the hidden name CRI and date of birth numbers.

An Urgent Interlocutory Application at The Supreme Court

I, Txxxxxs Bxxxxx Axxxxxxx, of Pxxxxxxx, Auckland, 39 years of age (xx/xx/1977) hereby wish to make this formal application for an emergency interlocutory with a crown representative and a member of the EACD before 1 September 2016, the date of another person’s trial, also in relation to, but not limited to the following past and future court actions:

  1. an upcoming proceeding in the Hamilton district court (Crown v TXXXL CRI-2015-XX-XXX519)  set down for Thursday 1 September 2016
  2. my own personal application for Habeas Corpus to overturn my conviction and sentence, which were dismissed at the High Court on 15 December 2015 (CRI-2014-XX-XXX950 and CRI-2015-004-008549)
  3. 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


I hereby seek an urgent interlocutory order or a direction relating to a matter of procedure;

subject to the Supreme Court Act 2003.


The matter of procedure relates to ambiguity in the text of the law, the inheritance of laws from England, the interpretation of the meaning / purpose of a jury, inaccuracies in the text of laws, some constitutional issues, the rights of the indigenous etc:


[1] In the context of the Misuse of drugs act, what exactly is a drug?


It would seem obvious however I thought it a good place to set the context for the interrogatory please. The answer we’d assume is that a “drug” is considered for the purposes of the misuse of drugs act 1975 to be:

  1. an element or compound that affects the body in a clinically recognised and repeatable manner, but not for example a particular unique genus or specimen of a plant individual or group of plants as is the aberrant case of cannabis sativa, which is not something reproducible in a clinical trial.
  2. Cannabis sativa inclusion in the schedules is unique due to this fact since it is not a drug it is a plant
  3. No other banned or prohibited plants exist; certain noxious weeds can not be sold at garden stores, but it is not prohibited to possess or cultivate them.


If this basic definition is true, then the plant genus cannabis needs to be struck out of the act in this case or by amendment, and we suggest the same or intended effect could be discovered by studying the following compounds:

THC – Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, THCA – Tetrahydrocannabinolic Acid, THCV – Tetrahydrocannabivarin, CBD – Cannabidiol, CBN – Cannabinol, CBG – Cannabigerol, CBC – Cannabichromene, Terpenes – diverse group of organic HydroCarbons (C5H8).


[2] Do the citizens of New Zealand have the right to freedom of thought or not?


[3] Does the state recognise or deny our right to the freedom to develop our own unique human personality, our cultural behaviors, lifestyles, religions, traits and customs, so long as it does not harm ourselves physically or mentally, nor anyone else or nor anyone or other nation states property in any measureable way that’s reasonable?


Recently the Mexican supreme court ruled in favour of the right to develop a personality and stuck down the ban on the cannabis plant for contravening this, so I felt this was relevant to my interlocutory application at the Supreme Court.


[4] What justification exists or why should New Zealand citizens have a right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers and is this right enshrined in any legislation currently?


[5] Does the court agree that one good purpose of a jury is to protect citizens from overzealous governments and courts by forming a safety valve or sorts for aberrant or obsolete laws?


Our nation and many others are based on the universal and historic text of the Magna Carta of 1215 AD which establishes this.


[6] Should the criminal defence be allowed to instruct juries of their conceptual civic responsibility to deliver justice to their fellow citizens perhaps over and above the duty to law and to the crown?


The relevance is that we wish to mount a defence that depends on our ability to educate on history or law and instruct the jury in this case to strike out the relevant laws, Misuse of drugs act in this case, but regardless any obstruction to our natural defence this would seem to counter to the entire reason for having jury trials at all?


[7] Is New Zealand subject to relevant UK court precedents sovereign and UK where acquittal was provided to the accused despite considerable evidence of their “thought crimes”?


The cases are:

  1. a) The King v William Penn and Mead. 1670 Tower of London, United Kingdom;
  2. b) The Crown v Murnane 2008; Waihopai, New Zealand.


[8] Does the jury have the responsibility to deliver moral justice to the accused by acquittal from law but not guilt?


[9] Does the jury have the option to find any defendant not guilty even if doing so may require accepting the evidence of the crime as factually committed by the accused and yet also simultaneously determine the law itself to be invalid, irrelevant, obsolete, or not in the public interest in this particular case?


For example, the accused made a confession to guilt, ed his crime of thinking about it, could

if it is in direct contravention of the fact the accused was in wording of the thought crime law? (Which is the job of the police is it not?)


[10] Is it sensible or responsible for crown prosecution to proceed with CRI-2015-019-005519 if the defendant is indicating support from myself to mount a defence of a claim of right under the Crimes Act 1961 or should parliament intervene to clarify its position on the matter?


Considering the mountain of evidence against my friend (CRI-2015), and guilty admission in statements to police, an entire jury trial seems an expesive waste of tax payers money.


The fact that an accused person acted without “claim of right” is an element of certain offences with must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It enables a defendant to advance at their trial that they genuinely believe that what they were doing was lawful, regardless of the reasonableness of that belief.


In summing up the case to jurors, Judge Stephen Harrop said if the Waihopai Three* believed they were acting lawfully, even if they were mistaken in that belief, they must be acquitted. The right of defence was that they acted urgently to save another life.


[11] Should parliament be instructed by the supreme court to act positively and decisively on the advice of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in it’s 4th and 5th periodic reports?


These are about right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence relating to possession with intent to supply. The UNHRC says that the burden of proof must fall with the prosecution, not with to the defence to prove innocence, so can we please have a direction from the supreme court on the matter?


[12] Do we have no other option but to forever incarcerate recidivist cannabis growers, dealers and users who refuse to cease growing, selling, and using the plant?


Most recidivist criminals receive extremely long preventative detention sentences for good reason.


Along with the United Kingdom and Israel, New Zealand is alone in not having a written, codified constitution, but at any rate laws are actually an extremely weak guarantee of outcome. We outlaw murder, theft, they still happen. This is not to say those behaviors are not bad; and it is not to say we don’t want to have any rules or laws; but that there are better guarantees of outcomes should we choose to look at the evidence.


The evidence shows that ethics, morality, and a humanity are a better guarantee of desirable outcomes for a country than strict laws to enshrine a victimless crime law initially designed to target political opponents of Richard Nixon.

[13] Should the jury and judiciary consider complex variables such as compassion, ethics, morality, and humanity or rather be instructed to instead behave more reliably like a computer, emotionless, robotic, but yet 100% fair and even entities?


Possibly a combination of the two is my guess so I seek clarification.


I would like the double positive scenario (both fair and humane) affirmed by a supreme court judge, to ensure the possibility of a fair trial for my friend and myself in future. The negative-positive combination (not human but only fair) appears to be the de facto method in NZ, hence the interlocution here.


[14] Should the judiciary and juries be instructed to overturn laws based on humanity?


It is not outside the boundaries of imagination to say that sometimes a humane approach is the right approach; thus the law in error.


And we should be allowed to consider when they are appropriate.

And when humanity can in fact provide greater enforcement for individual human rights than the actual laws – the laws and policies themselves are left forlorn and obsolete.


Law is no substitute for consciousness.


The legality of a thing is no guarantee of the morality of it.


Yours sincerely, Tom.


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.  






Bands: |


Appendix A – Chemical Compounds

Useful Information Relating To The Plant Genus Cannabis


THC, 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.


Appendix B Open Letter to the EACD


[Skip to Open Letter To The EACD]

Pouring through the law books trying to find out why and how MODA 1975 got passed, and discovered we can blame Nixon. Ironically, like the TPPA, the US based changes pushed by Nixon were never actually implemented by the USA but were implemented by our 37th Parliament without any public consultation or approval.

Nixon shows he hates jews and pot... and psychiatrists?!

Nixon shows he hates jews and pot… and psychiatrists?!

Supposed to be in control of the schedules of the Misuse of drugs act, but appear to be failing in their duties:

I hereby request to them to remove the cannabis plant and natural extracts and concentrates from the schedules, perhaps with a 1 or 2 year delay on the execution so give time to draft other regulations.

As their website says, the drug classification process is based on risk of harm to individuals or society, therefore The EACD is required to advise the Minister of Health on a range of specific criteria for each drug.

  • the likelihood or evidence of drug abuse, including such matters as the prevalence of the drug, levels of consumption, drug seizure trends, and the potential appeal to vulnerable populations
  • the specific effects of the drug, including pharmacological, psychoactive, and toxicological effects
  • the risks, if any, to public health
  • the therapeutic value of the drug, if any
  • the potential for use of the drug to cause death
  • the ability of the drug to create physical or psychological dependence
  • the international classification and experience of the drug in other jurisdictions
  • any other matters that the Minister considers relevant.

More information on the criteria for classifying drugs, the role of the EACD and the Minister of Health, and the classification process is contained in sections 3A to 5AA of the Act. Go to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 on the New Zealand Legislation website to learn more.

So far this body has only appears to have commented on the following drugs / compounds:

Existing EACD advice to the Minister of Health

So far the body has produced reports about the following drugs of abuse:

Why is it I don’t see cannabis or extracts anywhere in this list? Well perhaps I shall give them all a ring and double check they have recommended cannabis to be removed from the schedules: at least so we can do scientific studies on it and to remove the contradiction!

Vickie appears a bit flaky (4:50 in) I think she should grow some balls and stand up us oppressed tokers by saying how sweet the mary-jane is:

She is good but I’d correct her on the “gateway drug” thing. The Prohibition is the gateway, not cannabis. If you can’t buy crack at your local bar or pharmacist, then you won’t be able to either at your cannabis dispensary.

So here is my open letter to them…

Open Letter To The EACD

Dear [EACD members name],

my name is Tom Atkinson aka Tomachi. I’m an international musician and computer artist.

I’m writing to you urgently on a matter of life and death.

Mine. But also others.

I was almost killed while spending 4 nights in Mount Eden Remand Prison over the New Years public holiday, all thanks to what I can only assume is your apparent status-quo stance on the violence-promoting prohibition of cannabis. The charges were later dropped.

I also want to apply for approval to study and begin building high powered better-than-graphene hemp batteries, and the effects of it on the mind using an OpenBCI brain scanner, but I can’t with the current appearance of cannabis in the schedules of the misuse of drugs, thanks to your lack of action in a way. I request that you remove it entirely from the schedules, thereby forcing further regulation, and showing your personal strength and the power of your science committee.

Our bill of rights was originally designed as supreme legislation back in the 1980’s. But due to the perceived threat of “judicial activism”, it was passed into law in 1990 just as a regular statute. The UN has criticised our lack of constitutional human rights twice, in the fourth and fifth periodic world report on human rights! The difference, as I understand it, meant that judges in the High Court could not decide on their own volition – called judicial activism – to override any strange obsolete law based on it’s incompatibility with the bill of human rights for example. You know such petty issues such as not to be subjected to undue search and seizure, to have some kind of privacy in your own home so long as you harm no one, not to be tortured for no good reason, and to be able to practise your religion unhindered. Oh and to be provided with justice. Those types of things**.

I was tortured for a crime that involves nobody else and a dried plant.

I was tortured purely based on my religion and thoughts: Cantheism.

I wasn’t even home when the police visited, smelt my neighbour smoking cannabis, then proceeded to kick down every door in the house of 6 people living in it doing massive damage that I am still to this day repairing, all to find 1 gram of cannabis in my bedroom? Another 2 nights in MERC on charges that were later dropped during an open court plea bargain, that only would have happened because I plead Not Guilty and asked for a full jury trial.

It’s actually becoming clear to me, that there is some pretty gross abuses of human rights perpetrated by the police around this subject. Two high end studies* I found showed systemic abuse of Maori around the issue of cannabis and it’s lax interpretation by the police. This forms part of a high court injunction I am preparing to serve against you and your committee presently to attempt to force an action.

The NIH just published a study*** showing 45% reduction in bladder cancer from the people who only consumed cannabis and not tobacco. If you can’t see this obvious promise staring you in the face, then you are failing in your duty.

Shortly I intend to apply for an injunction that forces your body – the EACD – to either a) promise to provide scientific recommendations not just on cannabis sativa, but on all medicinal natural extracts including water or b) remove cannabis sativa from the schedules due to it’s medicinal qualities and it’s natural whole-plant nature.

I also plan to, based on your response to this email and phone campaign, to potentially bring a private prosecution against you if I feel you are not cognisant of aforementioned points, for failure to perform your statutory duty. Sorry. It is your job to be cognisant, as you are the expert committee!

Perhaps you’ll need to put out three studies on the pure forms of:

  • THC for cancer prevention
  • CBD for severe epilepsy
  • CBC for brain growth stimulant

If you think about it, The Health Act 1956 binds the crown to do good, or as they say in that funky legal speak “the Ministry shall have the function of improving, promoting, and protecting public health.”

Kawa Kawa (Macropiper excelsum) is an indigenous whole plant based herb. The Maori shamans were banned I assume from using it in the Tohunga Suppression Act 1908, an act that was designed to screw over a man who goes by the name Rua Kenana. They never used it against him, only one brother got hit by that oppression in the end, but it had a chilling effect, and was repealed in the 1950’s or thereabouts, through an amendment.

I mention Kawakawa because it’s a whole plant medicine.

You can’t ban Oranges just because they contain vitamin C, and you haven’t yet put out an advisory on vitamin C yet. You never will, the industry seems to hate vitamin C. It’s a natural medicine so it’s difficult for us to figure out. The Swiss seem to have a good medical system that can do it.

When our 37th parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs Act it was done with no public consultation and very little debate in the house. It’s bit like the TPPA is currently being done… with John Key instead of Nixon at the helm this time acting like a foolish puppy dog for America; The evil man called Nixon at the helms after the assassination of Kennedy.

In a secretly taped recording of Nixon he can be heard saying the following on May 26, 1971 at 10:03am:

Nixon shows he hates jews and pot... and psychiatrists?!

Nixon shows he hates jews and pot… and psychiatrists?!

“Now this is one thing I want. I want a goddam strong statement on marijuana – can I get that out of this sonnofabitching domestic council?

“I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them. I see another thing in the news about it.

“You know it’s a funny thing, every one of the bastards out there for legalising marjiuana are jewish. what the christ is the matter with the jews bob? what is the matter with them? I spose it’s because most of them are psychiatrists you know there’s so many because all the psychiatrists are jewish . By god we are gonna hit the marijuana thing.  and i want to hit it right square in the puss.  want to hit it [blah blah insane ramblings].”

Our cannabis law is based on hatred for Jews.

By the way I am one quarter Austrian Jew.

And you guys are fairly much directly responsible for that, after our pathetic politicians down in Wellington. I feel John is laughing at punishing us for the poor voter turn out. I voted always by the way.

How come you don’t have a recommendation for the three Cannabis extracts?

I put it to you, that you have failed in your statutory duty and will try to find any way that I can bring a private prosecution against you and your organisation if it’s at all possible, and believe me I’ve been looking pretty hard lately.


Yours truly, a truly frustrated and tired of waiting person.

PS Also if you see Vicki remind her on this point about the “gateway drug” myth she botched in the interview above. The Prohibition is the gateway, not cannabis. I can somehow tell you know this but you didn’t show this in the interview. If you can’t buy crack cocaine at your local bar or pharmacist, then you certainly won’t be able to buy it at your cannabis dispensary either – it would be stupid of them to stock anything illegal if they had a house full the brim with heavily regulated weed!

PSS Prohibition causes violence and crime. Prohibition is not the ultimate form of regulation, it is actually the abdication of responsibility. Regulation will stop the gangs and prevent people from getting hooked on harder drugs like meth, and YOU should be ashamed of yourselves for not pushing much much harder for a taxed and regulated market for this wonderful herb simply to stop meth and gangs. You have caused un-knowable violence and pain for many people since 2000 AD. Do the right thing. NOW! Hurry! Or else you mite have an accident – karma is a pain.

* the two studies are shown below
** the types of rights I’m referring are shown below
*** NIH Study on cannabis use and bladder cancer 11 years 84,000 men longitudinal study shows 45% reduction with a 95% confidence interval! These results are off the chart obvious that you have missed something crucial in your science. Grab some ganja today because it’s obviously going to save your life, and hurry to quickly and strongly remove it from MODA1975.

  1. A Fair Go For All? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services. July 2012.
    A Fair Go For All? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services. July 2012.

    and also another good excerpt from this report: A Fair Go For All? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services. July 2012.

    CJS 2011 report

    CJS 2011 report

  2. Over-representation of MaÌ„ori in the criminal justice system: An exploratory report (September 2007) by the Policy, Strategy and Research Group – Department of Corrections.

    Over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system: An exploratory report (September 2007) by the Policy, Strategy and Research Group - Department of Corrections.

    Over-representation of MaÌ„ori in the criminal justice system: An exploratory report (September 2007) by the Policy, Strategy and Research Group – Department of Corrections.

Justice is not being served

The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 excludes scientific evidence:

Section 205 (Court may suppress evidence and submissions)

  • The crown is likely to suppress general non-relevant evidence provided during cannabis main defence and appeal on the basis that it’s irrelevant to the case at hand and only supplied to bias the court against the cannabis prohibition law itself or is intended to prejudice a jury to acquit regardless of the facts of the case. A judge is not currently allowed to consider science or question the un-science racist law oddly, unlike most countries. This biasing is known as jury nullification and is sought by the future cannabis accused due to New Zealand’s unique international position of having no constitutionally guaranteed human rights and the resultant inability of district court judges to strike down NZ BORA inconsistent legislation – such as the inclusion of cannabis in the schedules of the Misuse of drugs Act 1975

Section 223 (Right of appeal against determination of first appeal court in regards public interest)

The High Court or the Court of Appeal must not give leave for a second appeal under this subpart unless satisfied that (a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance. I believe that there is a great public interest in the reform of our cannabis laws and that only a jury nullification or member of parliament can do it or a member of the EACD can do it.

  • Part of my evidence shows how the MODA conflicts with the BORA regarding Maori and cannabis
  • Evidence to support public support for the taxation and regulation of cannabis
  • Common sense

5 Abuses of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

I seek an urgent High Court interim injunction appeal due to the life threatening yet unusual and unintended severe negative effects of the prohibition law on my ability to work, think, live, love and die based on my in-ability to access adequate protections of my human rights:

  • Section 21 My privacy was breached at every stage in this saga, such as the right to an expectation against unreasonable search and seizure while out and about but especially in the privacy in ones own home so long as it does not injure another person
  • Section 27 The right to justice. Irrelevant evidence such as general case law, scientific studies and government reports, legislation and the outcomes of cases in other countries are unlikely to have been deemed admissible to show by defence to a judge alone trial, since he or she would be unable to consider my human rights in any form
  • Section 13 My right to practice my own religion (Cantheism), that considers cannabis sativa a holy sacrament
  • Section 9 and also Section 22 Not to be subjected to cruel treatment and Liberty of the person being the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained – I spent 6 nights in Mount Eden Prison over new years eve, finally getting my house keys back on January 6th! The substance police alleged was meth for supply was thought to me to be MDMA but which turned out to be PCP according to the ESR test results.
  • Section 9 and also Section 22 This occurred again on 18 June with NZ’s smallest amount of meth ever found in my locked bedroom when I was not even home during a warrantless search: 0.017 grams again this resulted in 2 nights in Mt Eden remand on meth supply charges that got dropped
  • My right to a trial by a jury of my peers – cannabis possession does not qualify for jury trial, yet this is the only way I can move to have my human rights considered

Near the end of the US Liquor Prohibition juries ceased convicting based on law and decided instead to deliver justice. It is the juries responsibility to deliver justice not uphold the law, established in 1670 Tower of London case of William Penn who was charged with speaking in the street but was not permitted to show evidence in trial (to bias the jury against the bad anti-quaker law) and when the jury found him not guilty the entire jury were sent to prison and fined a years wages.

After 1670 juries would be unable to be punished for their thoughts – this has not happened in New Zealand yet, except perhaps with the Waihopai Three Nullification.

Evidence Supporting a Jury Nullification for any Cannabis Related Offence

Proceeds of Crime Data – Past 10 years – Shows prohibition to produce inconsistent rates of return

Based on the data from my official information act request of 15 June 2013

(45693_Atkinson official information proceeds crime.pdf)

When plotted by city and against time one can see that the proceeds of crime act is not a very consistent method of extracting tax revenue from the illegal drugs market in NZ.

Time corelation shows that this is not a very effective tax collection method

Time correlation shows that this is not a very effective tax collection method

The following table suggests that Forfeiture order amounts could potentially be unfairly implemented across the country, with no proceeds whatsoever over a 10 year period from Napier, New Plymouth, Hamilton, Invercargill; but with extremely high amounts from Whangarei equivalent to $67 per person!

Forfeiture order amounts by city shows nothing for four cities and heaps for Whangarei

Forfeiture order amounts by city shows nothing for four cities and heaps for Whangarei

Source: 45693_Atkinson official information proceeds crime.pdf

Proceeds of crime spreadsheet prepared for one of my many official information act requests. What a waste of my time and tax payers money yeah?

Proceeds of crime spreadsheet prepared for one of my many official information act requests. What a waste of my time and tax payers money yeah?

as signed off by Graeme Astle – bless him and give thanks and praise for Jahs work!

Graeme Astle Signature

Graeme Astle Signature ref 45693

A jury would have been asked to consider the benefits of tax revenue to our economy

Colorado Tax Revenue Chart

Colorado Tax Revenue Chart

Colorado Tax Allocation

Colorado Tax Allocation

A jury would be asked to consider our high rates of incarceration and the downsides of this

The chart below is sourced from corrections own data and shows a ballooning Community Detention block, for XLS data see:

Use of Home Detentions is masking NZ's Drug Problem

Use of Home Detentions is masking NZ’s Drug Problem

NZ prison population is some of the highest in the world NOT INCLUDING home detention, community detention

NZ prison population is some of the highest in the world NOT INCLUDING home detention, community detention

Illustration shows that Marijuana is associated with creativity

Cannabis Promotes Creativity

Cannabis Promotes Creativity

Thanks to this man, the police have actually been quietly decriminalising cannabis for the past 20 years

Greg O'Connor Sept 08 300dpi_0

Greg O’Connor Sept 08

NZPA President Greg O'connor Visits Legal Cannabis Store in Colorado

NZPA President Greg O’connor Visits Legal Cannabis Store in Colorado

Trending down in drug apprehensions

Trending down in drug apprehensions

In 2012 only 8 people were convicted of consuming cannabis according to


Only 8 people were convicted of consuming cannabis in 2012

Only 8 people were convicted of consuming cannabis in 2012

Portugal has managed to cut it’s drug addiction rates in half through public health policies

Portugals president explains what he did to cut drug addiction in half

Portugals president explains what he did to cut drug addiction in half

Pot Friendly Countries

NZ Has a poor attitude compared to nearly every other developed country

NZ Has a poor attitude compared to nearly every other developed country

Cost of administering sentences by sentence type

The cost of administering home detention and prison

The cost of administering home detention and prison

No prosecution for cannabis should proceed because it is no longer in the public interest

58 Entirely Unique Website Domains Carried Stories About Kelly van Gaalen

58 Entirely Unique Website Domains Carried Stories About Kelly van Gaalen

The United Nations said this stuff about our poor human rights: (!)

The UN comments on NZ lack of rights in the Fourth Periodic Report under the convenant on civil and political rights.

The United Nations tells NZ to rationalise cannabis laws

The United Nations tells NZ to rationalise cannabis laws

and again to remind New Zealand again during the fifth periodic report:

UN comments on NZ's poor human rights stance

UN comments on NZ’s poor human rights stance

This is fucked to put it bluntly I’m sorry.


Petra Butler comments about the history of our crippled human rights laws

Petra Butler comments about the history of our crippled human rights laws

Thomas Jefferson said “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”


The results of a very long running US GALLUP poll on whether the use of marijuana should be made legal or not shows a steady increase from 12% right up to 58%


The world’s first ever marijuana conviction shown. 4 years prison for 2 joints. Prisoner number 18,699. Numbers would get to the point where America has more people in prison than Chinese prisons!

Worlds First Cannabis Convict

Worlds First Cannabis Convict

We can thank Nixon for this terribly brutal regime we are still subjected to.