The Hon. Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister of Australia
House of Representatives
Parliament House Monday 10th December 2007 Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Prime Minister,
Firstly, Congratulations on being elected as The Prime Minister of Australia.
Secondly, Please find enclosed herewith a copy of our letter to the former Prime Minister John Howard, dated 9th February 2006, as it appears he was using his influence on other state Minister's in taking a tougher line on marijuana consumption. With respect, we request to direct all the states leaders to consider coming in line the ACT legislation regarding marijuana. As prohibition has caused an unnecessary burden on the people of Australia..
We were disappointed in the response that we had received from Minister's acting on behalf of Mr. Howard, and shocked to learn that the Government,(15 May 2006).agreed to develop the National Cannabis Strategy 2006-2009 Openly stating this National Strategy, as the first of its kind in Australia. We point out we have been involved in Cannabis reform since 1975, and have filed our concerns by way of submissions and letters to various Governments over many years. which leaves open to questions true meaning of "the first of it kind in Australia"
In the mid 90s Government reports suggested that 82% of Australia population age over 14 had used Cannabis, according to the NCS this " has fallen since 1998, the latest household survey indicated that 5.5 million people over the age of 14 have tried cannabis at least once during their lives. Considering that just over 13 Million vote at the last election, We feel NCS may have disadvantage Mr Howard and his colleagues, It well may have been the case.
It may be of interest to note that, The Victorian Government's drug reform strategy "Turning the tide' page 18 states that "A recent analysis by Access Economics estimates that spending on illegal drugs in Australia amounts to $7 Billion per year,... Seventy per cent of the spending on illegal drugs is on cannabis" . Surely this money can be spent on more worthwhile things?
After you have perused the National Cannabis Strategy 2006-2009, it may become apparent that it's nothing more then rehashing old issues surrounding cannabis use, it offers no evidence whatsoever that supports cannabis prohibition. Members of the legal profession receive Hugh financial gains, and are the only real winners of the cannabis never ending debate..
We humbly request, If you see fit to do so, with the Australian public's best interest and future well-fare in mind, To recommend to the Cabinet to consider abolishing the National Cannabis Strategy 2006-2009. as to lift the uneccasary burden placed on the people of Victoria, and saving the tax payer many Millions of Dollars.
We would appreciate notice of your intention,
Yours faithfully
Les McDonald
Founder, BeBuyBac
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
AFL Players Ass. drugs
President Peter Bell
AFL Players ASS.
Level 12 545 King St.
West Melbourne 3003 18th March 2006
Dear President, Peter Bell.
We write regarding the ALF Players social welfare and the influence of the Australia Sports Drug Agency has over them. The World Anti-Doping Agency, (WADA ) instigated in USA has control over Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) Intern, oversees nearly all sport in Australia, and are committed to the International Standard. Prohibited List 2006. The ASDA is not required to do its own research into the affects of drugs in Australian sport.
WADA, Prohibited List 2006, has included Cannabis, The Australian Government Department of Health, "National Drug Strategy" states "Cannabis has been erroneously classified as a narcotic," Now to include cannabis in the list, must cast a shadow doubt over the ability of WADA, and ASDA to distinguish the difference between the two.
Considering all the prohibited substances listed under the WADA code, Cannabis is the only substance that can be transmitted to another person, resulting in that person showing a positive test to Marijuana. Passive smoking has been proven to display a positive drug test.
We don't wish to appear as being vindictive towards the ASDA, However we are deeply concerned that they may have overlooked the social well-being of many AFL players. (i.e.)
Young .Natham (1) living at home with his Parents whom consume cannabis while watching T.V ,(2) at his friends place that also use cannabis, (3) driving his mate's to the footy, whom also smoke cannabis. Natham is required to give a saliva swap, which showed a positive test on three different occasions to Marijuana. Although the evidence is very strong, Natham, non user of cannabis, takes legal action to clear his name and reputation, engages a solicitor, who instructs a Barrister, that consult a highly respected, QC. to act on Nathham's behalf. After several time consuming and costly court appearances, Natham, (may be) cleared, as the cause of the positive test was due to inhaling passive (cannabis) smoke. Natham only used 90% of his total AFL player income over two season, to pay for his legal defence team. His only regret being wrongly disqualified from playing in his teams Grand Final win, every AFL players dream/goal.
The AFL its self, has a roll in protecting the rights and welfare of the youthful recruits, in making sure they fully understand the detailed issues of the agreement, the consequences of being a roll mode, the curtailing of their lawful civil rights. The AFL must also assure that the players code, has not and does not place an unnecessary burden on the players welfare.
We feel it would be in the best interest and welfare of all AFL players and clubs, if the WADA Prohibited list 2006, was amend and as in part prohibited in-competition S8. Cannabinoids be deleted completely. As you may not be aware cannabis is not a performances enhancing drug..... Accountability for all
Yours in good faith
Les McDonald
Founder
AFL Players ASS.
Level 12 545 King St.
West Melbourne 3003 18th March 2006
Dear President, Peter Bell.
We write regarding the ALF Players social welfare and the influence of the Australia Sports Drug Agency has over them. The World Anti-Doping Agency, (WADA ) instigated in USA has control over Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) Intern, oversees nearly all sport in Australia, and are committed to the International Standard. Prohibited List 2006. The ASDA is not required to do its own research into the affects of drugs in Australian sport.
WADA, Prohibited List 2006, has included Cannabis, The Australian Government Department of Health, "National Drug Strategy" states "Cannabis has been erroneously classified as a narcotic," Now to include cannabis in the list, must cast a shadow doubt over the ability of WADA, and ASDA to distinguish the difference between the two.
Considering all the prohibited substances listed under the WADA code, Cannabis is the only substance that can be transmitted to another person, resulting in that person showing a positive test to Marijuana. Passive smoking has been proven to display a positive drug test.
We don't wish to appear as being vindictive towards the ASDA, However we are deeply concerned that they may have overlooked the social well-being of many AFL players. (i.e.)
Young .Natham (1) living at home with his Parents whom consume cannabis while watching T.V ,(2) at his friends place that also use cannabis, (3) driving his mate's to the footy, whom also smoke cannabis. Natham is required to give a saliva swap, which showed a positive test on three different occasions to Marijuana. Although the evidence is very strong, Natham, non user of cannabis, takes legal action to clear his name and reputation, engages a solicitor, who instructs a Barrister, that consult a highly respected, QC. to act on Nathham's behalf. After several time consuming and costly court appearances, Natham, (may be) cleared, as the cause of the positive test was due to inhaling passive (cannabis) smoke. Natham only used 90% of his total AFL player income over two season, to pay for his legal defence team. His only regret being wrongly disqualified from playing in his teams Grand Final win, every AFL players dream/goal.
The AFL its self, has a roll in protecting the rights and welfare of the youthful recruits, in making sure they fully understand the detailed issues of the agreement, the consequences of being a roll mode, the curtailing of their lawful civil rights. The AFL must also assure that the players code, has not and does not place an unnecessary burden on the players welfare.
We feel it would be in the best interest and welfare of all AFL players and clubs, if the WADA Prohibited list 2006, was amend and as in part prohibited in-competition S8. Cannabinoids be deleted completely. As you may not be aware cannabis is not a performances enhancing drug..... Accountability for all
Yours in good faith
Les McDonald
Founder
Drug in the AFL
Collingwood F.C. and to all AFL teams
Fax 61384120170
To Whom it may Concern
and all Team Players. 10th March 2006
Re: "Age' Footy drugs testing finds 15 under the influence
It is of great concern that all AFL players are subjected to The Australia Sports Drug Agency, out -of- competition testing system, which includes Marijuana.
Marijuana is a prohibited substance listed under ASDA in 2006 maintained by WADA. This must leave open to question the real motive behind both ASDA and WADA Marijuana, is not a performance-enhancing substance, in fact, reduces performance levels of the user.
Considering the Millions of Australians that consume Marijuana regally, we can only assume that some AFL players are included in the numbers. The herb cannabis, for hundreds of years has been used for various ailments effecting the human race, Queen Victoria used the herb to relive minstrel pain. O'shaugnessy introduced cannabis to British medicine in the mid-nineteen century, Nahas 1n 1984 recommended its use for the relief of pain , muscle spasm, and convulsions occurring in tetanus, rabies, rheumatism and epilepsy. Others to numinous to mention (Ref. A.G.D.H. and Ageing, Series. 25)
Cannabis was used as beverage or food additive such, in cakes, biscuits, by a small part our society. By the 1970 "pot" use had increased, 1975 it retailed (home grown) at the astonishing of price $30 per ounce, this price forced many consumers to smoke "pot" for their recreational comforts, avoiding the social effects of alcohol =destruction=violence=death.
.
We note from ASDA substance prohibited in particular sports alcohol is prohibited, in-competition only, being not over i.e. Aeronautic, (0.20) Archery, (0.10) Automobile, (0.10) Billiards, (0.20) Boules, (0.10) Karat (0.10) Modern Pentathlon, (0.10) Motorcycling (0.10) Power-boating (0.30). AFL players, in-competition have no limits on alcohol
Many young AFL players live at home with their parents, watching TV .in an enclosed the space his parents may smoke Marijuana, resulting in the young player showing a positive test to Marijuana, up till seven days after inhaling "passive smoke" I have enclosed herewith cut-out from the Melbourne "AGE" "Boxer set for final drug ban appeal ..".he was with relatives who were smoking marijuana, and that this caused his positive test"..
We feel that all AFL clubs should but the players social welfare at the forefront, It would be with in reason to request the ASDA and WADA to show cause and reason (the evidence)' why Marijuana is to remain in prohibited list 2006. . ... Accountability, a must for all.
We all need, Straight answer to a Straight question
Yours sincerely, Les McDonald
Founder
Fax 61384120170
To Whom it may Concern
and all Team Players. 10th March 2006
Re: "Age' Footy drugs testing finds 15 under the influence
It is of great concern that all AFL players are subjected to The Australia Sports Drug Agency, out -of- competition testing system, which includes Marijuana.
Marijuana is a prohibited substance listed under ASDA in 2006 maintained by WADA. This must leave open to question the real motive behind both ASDA and WADA Marijuana, is not a performance-enhancing substance, in fact, reduces performance levels of the user.
Considering the Millions of Australians that consume Marijuana regally, we can only assume that some AFL players are included in the numbers. The herb cannabis, for hundreds of years has been used for various ailments effecting the human race, Queen Victoria used the herb to relive minstrel pain. O'shaugnessy introduced cannabis to British medicine in the mid-nineteen century, Nahas 1n 1984 recommended its use for the relief of pain , muscle spasm, and convulsions occurring in tetanus, rabies, rheumatism and epilepsy. Others to numinous to mention (Ref. A.G.D.H. and Ageing, Series. 25)
Cannabis was used as beverage or food additive such, in cakes, biscuits, by a small part our society. By the 1970 "pot" use had increased, 1975 it retailed (home grown) at the astonishing of price $30 per ounce, this price forced many consumers to smoke "pot" for their recreational comforts, avoiding the social effects of alcohol =destruction=violence=death.
.
We note from ASDA substance prohibited in particular sports alcohol is prohibited, in-competition only, being not over i.e. Aeronautic, (0.20) Archery, (0.10) Automobile, (0.10) Billiards, (0.20) Boules, (0.10) Karat (0.10) Modern Pentathlon, (0.10) Motorcycling (0.10) Power-boating (0.30). AFL players, in-competition have no limits on alcohol
Many young AFL players live at home with their parents, watching TV .in an enclosed the space his parents may smoke Marijuana, resulting in the young player showing a positive test to Marijuana, up till seven days after inhaling "passive smoke" I have enclosed herewith cut-out from the Melbourne "AGE" "Boxer set for final drug ban appeal ..".he was with relatives who were smoking marijuana, and that this caused his positive test"..
We feel that all AFL clubs should but the players social welfare at the forefront, It would be with in reason to request the ASDA and WADA to show cause and reason (the evidence)' why Marijuana is to remain in prohibited list 2006. . ... Accountability, a must for all.
We all need, Straight answer to a Straight question
Yours sincerely, Les McDonald
Founder
Friday, August 24, 2007
Departrment Of Health/Prime Minister
Departrment Of Health and Ageing
Cath Peachey
GPO. Box 9848
Canberra ACT 2601 27 August 2007
Dear Cath Peachey,
I acknowledge your letter of 18 June 2007, being in reply to our letter of 4 May 2007 to the Minister for Health and Age, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP. which included our letter of 9th February 2007 to the Prime Minister John Howard, As to ensure that issues receive the attention they deserve, the Prime Minister referred our correspondence to the Minister for Healthy and Ageing, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP for further consideration given that he is responsible for the development of policy on health issues.
It now appears that this matter falls within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Ageing the Hon. Christopher Pyne MP. We appreciate the effort you have gone to in explaining that cannabis is an illegal drug, and that the Government is committed $14 million over four years from 2006-07 for cannabis related projects.
The last paragraph of your letter states "You may... consider contacting the Victorian Minister for Health, the Hon. Bronwyn Pike..." which raises concern and doubt, leaving open to question whether or not you have received a copy of our letter 9th February 2007 to the Prime Minister John Howard, as it makes clear mention of the correspondence to the Victorian Minister for Health, the Hon. Bronwyn Pike...Something is wrong?
As to help clarify the situation,
I now ask, have you perused the letter to the Prime Minister John Howard, dated 9th February 2007, being enclosed with our letter of 4 May 2007 to the Minister for Health and Age, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP.
We don't wish to appear as being ungrateful, but now you may well understand the reason for our disappointment in the response so far received, the issues have not been addressed in a proper, responsible manner... Accountabilty is now a must.
I also take this opportunity to ask you a personal question, Are you a member or former member of the Legal Profession?
I thank you
Yours sincerely,
Les McDonald
Founder
BeBuyBac
Cath Peachey
GPO. Box 9848
Canberra ACT 2601 27 August 2007
Dear Cath Peachey,
I acknowledge your letter of 18 June 2007, being in reply to our letter of 4 May 2007 to the Minister for Health and Age, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP. which included our letter of 9th February 2007 to the Prime Minister John Howard, As to ensure that issues receive the attention they deserve, the Prime Minister referred our correspondence to the Minister for Healthy and Ageing, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP for further consideration given that he is responsible for the development of policy on health issues.
It now appears that this matter falls within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Ageing the Hon. Christopher Pyne MP. We appreciate the effort you have gone to in explaining that cannabis is an illegal drug, and that the Government is committed $14 million over four years from 2006-07 for cannabis related projects.
The last paragraph of your letter states "You may... consider contacting the Victorian Minister for Health, the Hon. Bronwyn Pike..." which raises concern and doubt, leaving open to question whether or not you have received a copy of our letter 9th February 2007 to the Prime Minister John Howard, as it makes clear mention of the correspondence to the Victorian Minister for Health, the Hon. Bronwyn Pike...Something is wrong?
As to help clarify the situation,
I now ask, have you perused the letter to the Prime Minister John Howard, dated 9th February 2007, being enclosed with our letter of 4 May 2007 to the Minister for Health and Age, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP.
We don't wish to appear as being ungrateful, but now you may well understand the reason for our disappointment in the response so far received, the issues have not been addressed in a proper, responsible manner... Accountabilty is now a must.
I also take this opportunity to ask you a personal question, Are you a member or former member of the Legal Profession?
I thank you
Yours sincerely,
Les McDonald
Founder
BeBuyBac
Monday, July 30, 2007
Minister for Justice and Customs
The Hon. David Johnston Your Ref, 06/19688,MC07/11029
Minister for Justice and Customs
Senator for Western Australia
ParliamentHouse Canberra ACT 2600 30th July 2007
Dear Minister. The Hon. David Johntson,
Re The Act.To Protect the Australian People
I thank you for your letter of 19th July 2007, being in response to our letter to the Hon.Philip Ruddock dated 17 April 2007. Which we feel needs to be clarified further.
Firstly, from your letter, you have made mention of the conduct of the AFP, and that "Justice Finn found that the AFP acted appropriately at all times" Which we fully except. However, if the Australian Government was committed by proper legislation law, to protect the people of Australia, then AFP would have been deeply obligated to apprehend the Bali Nine in Australia prior to going Indonesia. Which is still remains a matter of great public concern.
I note that is Australian Government has written to the Indonesian authorities to express its clear opposition to the application of the death penalty, which I am sure will be of some comfort to all those family's effect, and appreciated by many Australians.
As to the second last paragraph of your letter, it appears that you have only relied of the contents of the Attorney-General letter 13 April 2007, which we found very unsatisfactory, this promoting the urgent need for us to again write to the Attorney-General,on the 17 April 2007, Which in turn was referred to you as the responsible Minister.Sadly for reasons unknown to us, the issue still remains open.
We also note that you "..do not consider the events relating to the nine Australians in Indonesia justify the introduction of legislation.." We point out, We used Bali Nine case as an example, to show cause and reason why the Australian Government needs to consider legislation to protect the People of Australia, as you may well be aware that the Government is not committed by Law to protect the people. Now! an undisputed fact .
As simplicity is the most convenient way to the truth, Therefore I ask, If you could forward a copy of any legislation or Act, that commits the Australian Government to protect the People of Australia, we would greatly appreciated if you could attend to matter at your earliest and most convenient moment. Accountability is now a must, to build a better future for all of us.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
Minister for Justice and Customs
Senator for Western Australia
ParliamentHouse Canberra ACT 2600 30th July 2007
Dear Minister. The Hon. David Johntson,
Re The Act.To Protect the Australian People
I thank you for your letter of 19th July 2007, being in response to our letter to the Hon.Philip Ruddock dated 17 April 2007. Which we feel needs to be clarified further.
Firstly, from your letter, you have made mention of the conduct of the AFP, and that "Justice Finn found that the AFP acted appropriately at all times" Which we fully except. However, if the Australian Government was committed by proper legislation law, to protect the people of Australia, then AFP would have been deeply obligated to apprehend the Bali Nine in Australia prior to going Indonesia. Which is still remains a matter of great public concern.
I note that is Australian Government has written to the Indonesian authorities to express its clear opposition to the application of the death penalty, which I am sure will be of some comfort to all those family's effect, and appreciated by many Australians.
As to the second last paragraph of your letter, it appears that you have only relied of the contents of the Attorney-General letter 13 April 2007, which we found very unsatisfactory, this promoting the urgent need for us to again write to the Attorney-General,on the 17 April 2007, Which in turn was referred to you as the responsible Minister.Sadly for reasons unknown to us, the issue still remains open.
We also note that you "..do not consider the events relating to the nine Australians in Indonesia justify the introduction of legislation.." We point out, We used Bali Nine case as an example, to show cause and reason why the Australian Government needs to consider legislation to protect the People of Australia, as you may well be aware that the Government is not committed by Law to protect the people. Now! an undisputed fact .
As simplicity is the most convenient way to the truth, Therefore I ask, If you could forward a copy of any legislation or Act, that commits the Australian Government to protect the People of Australia, we would greatly appreciated if you could attend to matter at your earliest and most convenient moment. Accountability is now a must, to build a better future for all of us.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
Steve Gibbons MP 27/07/07
Steve Gibbons MP
Federal Member for Bendigo
PO box 27th July 2007
BENDIGO
Dear Mr. Steve Gibbons MP
Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
I write to add to our letter of the 7th June 2007 and to bring to your attention the ABC program 4 Corners Ghost Prisoners aired Monday 11 June 2007, it revealed,a solicitor acting on behalf of (Mr.Arbin ?) his client, is taking legal action against the Australian Government for failing to protect the people of Australia.I ask, Did you see the program?
In our previous correspondence we made mention that
"..that the Australian Government is not committed to protecting the citizens of Australian, during peace time, The Government of Australia has no proper legislated Act that commits the Government of Australia to Protect the People .of Australia
Considering the time now lapsed, we trust that time has allowed you to fully comprehended the contents and meaning of the issue raised, we previously pointed out that the Attorney-General Hon. Philip Ruddock letter of the 13th April 2007, as being unsatisfactory, disappointing, as it failed to address the matter in a responsibly way as expected by most citizens of our country.
It is now quite clear to us, that the Australian Government is not committed by legislation to Protect the People of Australia, Surely, it would be within reason, a very simple task for Parliament to rectify the situation to legislate, and remove any doubt whatsoever, this in turn assuring peace of mind to the poeple of Australian.
We trust that you will pursue this matter,it is of growing public concern and interest.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
Bebuybac
The Concerned Australians
Federal Member for Bendigo
PO box 27th July 2007
BENDIGO
Dear Mr. Steve Gibbons MP
Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
I write to add to our letter of the 7th June 2007 and to bring to your attention the ABC program 4 Corners Ghost Prisoners aired Monday 11 June 2007, it revealed,a solicitor acting on behalf of (Mr.Arbin ?) his client, is taking legal action against the Australian Government for failing to protect the people of Australia.I ask, Did you see the program?
In our previous correspondence we made mention that
"..that the Australian Government is not committed to protecting the citizens of Australian, during peace time, The Government of Australia has no proper legislated Act that commits the Government of Australia to Protect the People .of Australia
Considering the time now lapsed, we trust that time has allowed you to fully comprehended the contents and meaning of the issue raised, we previously pointed out that the Attorney-General Hon. Philip Ruddock letter of the 13th April 2007, as being unsatisfactory, disappointing, as it failed to address the matter in a responsibly way as expected by most citizens of our country.
It is now quite clear to us, that the Australian Government is not committed by legislation to Protect the People of Australia, Surely, it would be within reason, a very simple task for Parliament to rectify the situation to legislate, and remove any doubt whatsoever, this in turn assuring peace of mind to the poeple of Australian.
We trust that you will pursue this matter,it is of growing public concern and interest.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
Bebuybac
The Concerned Australians
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The Rights To Vote
The many thousand of Australians that have been convicted for possession and use of cannabis due to recent changes to the electorate Act instigated by the Howard Government has ruled these citizens votes are now invalid. It would be with in reason to suggest that the Electoral Commission should personal notify the thousand of Australians that their vote in not counted in the coming election. Wake up Australia your country needs you.
Les
Les
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Steve Gibbons MP 07/06/07
Steve Gibbons MP
Federal Member for Bendigo
PO Box 338
BENDIGO 7th June 2007
Dear Mr. Steve Gibbons MP
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
I acknowledge your corespondents which we received on 9th May 2007 which included a copy of the letters from Attorney-General the Hon. Philip Ruddock to yourself dated 2nd May 2007, which we thank you for.
It now appears that Attorney-General the Hon. Philip Ruddock, has move the goal post of responsibility, Now the matter raised in our earlier correspondence raising constitutional issues. Which we feel needs to be clarified further, as we are not satisfied with Attorney General's response, it fails to live up to real meaning of "good government" and undermines the expectation of the Australian People.
Our previous letter 26th April brought to your attention the growing unrest with in the community, also included a copy of our letter the Attorney-General Hon. Philip Ruddock dated 17th April 2007 Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia, The Cause And Reason, Something is Wrong.
We need not mention the many Australians that have already suffered, some even death, partly due to the fact our Government is not committed to protect the People of Australia
We feel that the People of Australia should be protect in a time of peace, that our Parliament must now insure by lawful legislation that our Government is deeply obligated to Protect the People of Australia. Which you may well agree, I ask, do you agree?
It would be greatly appreciated if you could bring to Parliaments attention that the Australian Government is not committed to protecting the citizens of Australian, during peace time, The Government of Australia has no proper legislated Act that commits the Government of Australia to Protect the People.
As to remove any fear or doubt whatsoever with in the community, We ask, if you feel fit to do so, recommend to Parliament, to consider an act that clearly commits the Australian Government in protecting all the Citizens of Australian.
.Les McDonald
BeBuyBac
The Concerned Australians
Federal Member for Bendigo
PO Box 338
BENDIGO 7th June 2007
Dear Mr. Steve Gibbons MP
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
I acknowledge your corespondents which we received on 9th May 2007 which included a copy of the letters from Attorney-General the Hon. Philip Ruddock to yourself dated 2nd May 2007, which we thank you for.
It now appears that Attorney-General the Hon. Philip Ruddock, has move the goal post of responsibility, Now the matter raised in our earlier correspondence raising constitutional issues. Which we feel needs to be clarified further, as we are not satisfied with Attorney General's response, it fails to live up to real meaning of "good government" and undermines the expectation of the Australian People.
Our previous letter 26th April brought to your attention the growing unrest with in the community, also included a copy of our letter the Attorney-General Hon. Philip Ruddock dated 17th April 2007 Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia, The Cause And Reason, Something is Wrong.
We need not mention the many Australians that have already suffered, some even death, partly due to the fact our Government is not committed to protect the People of Australia
We feel that the People of Australia should be protect in a time of peace, that our Parliament must now insure by lawful legislation that our Government is deeply obligated to Protect the People of Australia. Which you may well agree, I ask, do you agree?
It would be greatly appreciated if you could bring to Parliaments attention that the Australian Government is not committed to protecting the citizens of Australian, during peace time, The Government of Australia has no proper legislated Act that commits the Government of Australia to Protect the People.
As to remove any fear or doubt whatsoever with in the community, We ask, if you feel fit to do so, recommend to Parliament, to consider an act that clearly commits the Australian Government in protecting all the Citizens of Australian.
.Les McDonald
BeBuyBac
The Concerned Australians
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
To protect the people Summary
As to add to our previous fax "The power to protect the people of Australia" 07/02/07 Which included a copy or our letter to the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, 5th February 2007, fine herewith copies of letters dated
5th February 2007 To The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock," The Act to Protect the people of Australia. Is the Australian Government obligated to protect the Australian, if so under what act if any"
1st of March 2007 To The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, "It appears to us that Australian Government is not committed by legislation or under the Australian Constitution 1901 to Protect the Australian People
2nd April 2007 To Steve Gibbons Federal Member for Bendigo Re: Accountability of Government Departments "...we would greatly appreciated if you could bring to the attention of the Attorney-General The Hon Philip Ruddock that we have not, as yet received any response..."
13th April 2007 From the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock. referring to our two previous letters, "whether the "..whether the Australian Government is obligated to protect the Australian People"
26 April 2007 To Steve Gibbons MP We thank you for the time and effort ......As by way of courtesy please find enclosed .....copy of the Attorney-General response dates 13 April 2007"
17th April 2007 To The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia. acknowledge letter of 13 April 2007, "... "However it appears that you may have overlooked the main thrust of our previous correspondence".. " why the Australian Government is not obligated by legislation to protect it people... Something is wrong?
2nd May 2007 From the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, to Steve Gibbons MP Federal Member for Bendigo which was received on the 7th May 2007 " I refer to your letter of 12 April 2007, ....Earlier correspondence raising constitutional issues." responded directly ..on the 13 April (copy enclosed)
9th May 2007 From Steve Gibbons MP Federal Member for Bendigo, With compliments,
5th February 2007 To The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock," The Act to Protect the people of Australia. Is the Australian Government obligated to protect the Australian, if so under what act if any"
1st of March 2007 To The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, "It appears to us that Australian Government is not committed by legislation or under the Australian Constitution 1901 to Protect the Australian People
2nd April 2007 To Steve Gibbons Federal Member for Bendigo Re: Accountability of Government Departments "...we would greatly appreciated if you could bring to the attention of the Attorney-General The Hon Philip Ruddock that we have not, as yet received any response..."
13th April 2007 From the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock. referring to our two previous letters, "whether the "..whether the Australian Government is obligated to protect the Australian People"
26 April 2007 To Steve Gibbons MP We thank you for the time and effort ......As by way of courtesy please find enclosed .....copy of the Attorney-General response dates 13 April 2007"
17th April 2007 To The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia. acknowledge letter of 13 April 2007, "... "However it appears that you may have overlooked the main thrust of our previous correspondence".. " why the Australian Government is not obligated by legislation to protect it people... Something is wrong?
2nd May 2007 From the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, to Steve Gibbons MP Federal Member for Bendigo which was received on the 7th May 2007 " I refer to your letter of 12 April 2007, ....Earlier correspondence raising constitutional issues." responded directly ..on the 13 April (copy enclosed)
9th May 2007 From Steve Gibbons MP Federal Member for Bendigo, With compliments,
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Black History Victoria 1803 -1856
1803 Lieut. Col. David Collins visits Port Philip, with a view of forming a settlement, he learns that the Dutch have vacated Van Diemans Land, set sail to take possession of such.
1805 Murrengurk, a big man, easily recognised and respected by various clan members thru-out the Port Philip District, Murrengurk, had set up camp around Port Fairy his ability to understand and communicate with visiting Whaler's needs. Murrengurk, attended a trading place, rum, tools, clothing and the comfort of women were in demand, this continued for some years, However Murrengurk, soon started to lose control with the visiting whalers, as woman were being raped, taken, others were being killed.
1825 Van Diemans land proclaimed a separate colony from N.S.W. George Arthur Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemans land
Murrengurk, over the years became deeply concerned with the situation, expressed to the tribal council, it would be far more of a benefit to the tribes, to let the Land for grazing sheep, to gentleman, of Van Diemans Land, as their laws protect women from being raped, taken away. Their laws protect your family from being shot and killed, After consideration the Elders approval, their trust had been granted..
Murrengurk, consulted, visiting whaler's, his terms agreements were laid out. Mr. J.H. Wedge, had elected to bring the terms agreement to the attention of any interested parties in Van Diemans Land.
1835 In Launceston, at the corner of Cimitiere and John Street, stood Mr. Connolly's store, a supper party had been arranged by Mr. Connolly's for a number of friends, being J.H.Wedge, W.G. Sams, John Robertson (of Hobart Town) John Sinclair (of Clairville)and John Batman who was then a settler near Avoca. Being made aware of the Terms Agreement It was agreed that Batman should cross the straits and make arrangements for settlement of the agreement A schooner was quickly charted, and John Batman as agent for the company "Port Phillip Association" to obtained from the natives a large tract of land suitable for grazing sheep.
The promoters of the undertaking were John Trice Gelibrand (former Attorney-General) Charles Swanston, M.L.C.,William Bannister (Sheriff), James Simpson (Police Magistrate), Henry Arthur (Collector of Customs), John and William Robertson (Merchants), John Hilder Wedge (surveyor) J.T. Collecat (Post Master), Anthony Cottrell (District Constable), William Gardiner Sams (under Sheriff), Micheal Connolly (Merchant), Major Mercer, John Sinclair (Superintendent of Convicts), and John Batman
Batman Sailed from Launceston on the 12th May 1835, in the Rebecca. a small vessel of fifteen tons. As arranged by Murrengurk, made his quarters at Indented Head,by using a small cannon, summoned Murrengurk, On 3rd June 1835. John Batman, and Murrengurk, sailed up the Yarra river, on Monday 8th June declared "This will be the place for a Village"
Batman's documents refers to presents (payment) of Twenty Pairs of Blankets, Thirty Tomahawks, One Hundred Knives, Fifty Pairs Scissors, Thirty Looking-Glasses, Two Hundred Handkerchiefs, Six Shirts and One Hundred Pounds of Flour, Plus The Yearly rent of Tribute of One hundred Pairs of Blankets,One Hundred Knives, One hundred Tomahawks, Fifty Suits of Clothing, Fifty looking-glasses, Fifty Pairs of Scissors, and Five Tons Flour.
The lease contract covered the tract of land running from the branch of the river at the top of the Port , about 7 miles from the mouth of the river, forty miles North East and from thence South South West , across Mount Vilaumaurnartar to Geelong Harbour, at the head of the same, containing about Five Hundred Thousand more or less Acres.
A document was signed on the banks of a creek on 16th June 1835, by two local Native's (William Barak father suggested as being one) and 5 Sydney Aborigine's (belonging to Batman's party) for the letting of land in the Port Philip District to Batman, Overseen by Murrengurk, as certain terms and conditions had been submitted by him, Murrengurk, was to be paid by the Port Phillip Association 50 pound per year as well as rations.
25th August 1835, Governor Arthur (via John Hilder Wedge), sent a written testimonial of thanks to Murrengurk for his services rendered. The next day
26th August 1835, Batman's contract raised both the transfer to a person rather than the Crown, and it's implicit recognition of Indigenous owner and occupation of the land. His Excellency Major General Sir Richard Bourke, ruled the contract invalid.
[See Proclamation 26th August 1835, Richard Bourke, No 3--411 copy annexed herewith (marked WB1)]
This document implemented the doctrine of Terra nullius upon which British settlement base, reinforcing the notion that the land belonged to no one prior to British Crown taking possession of it. Aboriginal people thereafter could not sell or assign the land, nor could an individual person acquire it, other than through distribution by the Crown.
Although many people at that time also recognised that the Aboriginal occupants had rights in the lands (as this was confirmed in a House of Commons report on Aboriginal relations in 1837) The Lawyers followed and almost always applied the principles expressed in Bourke's proclamation. This would not change until the Australian High Court's decision in the Mabo Case in 1992" ( Vic. Gov.)
1836, A very large force of hostile native land holders had form around the settlements, which now included amongst others, John Pasco Fawkner's party, concerns were raised that they would be attacked, and would have been, if heroic Murrengurk, had not intervened.
1836 10 October, Sir Richard Bourke instructed Police Magistrate, William Lonsdale, to employ Murrengurk, as interpreter and Constable, to receive a salary of 60 pounds and rations. Murrengurk, remained under Lonsdale employment for about 15 Months before he resigned. He could not carry out orders being detrimental to his native friends.
Murrengurk, had become quite distressed in the manner the Natives were being treated, they were now being disbursed, badly treated, hunted and their sacred fires extinguished.. W hen arguing with William Lonsdale, he would use Native jargon at great length. Murrengurk, continued to protest at the treatment of the Port Phillip Blacks. maintaining the signed contract, was for seasonal grazing of sheep and other stock. His wild outrage, led to William Lonsdale ordering him to be taken to Van Diemans Land,which they did.
1837 3rd February William Lonsdale wrote to Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonies, "The site of the present settlement which Mr. Fawkner alludes to had been previously chosen by Mr. Batman. In March, Governor Richard Bourke, visited Port Philip and named Melbourne and Williamstown.
The Port Phillip Association were paid 40 Thousand pound, for their work and effort in relinquishing any interest in the contract. A new company was formed and land near Geelong was given in payment..
Batman on 21st March, 1837 request small land grant outside town limits, in his letter to Lord Glenelg, it states, "he is a native of this Colony and has resided in Van Diemans Land Fifteen years and beg to refer Your Lordship to the late Lieut-Governor Colonel Arthur for services he rendered to that Government at different periods." .. when employed by that Government to suppress the outrages of the Aborigines upon the settles,.."
On 28th April 1837, Sir Richard Bourke advises against Batman's application for land grant, Lord Glenelg, subsequently rejected Batman's request.
1837 20 July 1837 a letter was sent by J. P. Fawkner to Lord Glenelg, claims Batman lied to Government, He states "..that he (Batman) is unworthy to receive any rewards or favor, having fabrication of a false statement attempted to deceive His Majesty's Government
On January 1840 J. H.Wedge original member of the Port Phillip Association, wrote to Lord John Russell suggesting the establishment of deports for the supply of Aborigines, with food and clothing and that Murrengurk, be used as a channel of communication to explain the scheme to them, Wedge' suggestion was rejected.
On the 27th January 1840, Murrengurk, married widower Mrs Julia Eagers, a small framed lady who's husband was killed when making his way to Sydney.
1852, The Victorian executive add 40 pound a year to Murrengurk, pension.
1853 John Pascoe Fawkner,opposing Murrengurk petition for a pension
1856 Murrengurk, died, buried in unmarked grave in Tasmania,
1805 Murrengurk, a big man, easily recognised and respected by various clan members thru-out the Port Philip District, Murrengurk, had set up camp around Port Fairy his ability to understand and communicate with visiting Whaler's needs. Murrengurk, attended a trading place, rum, tools, clothing and the comfort of women were in demand, this continued for some years, However Murrengurk, soon started to lose control with the visiting whalers, as woman were being raped, taken, others were being killed.
1825 Van Diemans land proclaimed a separate colony from N.S.W. George Arthur Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemans land
Murrengurk, over the years became deeply concerned with the situation, expressed to the tribal council, it would be far more of a benefit to the tribes, to let the Land for grazing sheep, to gentleman, of Van Diemans Land, as their laws protect women from being raped, taken away. Their laws protect your family from being shot and killed, After consideration the Elders approval, their trust had been granted..
Murrengurk, consulted, visiting whaler's, his terms agreements were laid out. Mr. J.H. Wedge, had elected to bring the terms agreement to the attention of any interested parties in Van Diemans Land.
1835 In Launceston, at the corner of Cimitiere and John Street, stood Mr. Connolly's store, a supper party had been arranged by Mr. Connolly's for a number of friends, being J.H.Wedge, W.G. Sams, John Robertson (of Hobart Town) John Sinclair (of Clairville)and John Batman who was then a settler near Avoca. Being made aware of the Terms Agreement It was agreed that Batman should cross the straits and make arrangements for settlement of the agreement A schooner was quickly charted, and John Batman as agent for the company "Port Phillip Association" to obtained from the natives a large tract of land suitable for grazing sheep.
The promoters of the undertaking were John Trice Gelibrand (former Attorney-General) Charles Swanston, M.L.C.,William Bannister (Sheriff), James Simpson (Police Magistrate), Henry Arthur (Collector of Customs), John and William Robertson (Merchants), John Hilder Wedge (surveyor) J.T. Collecat (Post Master), Anthony Cottrell (District Constable), William Gardiner Sams (under Sheriff), Micheal Connolly (Merchant), Major Mercer, John Sinclair (Superintendent of Convicts), and John Batman
Batman Sailed from Launceston on the 12th May 1835, in the Rebecca. a small vessel of fifteen tons. As arranged by Murrengurk, made his quarters at Indented Head,by using a small cannon, summoned Murrengurk, On 3rd June 1835. John Batman, and Murrengurk, sailed up the Yarra river, on Monday 8th June declared "This will be the place for a Village"
Batman's documents refers to presents (payment) of Twenty Pairs of Blankets, Thirty Tomahawks, One Hundred Knives, Fifty Pairs Scissors, Thirty Looking-Glasses, Two Hundred Handkerchiefs, Six Shirts and One Hundred Pounds of Flour, Plus The Yearly rent of Tribute of One hundred Pairs of Blankets,One Hundred Knives, One hundred Tomahawks, Fifty Suits of Clothing, Fifty looking-glasses, Fifty Pairs of Scissors, and Five Tons Flour.
The lease contract covered the tract of land running from the branch of the river at the top of the Port , about 7 miles from the mouth of the river, forty miles North East and from thence South South West , across Mount Vilaumaurnartar to Geelong Harbour, at the head of the same, containing about Five Hundred Thousand more or less Acres.
A document was signed on the banks of a creek on 16th June 1835, by two local Native's (William Barak father suggested as being one) and 5 Sydney Aborigine's (belonging to Batman's party) for the letting of land in the Port Philip District to Batman, Overseen by Murrengurk, as certain terms and conditions had been submitted by him, Murrengurk, was to be paid by the Port Phillip Association 50 pound per year as well as rations.
25th August 1835, Governor Arthur (via John Hilder Wedge), sent a written testimonial of thanks to Murrengurk for his services rendered. The next day
26th August 1835, Batman's contract raised both the transfer to a person rather than the Crown, and it's implicit recognition of Indigenous owner and occupation of the land. His Excellency Major General Sir Richard Bourke, ruled the contract invalid.
[See Proclamation 26th August 1835, Richard Bourke, No 3--411 copy annexed herewith (marked WB1)]
This document implemented the doctrine of Terra nullius upon which British settlement base, reinforcing the notion that the land belonged to no one prior to British Crown taking possession of it. Aboriginal people thereafter could not sell or assign the land, nor could an individual person acquire it, other than through distribution by the Crown.
Although many people at that time also recognised that the Aboriginal occupants had rights in the lands (as this was confirmed in a House of Commons report on Aboriginal relations in 1837) The Lawyers followed and almost always applied the principles expressed in Bourke's proclamation. This would not change until the Australian High Court's decision in the Mabo Case in 1992" ( Vic. Gov.)
1836, A very large force of hostile native land holders had form around the settlements, which now included amongst others, John Pasco Fawkner's party, concerns were raised that they would be attacked, and would have been, if heroic Murrengurk, had not intervened.
1836 10 October, Sir Richard Bourke instructed Police Magistrate, William Lonsdale, to employ Murrengurk, as interpreter and Constable, to receive a salary of 60 pounds and rations. Murrengurk, remained under Lonsdale employment for about 15 Months before he resigned. He could not carry out orders being detrimental to his native friends.
Murrengurk, had become quite distressed in the manner the Natives were being treated, they were now being disbursed, badly treated, hunted and their sacred fires extinguished.. W hen arguing with William Lonsdale, he would use Native jargon at great length. Murrengurk, continued to protest at the treatment of the Port Phillip Blacks. maintaining the signed contract, was for seasonal grazing of sheep and other stock. His wild outrage, led to William Lonsdale ordering him to be taken to Van Diemans Land,which they did.
1837 3rd February William Lonsdale wrote to Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonies, "The site of the present settlement which Mr. Fawkner alludes to had been previously chosen by Mr. Batman. In March, Governor Richard Bourke, visited Port Philip and named Melbourne and Williamstown.
The Port Phillip Association were paid 40 Thousand pound, for their work and effort in relinquishing any interest in the contract. A new company was formed and land near Geelong was given in payment..
Batman on 21st March, 1837 request small land grant outside town limits, in his letter to Lord Glenelg, it states, "he is a native of this Colony and has resided in Van Diemans Land Fifteen years and beg to refer Your Lordship to the late Lieut-Governor Colonel Arthur for services he rendered to that Government at different periods." .. when employed by that Government to suppress the outrages of the Aborigines upon the settles,.."
On 28th April 1837, Sir Richard Bourke advises against Batman's application for land grant, Lord Glenelg, subsequently rejected Batman's request.
1837 20 July 1837 a letter was sent by J. P. Fawkner to Lord Glenelg, claims Batman lied to Government, He states "..that he (Batman) is unworthy to receive any rewards or favor, having fabrication of a false statement attempted to deceive His Majesty's Government
On January 1840 J. H.Wedge original member of the Port Phillip Association, wrote to Lord John Russell suggesting the establishment of deports for the supply of Aborigines, with food and clothing and that Murrengurk, be used as a channel of communication to explain the scheme to them, Wedge' suggestion was rejected.
On the 27th January 1840, Murrengurk, married widower Mrs Julia Eagers, a small framed lady who's husband was killed when making his way to Sydney.
1852, The Victorian executive add 40 pound a year to Murrengurk, pension.
1853 John Pascoe Fawkner,opposing Murrengurk petition for a pension
1856 Murrengurk, died, buried in unmarked grave in Tasmania,
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Steve Gibbons MP 02/04/07
Steve Gibbons MP
Federal Member for Bendigo
PO Box 338
BENDIGO 2nd April 2007
Dear Mr. Steve Gibbons
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
In regards to your open letter of 26th March 2007, which states "... constituents who may be experiencing difficulties with any Commonwealth Department..." this appears to be the situation we find at present.
I have enclosed a copy of our letters to the Attorney General The Hon.Philip Ruddock.dated-
5th February 2007 Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia requesting if we could be forwarded a copy of the relevant documents or advised as where the information can be obtained from.
1st March 2007 bring to his attention that we have not received any responce to our email and letter dated 5th February 2007
We don't wish to appear as being vindictive towards the Attorney General or his Department, as this is not the case. However, considering the time already elapsed, we are a little disappointed that the matter has not been addressed in a proper manner, as expected by the general public of Australia. "Accountability for all"
Surely a very simple request, or response are within the role, easy reach of the Attorney General and his Department heads.
.
As you are in much better position then ourselves, therefore we would be greatly appreciated if you could bring to the attention of the Attorney General The Hon.Philip Ruddock. that we have not, as yet, received any response to our correspondence.
We trust that you will attend to this matter at your earliest opportunity.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
BeBuyBac
Federal Member for Bendigo
PO Box 338
BENDIGO 2nd April 2007
Dear Mr. Steve Gibbons
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
In regards to your open letter of 26th March 2007, which states "... constituents who may be experiencing difficulties with any Commonwealth Department..." this appears to be the situation we find at present.
I have enclosed a copy of our letters to the Attorney General The Hon.Philip Ruddock.dated-
5th February 2007 Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia requesting if we could be forwarded a copy of the relevant documents or advised as where the information can be obtained from.
1st March 2007 bring to his attention that we have not received any responce to our email and letter dated 5th February 2007
We don't wish to appear as being vindictive towards the Attorney General or his Department, as this is not the case. However, considering the time already elapsed, we are a little disappointed that the matter has not been addressed in a proper manner, as expected by the general public of Australia. "Accountability for all"
Surely a very simple request, or response are within the role, easy reach of the Attorney General and his Department heads.
.
As you are in much better position then ourselves, therefore we would be greatly appreciated if you could bring to the attention of the Attorney General The Hon.Philip Ruddock. that we have not, as yet, received any response to our correspondence.
We trust that you will attend to this matter at your earliest opportunity.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
BeBuyBac
Steve Gibbons MP 26/04/06
Steve Gibbons MP
Federal Member for Bendigo
PO Box 338
BENDIGO 26th April 2007
Dear Mr. Steve Gibbons
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
Firstly, We thank for the time and effort you have shown in bring our concerns to the attention of the Attorney-General the Hon. Philip Ruddock, without you intervention, we have no doubt whatsoever, that the matter would still be in limbo. As by way of courtesy, please find enclosed herewith a copy of the Attorney-General response dated 13 April 2007.
We don't wish to appear as being cynical of the Attorney-General, as this is not the case, However, we are deeply concerned about the contents of his letter of reply, It appears to have over looked the main point of our correspondence, being nothing more then gobble gobble, after your perusal of the Attorney-General letter, you may well agree?.
Due to the growing unrest in our community, concerning, David Hicks and more recently the Bali Nine death sentence, We found need to again write Attorney-General the Hon. Philip Ruddock.on the 17th April 2007. also find enclosed is a copy of that letter for your personal consideration.
Over the last ten years or so we have wrote numinous letters to the government, unfortunately many have not been addressed in a proper manner, as expected by the citizens of this country. It's about time Ministers, the Government of Australia need to consider the meaning of Accountability for all.
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
Bebuybac
Federal Member for Bendigo
PO Box 338
BENDIGO 26th April 2007
Dear Mr. Steve Gibbons
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
Firstly, We thank for the time and effort you have shown in bring our concerns to the attention of the Attorney-General the Hon. Philip Ruddock, without you intervention, we have no doubt whatsoever, that the matter would still be in limbo. As by way of courtesy, please find enclosed herewith a copy of the Attorney-General response dated 13 April 2007.
We don't wish to appear as being cynical of the Attorney-General, as this is not the case, However, we are deeply concerned about the contents of his letter of reply, It appears to have over looked the main point of our correspondence, being nothing more then gobble gobble, after your perusal of the Attorney-General letter, you may well agree?.
Due to the growing unrest in our community, concerning, David Hicks and more recently the Bali Nine death sentence, We found need to again write Attorney-General the Hon. Philip Ruddock.on the 17th April 2007. also find enclosed is a copy of that letter for your personal consideration.
Over the last ten years or so we have wrote numinous letters to the government, unfortunately many have not been addressed in a proper manner, as expected by the citizens of this country. It's about time Ministers, the Government of Australia need to consider the meaning of Accountability for all.
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
Bebuybac
Attorney General responce (S. Gibbons MP)
The following is a retyped letter from the
Attorney-General to Mr. Steve Gibbons MP_
Steve Gibbons MP
Federal Member for Bendigo 2 May 2007
PO Box 338
BENDIGO
Dear (Steve) Gibbons
I refer to your letter of the 12 April 2007 on behalf of your constitutional, Mr Les McDonald of Burkes Flat, regarding Mr. McDonald's earlier correspondence raising constitutional issues.
I responded directly to Mr McDonald in writing on 13 April (copy enclosed)
Yours sincerely
Signed
Philip Ruddock
Attorney-General to Mr. Steve Gibbons MP_
Steve Gibbons MP
Federal Member for Bendigo 2 May 2007
PO Box 338
BENDIGO
Dear (Steve) Gibbons
I refer to your letter of the 12 April 2007 on behalf of your constitutional, Mr Les McDonald of Burkes Flat, regarding Mr. McDonald's earlier correspondence raising constitutional issues.
I responded directly to Mr McDonald in writing on 13 April (copy enclosed)
Yours sincerely
Signed
Philip Ruddock
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The Premier NSW 13/02/06
The Premier, NSW
The Hon.Morris Iemma
Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place NSW 2000 13th February 2006
Dear Premier,
Re: Toughen cannabis laws
I write to bring to your attention to a letter/ fax we received from Mr. T. Darmenia of Lakemba, NSW, concerning the "ABC News Online" 03/02/2006. For you convenience and consideration, please find enclosed herewith a copy of such. Which states firstly:-
"New South Wales could soon have the harshest cannabis laws in the country, the State Government is rewriting the laws to increase penalties for possession and cultivation"
As it may of some interest and enlightenment, We offer the following, in brief form.
Three quarters of the way through the last century, the media raised the issue, that many high school and universities students were using "pot" cannabis. Parents, adults consumers of cannabis maintained that alcohol was far more dangerous and damaging to the Australian society, to themselfes and their children, then cannabis would ever be. Declaring that there has never been lethal overdoes of cannabis recorded world wide. This heralding the great Drug Debat.
In the early eighties, the state Governments had implemented laws, extremely harsh penalties applied for the possession, sales and cultivation of cannabis. In the attempt to curtail the ever growing public use of cannabis. As you will be well aware, cannabis consumption is still on the increase the year 2006.
Well meaning and well funded organisation, opposed to ending cannabis prohibition, relied on the USA for much of their research in to marijuana, "Reefer Madness" a documentary, shown and repeated several times on TV. others claim that cannabis use leads to Heroin use, which over the years has been proven to be no more then total myth. In fairness to all, based on our own research it warrants mention.
[The generations of cannabis users. "John" at that time absorbed much of the Governments warnings about the dangers of cannabis use, John's own experience suggested that the government may have got it wrong. Heroin was now starting to find it place in the Australian drug market. John believing that the Government mislead him over cannabis use, ignored the governments warnings on the effects of hard drugs, the dangers of heroin use, John now addicted to heroin, or is he dead?] Who's at fault?
Prohibition has created an unnecessary mental health risk to many Australians, as organic grown cannabis is now only a small part of the commercial market. 1990 hydroponicly grown chemically enhanced ( nitrogen ) adulterated cannabis holds the major share of the market. Many mature cannabis users complained that the hydro grown cannabis, made them feel quite ill the next morning, others maintained hydroponicly grown cannabis caused a form of psychosis, The prevailing generation of cannabis consumers know no little difference between the two, as organic cannabis is now a thing of the past. Who's responsible
New South Wales and the Victorian Governments are concerned about the health and welfare of the people they represent, the high rising cost of cannabis prohibition, We feel sharing of information and research into drugs would benefit both governments, I am sure both governments would agree. Therefor we also offer the following for consideration.
1995 The Jeff Kennett Government, implemented ways to tackle the problem of drug abuse in our community, forming of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council, Chairman, Professor David Penington, presented its report "Drugs and Our Community" to the Government in March 1996.
31st May 1996, As both houses of the Victorian Parliament assembled, an historic moment itself, to note the reports of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council, The Government and Opposition accepted the broad thrust of the report. Subsequently, it was not passed in full, only after recommendations 7.1 to 7.5 had been deleted that it gained support.
We need not illustrate the public unrest when hundreds of thousands of cannabis consumers in Victoria (we assume higher in NSW) learnt the most impotent recommendations had been deleted being;-
7.1 Use and possession of small amounts of marijuana should no longer be an offence. "small quantity" should be defined as no more then 25 grams (half the amount currently specified in the ACT )
7.2 Cultivation of up to five cannabis plants per household for personal use should no longer be an offence.
7.3 Sale of Marijuana should remain an offence. Sale of small quantities by an adult to an adult should incur a caution delivered by Victorian Police for a first offence with an adjourned bond the preferred penalty for a second offence. maximum penalties for sale to young people should be maintained at present levels; up to 25 years gaol and a $250,000 fine for quantities above 100 Kilos and up to 15 years and/or a $100.000 fine for amounts between 25 grams and 100 kilos.
7.4 Legislation of Summary Offences Act 1966 should be reviewed to ensure offensive behaviour under the influence of marijuana can be dealt with by police. Similarly, local government should establish by-laws that restrict consumption in public places.
7.5. Legislation should be introduced to expunge all recorded convictions for possession of and use of small quantities of marijuana
We point out the above recommendations 7.2 is the current legislation requirements for residence living in the ACT, designed to reduce the large scale cultivation of cannabis, to curtail the profits of the so called Mr .Bigs, in the cannabis trade, and as to lift the unnecessary burden on the people of the ACT.
As you are responsible for all Ministers of the NSW Government. We humbly ask on behalf of our member Mr. T. Darmenia, if you could bring to the attention of NSW Parliament, the urgent need to review and consider the ACT current legislation concerning cannabis, and recommend to Parliament to adopting similar legislation for the people of NSW .
Yours sincerely,
Les McDonald
The Hon.Morris Iemma
Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place NSW 2000 13th February 2006
Dear Premier,
Re: Toughen cannabis laws
I write to bring to your attention to a letter/ fax we received from Mr. T. Darmenia of Lakemba, NSW, concerning the "ABC News Online" 03/02/2006. For you convenience and consideration, please find enclosed herewith a copy of such. Which states firstly:-
"New South Wales could soon have the harshest cannabis laws in the country, the State Government is rewriting the laws to increase penalties for possession and cultivation"
As it may of some interest and enlightenment, We offer the following, in brief form.
Three quarters of the way through the last century, the media raised the issue, that many high school and universities students were using "pot" cannabis. Parents, adults consumers of cannabis maintained that alcohol was far more dangerous and damaging to the Australian society, to themselfes and their children, then cannabis would ever be. Declaring that there has never been lethal overdoes of cannabis recorded world wide. This heralding the great Drug Debat.
In the early eighties, the state Governments had implemented laws, extremely harsh penalties applied for the possession, sales and cultivation of cannabis. In the attempt to curtail the ever growing public use of cannabis. As you will be well aware, cannabis consumption is still on the increase the year 2006.
Well meaning and well funded organisation, opposed to ending cannabis prohibition, relied on the USA for much of their research in to marijuana, "Reefer Madness" a documentary, shown and repeated several times on TV. others claim that cannabis use leads to Heroin use, which over the years has been proven to be no more then total myth. In fairness to all, based on our own research it warrants mention.
[The generations of cannabis users. "John" at that time absorbed much of the Governments warnings about the dangers of cannabis use, John's own experience suggested that the government may have got it wrong. Heroin was now starting to find it place in the Australian drug market. John believing that the Government mislead him over cannabis use, ignored the governments warnings on the effects of hard drugs, the dangers of heroin use, John now addicted to heroin, or is he dead?] Who's at fault?
Prohibition has created an unnecessary mental health risk to many Australians, as organic grown cannabis is now only a small part of the commercial market. 1990 hydroponicly grown chemically enhanced ( nitrogen ) adulterated cannabis holds the major share of the market. Many mature cannabis users complained that the hydro grown cannabis, made them feel quite ill the next morning, others maintained hydroponicly grown cannabis caused a form of psychosis, The prevailing generation of cannabis consumers know no little difference between the two, as organic cannabis is now a thing of the past. Who's responsible
New South Wales and the Victorian Governments are concerned about the health and welfare of the people they represent, the high rising cost of cannabis prohibition, We feel sharing of information and research into drugs would benefit both governments, I am sure both governments would agree. Therefor we also offer the following for consideration.
1995 The Jeff Kennett Government, implemented ways to tackle the problem of drug abuse in our community, forming of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council, Chairman, Professor David Penington, presented its report "Drugs and Our Community" to the Government in March 1996.
31st May 1996, As both houses of the Victorian Parliament assembled, an historic moment itself, to note the reports of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council, The Government and Opposition accepted the broad thrust of the report. Subsequently, it was not passed in full, only after recommendations 7.1 to 7.5 had been deleted that it gained support.
We need not illustrate the public unrest when hundreds of thousands of cannabis consumers in Victoria (we assume higher in NSW) learnt the most impotent recommendations had been deleted being;-
7.1 Use and possession of small amounts of marijuana should no longer be an offence. "small quantity" should be defined as no more then 25 grams (half the amount currently specified in the ACT )
7.2 Cultivation of up to five cannabis plants per household for personal use should no longer be an offence.
7.3 Sale of Marijuana should remain an offence. Sale of small quantities by an adult to an adult should incur a caution delivered by Victorian Police for a first offence with an adjourned bond the preferred penalty for a second offence. maximum penalties for sale to young people should be maintained at present levels; up to 25 years gaol and a $250,000 fine for quantities above 100 Kilos and up to 15 years and/or a $100.000 fine for amounts between 25 grams and 100 kilos.
7.4 Legislation of Summary Offences Act 1966 should be reviewed to ensure offensive behaviour under the influence of marijuana can be dealt with by police. Similarly, local government should establish by-laws that restrict consumption in public places.
7.5. Legislation should be introduced to expunge all recorded convictions for possession of and use of small quantities of marijuana
We point out the above recommendations 7.2 is the current legislation requirements for residence living in the ACT, designed to reduce the large scale cultivation of cannabis, to curtail the profits of the so called Mr .Bigs, in the cannabis trade, and as to lift the unnecessary burden on the people of the ACT.
As you are responsible for all Ministers of the NSW Government. We humbly ask on behalf of our member Mr. T. Darmenia, if you could bring to the attention of NSW Parliament, the urgent need to review and consider the ACT current legislation concerning cannabis, and recommend to Parliament to adopting similar legislation for the people of NSW .
Yours sincerely,
Les McDonald
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Prime Minister, John Howard reply 17/02/06
In Reply to our letter 09/02/06 Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the 17 February 2006 wrote
Dear Mr McDonald
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would like to thank you for your correspondence of 9 February 2006 regarding marijuana and mental heath.
The Prime Minister appreciates the time you have taken to convey your views to him, However, he regrets that due to the large volume of correspondence he receives, he is unable to respond to each item personally. Consequently, and to ensure that issues receive the attention they deserve, the Prime Minister has asked that correspondence to the be referred to his ministers for further consideration.
I have referred your correspondence to the Minister for Healthy and Ageing, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP for attention, given that he is responsible for the development of policy on health issues.
Again thank you for taking the time to write to the Prime Minister.
Your sincerely
Signed
Ministerial Officer
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Dear Mr McDonald
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would like to thank you for your correspondence of 9 February 2006 regarding marijuana and mental heath.
The Prime Minister appreciates the time you have taken to convey your views to him, However, he regrets that due to the large volume of correspondence he receives, he is unable to respond to each item personally. Consequently, and to ensure that issues receive the attention they deserve, the Prime Minister has asked that correspondence to the be referred to his ministers for further consideration.
I have referred your correspondence to the Minister for Healthy and Ageing, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP for attention, given that he is responsible for the development of policy on health issues.
Again thank you for taking the time to write to the Prime Minister.
Your sincerely
Signed
Ministerial Officer
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Prime Minister, John Howard reply 13/03/06
In Reply to our letter 27/02/06 Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the 13 March 2006 wrote
Dear Mr McDonald
Thank you for your correspondence of 27 February 2006 to the Prime Minister regarding your views on legalising marijuana. I have been asked to reply on the Prime Minister's behalf.
The Australian Government does not have the jurisdiction to deal with this matter; it is the responsibility of the Victorian Government. I have therefore forwarded your correspondence to the Victorians Premier's department for attention.
Yours sincerely
Signed
Ministerial Officer
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Dear Mr McDonald
Thank you for your correspondence of 27 February 2006 to the Prime Minister regarding your views on legalising marijuana. I have been asked to reply on the Prime Minister's behalf.
The Australian Government does not have the jurisdiction to deal with this matter; it is the responsibility of the Victorian Government. I have therefore forwarded your correspondence to the Victorians Premier's department for attention.
Yours sincerely
Signed
Ministerial Officer
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Primer Minister John Howard 27/02/06
Prime Minister John Howard
House of Representatives
Canberra ACT 2600 27th February 2006
Dear Prime Minister,
Re.: Council of Australia Governments
Firstly, We acknowledge the letter on your behalf dated 17th February 2006 being in response to our letter 9th February 2006, We greatly appreciate the quick reply and the effort your staff has demonstrated by forwarding on our correspondence to the appropriate Minister, this we sincerely thank them for. We take this opportunity to also bring to your attention;-
Re: The Impact of Alcohol and Grass on Society Today
1953, My employment enabled me to observed patrons of the Moreland Hotel, Brunswick, just after Six 6 O'clock, on numerous Thursday and Friday nights, A scuffle would breakout, sometimes large mobs of men would spill out into the road abusing kicking punching at times using bottles of beer, wooden pickets torn from near by fence, others used their tools of trade, to support their point of view. Patrons that did not require hospitalisation, went home to the wife and children, some often vent their anger out on them.
Six O'clock hotel closing ended in NSW 1955, later Victorian law also changed, in the effort to prevent or curtail violence and drunkenness in our society, 10 O'clock closing of hotels was introduced, this enabled the working man knock of work 4.30 PM go home have tea, then if they wish go down the local pub for social recreation needs have a beer. It was conceived at that time extended hours would help prevent the crush and rush hour at hotels, intern less drunkenness and violence would prevail. Today 2006, we see and read on a weekly bases, family breakdowns, violent assaults, death and destruction, inflamed race riots, caused by alcohol abuse. Is there a simple solution?... an alternative may be the answer.
1975 June, I operated an alcohol free entertainment venue in Melbourne promoting Australian talent, 16 live acts per night, 7 nights a week between the hours 7. PM till 7. AM. after about three weeks it was full house on Friday , Saturday and Sunday nights. I point out that this venue had "no bouncers" admission was on a weekly membership bases. As I did not even smoke cigarettes, like many of my generation at that time knew nothing or very little about the effects of "pot" marijuana on our society.
It was at this time that I made aware that a large number of patrons were smoking "grass" cannabis. Considering the extended hours the venue operated this may be one reason that there was never a disturbance or any acts of violence recorded at the venue. My conclusion being, that Man made beer and God made grass, whom should we put our trust in?
1978, September, BeBuyBac was foundered by this writer, symbolising Be Australian, Buy Australian, Bac Australian. which aims to create a more peaceful harmonious and tolerant lifestyle for all Australians, to monitor Victorian Government departments, and to assure the laws and regulations do not create an unnecessary burden on the people of Australia
.
Yours sincerely, Les McDonald
House of Representatives
Canberra ACT 2600 27th February 2006
Dear Prime Minister,
Re.: Council of Australia Governments
Firstly, We acknowledge the letter on your behalf dated 17th February 2006 being in response to our letter 9th February 2006, We greatly appreciate the quick reply and the effort your staff has demonstrated by forwarding on our correspondence to the appropriate Minister, this we sincerely thank them for. We take this opportunity to also bring to your attention;-
Re: The Impact of Alcohol and Grass on Society Today
1953, My employment enabled me to observed patrons of the Moreland Hotel, Brunswick, just after Six 6 O'clock, on numerous Thursday and Friday nights, A scuffle would breakout, sometimes large mobs of men would spill out into the road abusing kicking punching at times using bottles of beer, wooden pickets torn from near by fence, others used their tools of trade, to support their point of view. Patrons that did not require hospitalisation, went home to the wife and children, some often vent their anger out on them.
Six O'clock hotel closing ended in NSW 1955, later Victorian law also changed, in the effort to prevent or curtail violence and drunkenness in our society, 10 O'clock closing of hotels was introduced, this enabled the working man knock of work 4.30 PM go home have tea, then if they wish go down the local pub for social recreation needs have a beer. It was conceived at that time extended hours would help prevent the crush and rush hour at hotels, intern less drunkenness and violence would prevail. Today 2006, we see and read on a weekly bases, family breakdowns, violent assaults, death and destruction, inflamed race riots, caused by alcohol abuse. Is there a simple solution?... an alternative may be the answer.
1975 June, I operated an alcohol free entertainment venue in Melbourne promoting Australian talent, 16 live acts per night, 7 nights a week between the hours 7. PM till 7. AM. after about three weeks it was full house on Friday , Saturday and Sunday nights. I point out that this venue had "no bouncers" admission was on a weekly membership bases. As I did not even smoke cigarettes, like many of my generation at that time knew nothing or very little about the effects of "pot" marijuana on our society.
It was at this time that I made aware that a large number of patrons were smoking "grass" cannabis. Considering the extended hours the venue operated this may be one reason that there was never a disturbance or any acts of violence recorded at the venue. My conclusion being, that Man made beer and God made grass, whom should we put our trust in?
1978, September, BeBuyBac was foundered by this writer, symbolising Be Australian, Buy Australian, Bac Australian. which aims to create a more peaceful harmonious and tolerant lifestyle for all Australians, to monitor Victorian Government departments, and to assure the laws and regulations do not create an unnecessary burden on the people of Australia
.
Yours sincerely, Les McDonald
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Micheal Balldergtone 16/03/06
THe following is a copy of our letter to:-
Dear Micheal Balldergtone 16 March 2006
Re:The Australian Constitution
51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws for peace, order and good government of the commonwealth with respect to-see (i) to (xxxviii)
52. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws for peace, order and good government of the commonwealth with respect to- see (i) to (iii)
53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation ,shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose n taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.
The Senate may not amend any proposed laws so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.
Considering, the millions of Australians that consume cannabis on a regular bases, it would be within reason to claim and substantiate that the laws have created an unnecessary burden on the people of Australia.
It will pay to note, The former commonwealth Minister for Foreign Affairs the Hon. Garth Evans, made it known to all Australians, that the laws concerning Cannabis had not been passed in a proper manner as required under the Australian Constitution, he pointed out that Australia had been only a signature to a protocol formatted by the USA. 1928. and that Australian Government, had never done its own research into Cannabis.
It may also be of interest to note, that the United Nations protocol Australia being a signature to such had been disregarded completely by our present Prime Minister John Howard, when making decisions on the war in Iraq.
We recommended that you request your local member of the Australian Parliament to clarify the doubt surround the current cannabis laws.
Yours sincerely, Les McDonald,
Dear Micheal Balldergtone 16 March 2006
Re:The Australian Constitution
51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws for peace, order and good government of the commonwealth with respect to-see (i) to (xxxviii)
52. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws for peace, order and good government of the commonwealth with respect to- see (i) to (iii)
53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation ,shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose n taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.
The Senate may not amend any proposed laws so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.
Considering, the millions of Australians that consume cannabis on a regular bases, it would be within reason to claim and substantiate that the laws have created an unnecessary burden on the people of Australia.
It will pay to note, The former commonwealth Minister for Foreign Affairs the Hon. Garth Evans, made it known to all Australians, that the laws concerning Cannabis had not been passed in a proper manner as required under the Australian Constitution, he pointed out that Australia had been only a signature to a protocol formatted by the USA. 1928. and that Australian Government, had never done its own research into Cannabis.
It may also be of interest to note, that the United Nations protocol Australia being a signature to such had been disregarded completely by our present Prime Minister John Howard, when making decisions on the war in Iraq.
We recommended that you request your local member of the Australian Parliament to clarify the doubt surround the current cannabis laws.
Yours sincerely, Les McDonald,
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Ted Bailieu Leader Liberal Party 13/06/06
The Following is a copy of our letter dated 13th June 2006 to:-
Ted Baillieu
Leader of the Liberal Party
325 Camberwell Road
Camberwell 3124 13th June 2006
Dear Mr. Ted Baillieu Re: Responsible Government
As you may not be aware, On 31st May 1996, As both houses of Parliament assembled, an historic moment itself, to note the reports of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council and the address of Professor David Penington. The Government and Opposition accepted the broad thrust of the Penington report. It was only after recommendations 7.1 to 7.5 had been deleted, the report gained support. For your convenience and consideration, I have enclosed herewith, retyped copies of the unsupported recommendations.
We need not illustrate the public unrest when they learnt the most impotent recommendations had not been supported. Again this leaving open to ponder just how many members of the 53rd Parliament, have committed obligations, to protect the financial interest of their colleges in the legal profession, This leaving open to question a conflict of interest
During 1997, Access Economics reported, "that spending on illegal drugs in Australia amounts to $7 billion, Seventy per cent of the spending on illegal drugs is on cannabis "(Ref. source .vic.gov.drug reform strategy "turning the tide" page 18) Surely, these billions of dollars could be spent on more worthwhile things. The Australian National Council on Drugs publication March 2006, which appears, in-part, to be deliberately misleading the people of Australia. We also note the ANCD has inserted a disclaimer on the publication of the material..
We are deeply concerned and point out, between 1996 and 2006 there has been over 150,000 Victorians convicted for cannabis related offences. In one year alone (1996) Legal Aid spent 14 million dollars on legal representation defending cannabis consumers that had pleaded guilty. How many more Victorians will end up with a criminal convictions? .Wake up
Considering the hundreds of thousands of Victorians adults that use cannabis on regular bases, rather then alcohol for their for recreation needs. We point out, that Alcohol is one of the main causes of domestic violence in Victorian homes, In 2005, there were 28,854 cases reported to police, an average 2400 per month, this being slightly higher then the previous year, which is predicted to further increase by the end of the next financial year.
It is quite clear over the last thirty years, Cannabis prohibition has caused a costly an unnecessary burden on the people of Victoria. We have no doubt whatsoever, that our future historians will record our turbulent time as a society that could not distinguish between good and bad, right or wrong.
After you have perused Professor David Penington 1996 report to Parliament, contemplate the millions of dollars spent, you may well understand our disappointment in the outcome. With the best interest and future welfare of many Victorians in mind, We ask, if you could personally show any cause and reasons why cannabis should remain a prohibited substance?
Yours sincerely Les McDonald
Copy of recommenations posted soon.
Ted Baillieu
Leader of the Liberal Party
325 Camberwell Road
Camberwell 3124 13th June 2006
Dear Mr. Ted Baillieu Re: Responsible Government
As you may not be aware, On 31st May 1996, As both houses of Parliament assembled, an historic moment itself, to note the reports of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council and the address of Professor David Penington. The Government and Opposition accepted the broad thrust of the Penington report. It was only after recommendations 7.1 to 7.5 had been deleted, the report gained support. For your convenience and consideration, I have enclosed herewith, retyped copies of the unsupported recommendations.
We need not illustrate the public unrest when they learnt the most impotent recommendations had not been supported. Again this leaving open to ponder just how many members of the 53rd Parliament, have committed obligations, to protect the financial interest of their colleges in the legal profession, This leaving open to question a conflict of interest
During 1997, Access Economics reported, "that spending on illegal drugs in Australia amounts to $7 billion, Seventy per cent of the spending on illegal drugs is on cannabis "(Ref. source .vic.gov.drug reform strategy "turning the tide" page 18) Surely, these billions of dollars could be spent on more worthwhile things. The Australian National Council on Drugs publication March 2006, which appears, in-part, to be deliberately misleading the people of Australia. We also note the ANCD has inserted a disclaimer on the publication of the material..
We are deeply concerned and point out, between 1996 and 2006 there has been over 150,000 Victorians convicted for cannabis related offences. In one year alone (1996) Legal Aid spent 14 million dollars on legal representation defending cannabis consumers that had pleaded guilty. How many more Victorians will end up with a criminal convictions? .Wake up
Considering the hundreds of thousands of Victorians adults that use cannabis on regular bases, rather then alcohol for their for recreation needs. We point out, that Alcohol is one of the main causes of domestic violence in Victorian homes, In 2005, there were 28,854 cases reported to police, an average 2400 per month, this being slightly higher then the previous year, which is predicted to further increase by the end of the next financial year.
It is quite clear over the last thirty years, Cannabis prohibition has caused a costly an unnecessary burden on the people of Victoria. We have no doubt whatsoever, that our future historians will record our turbulent time as a society that could not distinguish between good and bad, right or wrong.
After you have perused Professor David Penington 1996 report to Parliament, contemplate the millions of dollars spent, you may well understand our disappointment in the outcome. With the best interest and future welfare of many Victorians in mind, We ask, if you could personally show any cause and reasons why cannabis should remain a prohibited substance?
Yours sincerely Les McDonald
Copy of recommenations posted soon.
Gavin Jennings MLC 09/03/06
The following is a copy of our dated 9th March 2006 to:-
Acting Minister for Health
Gavin Jennings MLC
555 Collins St
GPO.Box 9th March 2006
Melbourne 3001
Dear Mr.Gavin Jennings MLC,
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
We have been forwarded a copy of your letter dated 23 February 2006, by .Mr. Peter Walsh MP. whom made inquires on our behalf, requesting a copy of correspondence signed by the Acting Minister for Health, the Hon. Bronwyn Pike MP to the Ombudsman sometime in 2005
In your letter you refer to a "copy of a letter signed by Minister Pike as acting Minister for Health in 2002" this being some years prior to when We first wrote to the Department of Justice, Ms Eldridge, considering her poor response, which led to notifying the Ombudsman of our concerns, and subsequently led to the present situation.
Paragraph two in your letter states "I understand the letter to which you refer was written by Minister Pike to another Member of Parliament who was making representation on behalf of a constituent"
I ask, can your confirm the year the letter you have referred to as signed by Minister Pike, and also I ask, as it would be greatly appreciated, if you supply the name of the (another) Member of Parliament that Minister Pike had written to.
Accountability is now a must
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
Ps. I am personally aggrieved by arrogant claims made by my former solicitor that "they run this country not the government and to prove it I will take all you have got and that there is nothing you can do about it" After some twenty five years, it appears to be the case.
Acting Minister for Health
Gavin Jennings MLC
555 Collins St
GPO.Box 9th March 2006
Melbourne 3001
Dear Mr.Gavin Jennings MLC,
Re: Accountability of Government Departments
We have been forwarded a copy of your letter dated 23 February 2006, by .Mr. Peter Walsh MP. whom made inquires on our behalf, requesting a copy of correspondence signed by the Acting Minister for Health, the Hon. Bronwyn Pike MP to the Ombudsman sometime in 2005
In your letter you refer to a "copy of a letter signed by Minister Pike as acting Minister for Health in 2002" this being some years prior to when We first wrote to the Department of Justice, Ms Eldridge, considering her poor response, which led to notifying the Ombudsman of our concerns, and subsequently led to the present situation.
Paragraph two in your letter states "I understand the letter to which you refer was written by Minister Pike to another Member of Parliament who was making representation on behalf of a constituent"
I ask, can your confirm the year the letter you have referred to as signed by Minister Pike, and also I ask, as it would be greatly appreciated, if you supply the name of the (another) Member of Parliament that Minister Pike had written to.
Accountability is now a must
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
Ps. I am personally aggrieved by arrogant claims made by my former solicitor that "they run this country not the government and to prove it I will take all you have got and that there is nothing you can do about it" After some twenty five years, it appears to be the case.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Responsible Government Vic. 07/01/06
The following is a copy of our letter to most members of Victorian Parliament, some letters in responce are on file, and can be view, if required.
Dear MP (named)
As many of your constituents are also our members, I have been requested to bring to your attention the following, please find enclosed a copy, Ballarat Courier, December 2005, "Marijuana now the teen drug of choice" Now! how many of these young people will end up with criminal conviction, an unnecessary burden for the rest of their life.
As you may not be aware, the Jeff Kennett Government, implemented ways to tackle the problem of drug abuse in our community, forming of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council, Chairman, Professor David Penington, presented its report "Drugs and Our Community" to the Government in March 1996.
31st May 1996, As both houses of Parliament assembled, an historic moment itself, to note the reports of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council and the address of Professor David Penington. The Government and Opposition accepted the broad thrust of the Penington report. Professor Penington was available to answer any question put to him. His answer to the question put by Mr. Ashley (Bayswater) was raised several times, After the break (happy hour) cynical remarks by several members of the Government, no doubt, endeavoring to undermine Professor Penington
Premier's Drug Advisory Council report recommendation 7 'The Victorian Government amend the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substance Act 1981" was not passed in full, it was only after recommendations 7.1 to 7.5 had been deleted that it gained support. For your convenience I have enclosed herewith, retyped copies of the unsupported recommendations.
I did not illustrate the public unrest when they learnt the most impotent recommendations had not been supported. Again this leaving open to ponder just how many members of the 53rd Parliament, have committed obligations, to protect the financial interest of their colleges in the legal profession, yes! members of a private club. Open to question a conflict of interest
In January 1997, The then Premier, Jeff Kennett announced the allocation of more than $59 million for the $100 million four year, Turning the Tide strategy, If you read the enclosed article (Ballarat Courier) it would be with in reason to assume the project has failed.
Les McDonald
Dear MP (named)
As many of your constituents are also our members, I have been requested to bring to your attention the following, please find enclosed a copy, Ballarat Courier, December 2005, "Marijuana now the teen drug of choice" Now! how many of these young people will end up with criminal conviction, an unnecessary burden for the rest of their life.
As you may not be aware, the Jeff Kennett Government, implemented ways to tackle the problem of drug abuse in our community, forming of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council, Chairman, Professor David Penington, presented its report "Drugs and Our Community" to the Government in March 1996.
31st May 1996, As both houses of Parliament assembled, an historic moment itself, to note the reports of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council and the address of Professor David Penington. The Government and Opposition accepted the broad thrust of the Penington report. Professor Penington was available to answer any question put to him. His answer to the question put by Mr. Ashley (Bayswater) was raised several times, After the break (happy hour) cynical remarks by several members of the Government, no doubt, endeavoring to undermine Professor Penington
Premier's Drug Advisory Council report recommendation 7 'The Victorian Government amend the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substance Act 1981" was not passed in full, it was only after recommendations 7.1 to 7.5 had been deleted that it gained support. For your convenience I have enclosed herewith, retyped copies of the unsupported recommendations.
I did not illustrate the public unrest when they learnt the most impotent recommendations had not been supported. Again this leaving open to ponder just how many members of the 53rd Parliament, have committed obligations, to protect the financial interest of their colleges in the legal profession, yes! members of a private club. Open to question a conflict of interest
In January 1997, The then Premier, Jeff Kennett announced the allocation of more than $59 million for the $100 million four year, Turning the Tide strategy, If you read the enclosed article (Ballarat Courier) it would be with in reason to assume the project has failed.
Les McDonald
Attorney General Philip Ruddock 17/03/07
The Following is a copy of our letter 17th April 2007 To:-
Attorney General Your Ref, 07/3470. MC07/2877; 2924;6898
The Hon. Philip Ruddock.
Robert Garran Office
National Circuit BartonACT 2600 17th April 2007
Dear Minister, Philip Ruddock
Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia
I acknowledge you letter of 13 April 2007, being in response to our letter 5th February 2007, we appreciate the effort you have gone to in explaining the system parliamentary democracy,established by the Australian Constitution, which embodies the principle of responsible Government. We realise the Defence Act 1903 and understand that we would be protected by our National defence in war and terrorism. However it appears that you may have overlooked the main thrust of our previous correspondence.
Due to the growing unrest in our community, concerning, David Hicks and more recently the Bali Nine death sentence, raised the question as to-
1. whose duty, it is to protect the Australian People from harm.
2. the role and duty Australian Federal Police
3. the Act that clearly obligates the Australian Government to protect the People.
Considering the contents of your letter of reply, Which emerges that Australian Government is not committed by legislation or under the Australian Constitution 1901, to Protect the Australian People. Which we feel, with the best interest and welfare of the people of the nation in mind, should be rectified by Parliament with in the very near future.
The Cause and Reason
The Federal Police were notified by concerned parents of the Bali Nine, that their son was getting in to illegal activities, "drugs" Like many parents in Australia, The parents were of the understanding that the Police would apprehend and arrest their son, Unfortunately for their own reasons that Police failed to act in a proper manner.
Many parents claim "That if there son or daughter was caught with or dealings drugs they would put him in to the police, and if he goes to jail so be it, teach him lesson or two" Considering, that some members of the Bali Nine have now been sentence to death, leaves open to question the role that the Federal Police played, and why the Australian Government is not obligated by legislation to protect it people... Something is wrong?
We trust that you will recommend to Parliament that the Laws need to be reviewed, as to remove any doubt whatsoever over the Government ability to act as a good and responsible Government for all the people of Australia. Notice of your intention would also be appreciated
Les McDonald
Founder
Attorney General Your Ref, 07/3470. MC07/2877; 2924;6898
The Hon. Philip Ruddock.
Robert Garran Office
National Circuit BartonACT 2600 17th April 2007
Dear Minister, Philip Ruddock
Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia
I acknowledge you letter of 13 April 2007, being in response to our letter 5th February 2007, we appreciate the effort you have gone to in explaining the system parliamentary democracy,established by the Australian Constitution, which embodies the principle of responsible Government. We realise the Defence Act 1903 and understand that we would be protected by our National defence in war and terrorism. However it appears that you may have overlooked the main thrust of our previous correspondence.
Due to the growing unrest in our community, concerning, David Hicks and more recently the Bali Nine death sentence, raised the question as to-
1. whose duty, it is to protect the Australian People from harm.
2. the role and duty Australian Federal Police
3. the Act that clearly obligates the Australian Government to protect the People.
Considering the contents of your letter of reply, Which emerges that Australian Government is not committed by legislation or under the Australian Constitution 1901, to Protect the Australian People. Which we feel, with the best interest and welfare of the people of the nation in mind, should be rectified by Parliament with in the very near future.
The Cause and Reason
The Federal Police were notified by concerned parents of the Bali Nine, that their son was getting in to illegal activities, "drugs" Like many parents in Australia, The parents were of the understanding that the Police would apprehend and arrest their son, Unfortunately for their own reasons that Police failed to act in a proper manner.
Many parents claim "That if there son or daughter was caught with or dealings drugs they would put him in to the police, and if he goes to jail so be it, teach him lesson or two" Considering, that some members of the Bali Nine have now been sentence to death, leaves open to question the role that the Federal Police played, and why the Australian Government is not obligated by legislation to protect it people... Something is wrong?
We trust that you will recommend to Parliament that the Laws need to be reviewed, as to remove any doubt whatsoever over the Government ability to act as a good and responsible Government for all the people of Australia. Notice of your intention would also be appreciated
Les McDonald
Founder
Attorney General Philip Ruddock 01/03/07
The following is a copy of our letter dated 1stMarch to:-
Attorney General
The Hon. Philip Ruddock.
Robert Garran Office
National Circuit BartonACT 2600 1st March 2007
Dear Minister, Philip Ruddock
Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia
I write to bring to your attention that we have not received any responce to our email and letter dated 5th February 2007. (copy enclosed)
It appears to us that Australian Government is not committed by legislation or under the Australian Constitution 1901, to Protect the Australian People.
I ask is this correct or not?
This matter now most urgent, and of growing public interest.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
FounderBeBuyBac
Attorney General
The Hon. Philip Ruddock.
Robert Garran Office
National Circuit BartonACT 2600 1st March 2007
Dear Minister, Philip Ruddock
Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia
I write to bring to your attention that we have not received any responce to our email and letter dated 5th February 2007. (copy enclosed)
It appears to us that Australian Government is not committed by legislation or under the Australian Constitution 1901, to Protect the Australian People.
I ask is this correct or not?
This matter now most urgent, and of growing public interest.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
FounderBeBuyBac
Monday, April 16, 2007
Attorney General responce
Copy of Letter from Attorney General Philip Ruddock dated 13 April, 2007. In responce to our letter 5th February 2007.
I refer to your letter and email of the 5 February 2007, and to your further letter of 1 March asking whather the Australian Government is 'obligated to protect the Australain People'
The system of parliament democracy established by the Australia Constitution, which embodies the principle of responsible government, effectively requires an Australian Government to work to advance national interest. It aslo makes the Government accountable to the Australian people. Australian Government Minister makes a formal oath or affirmation of office that they will serve the people of Australia.
National defence and security are clearly important considerations in that context, However, there is no single law which supports all defence and security related activities of an Australian Government. These are in facilitated and supported by a wide range of Commonwealth Laws. The Defence Act 1903, for example, makes provision in relation to the Australian Defence Force; while the Australian Fedral Police Act 1979 makes provision in relation to the Australian Federal Police.
signed Philip Ruddock.
We feel that the Attorney General has confussed the issue, Bloggs see bali nine
I refer to your letter and email of the 5 February 2007, and to your further letter of 1 March asking whather the Australian Government is 'obligated to protect the Australain People'
The system of parliament democracy established by the Australia Constitution, which embodies the principle of responsible government, effectively requires an Australian Government to work to advance national interest. It aslo makes the Government accountable to the Australian people. Australian Government Minister makes a formal oath or affirmation of office that they will serve the people of Australia.
National defence and security are clearly important considerations in that context, However, there is no single law which supports all defence and security related activities of an Australian Government. These are in facilitated and supported by a wide range of Commonwealth Laws. The Defence Act 1903, for example, makes provision in relation to the Australian Defence Force; while the Australian Fedral Police Act 1979 makes provision in relation to the Australian Federal Police.
signed Philip Ruddock.
We feel that the Attorney General has confussed the issue, Bloggs see bali nine
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Prime Minister, John Howard 09/01/06
The following is a copy of our letter to the Australian:-
Prime Minister John Howard
House of Representatives
Canberra ACT 2600 9th February 2006
Dear Prime Minister,
In regards to the meeting this morning (9th February) COAG, As it may be of interest to your self as well as other leaders and members of Governments. I offer the following..Noted from the ABC NewsOline 9th February 2006:-
"Mr Howard, has told Southern Cross Radio. he will ask the states to agree with him that taking a tougher line on marijuana is part of preventing mental illness.,"
Based on my own personal experience and that others, Early this year I found urgent need to write to the Victorian Health Minister, The Honourable Browyn Pike,. bringing to her attention the danger and public heath risk inflicted on cannabis consumers in Victoria. As to this date we have not received any response.
As not to burden or overload you with paper, the following is extracts from that letter to her dated the 5th January 2006.
In the early nineties cannabis cultivation had dramatically changed, indoor hydroponics chemical grown cannabis was now readily on the market, many mature cannabis users complained that the hydro grown cannabis, made them feel quite ill the next morning, others maintained hydroponicly grown cannabis caused a form of psychosis, this being due to the amount of chemicals used when growing indoors. Yes, a public health hazard Prohibition has created a health risk to many Victorians, as organic grown cannabis is now only a small part of the commercial market, hydroponicly grown chemically enhanced adulterated cannabis holds the major share of the market. Unfortunately, the younger generation of cannabis consumers know no little difference between the two, as organic cannabis is now a thing of the past.
1996 The Premiers Drug Advisory Council, Chairman Professor David Penington, presented it's report to Parliament, unfortunately recommendations 7.1 to 7.5 was not supported by the then Parliament of Victoria. For your convenience and consideration, Please find enclosed herewith a retyped copy of the unsupported recommendation of that report.
Recommendation 7.2 Cultivation of up to five cannabis plants per household for personal use should no longer be an offence. You may realise as being the same legislation requirements as in the ACT. What you may not realise, by the Victorian Government disregarding this recommendation, has placed hundreds of thousands of Victorians mental health at a greater risk, The reality is, a fact that can not be denied.
We humbly ask, if you see fit to do so, request all the states leaders to consider coming in line the ACT legislation regarding marijuana, to implement these changes at the earliest moment, as to reduce the use of hydroponicly grown chemically ( nitrogen ) enhanced adulterated cannabis. In turn preventing/reducing, the harmful mental risk of marijuana.
Yours sincerely,
Les McDonald
Reply received 17/01/06
Prime Minister John Howard
House of Representatives
Canberra ACT 2600 9th February 2006
Dear Prime Minister,
In regards to the meeting this morning (9th February) COAG, As it may be of interest to your self as well as other leaders and members of Governments. I offer the following..Noted from the ABC NewsOline 9th February 2006:-
"Mr Howard, has told Southern Cross Radio. he will ask the states to agree with him that taking a tougher line on marijuana is part of preventing mental illness.,"
Based on my own personal experience and that others, Early this year I found urgent need to write to the Victorian Health Minister, The Honourable Browyn Pike,. bringing to her attention the danger and public heath risk inflicted on cannabis consumers in Victoria. As to this date we have not received any response.
As not to burden or overload you with paper, the following is extracts from that letter to her dated the 5th January 2006.
In the early nineties cannabis cultivation had dramatically changed, indoor hydroponics chemical grown cannabis was now readily on the market, many mature cannabis users complained that the hydro grown cannabis, made them feel quite ill the next morning, others maintained hydroponicly grown cannabis caused a form of psychosis, this being due to the amount of chemicals used when growing indoors. Yes, a public health hazard Prohibition has created a health risk to many Victorians, as organic grown cannabis is now only a small part of the commercial market, hydroponicly grown chemically enhanced adulterated cannabis holds the major share of the market. Unfortunately, the younger generation of cannabis consumers know no little difference between the two, as organic cannabis is now a thing of the past.
1996 The Premiers Drug Advisory Council, Chairman Professor David Penington, presented it's report to Parliament, unfortunately recommendations 7.1 to 7.5 was not supported by the then Parliament of Victoria. For your convenience and consideration, Please find enclosed herewith a retyped copy of the unsupported recommendation of that report.
Recommendation 7.2 Cultivation of up to five cannabis plants per household for personal use should no longer be an offence. You may realise as being the same legislation requirements as in the ACT. What you may not realise, by the Victorian Government disregarding this recommendation, has placed hundreds of thousands of Victorians mental health at a greater risk, The reality is, a fact that can not be denied.
We humbly ask, if you see fit to do so, request all the states leaders to consider coming in line the ACT legislation regarding marijuana, to implement these changes at the earliest moment, as to reduce the use of hydroponicly grown chemically ( nitrogen ) enhanced adulterated cannabis. In turn preventing/reducing, the harmful mental risk of marijuana.
Yours sincerely,
Les McDonald
Reply received 17/01/06
Dianne Hadden PM 28/03/06
The following is a copy of our letter to our nearest Independent member of the Victorian Parliament.
Ms.Dianne Hadden
2 Peel Street 28th March 2006
South Ballarat 3350
Dear Ms.. Dianne Hadden
As you are our closest independent member of Parliament we write to bring to your attention our concerns regarding the replacement of the Legal Ombudsman Office.
Over the last twenty years we have been involved in bring to the public attention, the power, control and influence that the legal profession, a union, holds over all Victorians.
The Law Institute, (the solicitors union) has the legislated power to regulate and maintain their own profession, and to protect the people. The public of Victoria file over six thousand complaints per year against solicitors, many left frustrated by the lack of control over the profession.
We are concerned that the new appointed body to oversee the legal profession may be lopsided.
For your consideration please find enclosed herewith a copy of our letter to the Attorney- General The Hon. Rob Hulls dated 13 March 2006.
It is of the utmost importance to obtain the answer to the question raised in our letter
"has the current L.S.C Chairman Mr Colin Neave, Am. had or has any involvement whatsoever within the ranks of the legal profession"
Yours sincerely,
Les McDonald
REPLY received date / / 06
Ms.Dianne Hadden
2 Peel Street 28th March 2006
South Ballarat 3350
Dear Ms.. Dianne Hadden
As you are our closest independent member of Parliament we write to bring to your attention our concerns regarding the replacement of the Legal Ombudsman Office.
Over the last twenty years we have been involved in bring to the public attention, the power, control and influence that the legal profession, a union, holds over all Victorians.
The Law Institute, (the solicitors union) has the legislated power to regulate and maintain their own profession, and to protect the people. The public of Victoria file over six thousand complaints per year against solicitors, many left frustrated by the lack of control over the profession.
We are concerned that the new appointed body to oversee the legal profession may be lopsided.
For your consideration please find enclosed herewith a copy of our letter to the Attorney- General The Hon. Rob Hulls dated 13 March 2006.
It is of the utmost importance to obtain the answer to the question raised in our letter
"has the current L.S.C Chairman Mr Colin Neave, Am. had or has any involvement whatsoever within the ranks of the legal profession"
Yours sincerely,
Les McDonald
REPLY received date / / 06
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Australian Attorney General
The following is a letter to the Australian Attorney General Philip Ruddock, how long do australians have to wait for a response from Attorney General department?
Attorney General
The Hon. Philip Ruddock.
Robert Garran Office
National Circuit BartonACT 2600 1st March 2007
Dear Minister, Philip Ruddock
Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia
I write to bring to your attention that we have not received any response to our email and letter dated 5th February 2007. (copy enclosed)
It appears to us that Australian Government is not committed by legislation or under the Australian Constitution 1901, to Protect the Australian People.
I ask is this correct or not?
This matter now most urgent, and of growing public interest.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
BeBuyBac
Accountability for all an echoing call
Attorney General
The Hon. Philip Ruddock.
Robert Garran Office
National Circuit BartonACT 2600 1st March 2007
Dear Minister, Philip Ruddock
Re: The Act, To Protect The People of Australia
I write to bring to your attention that we have not received any response to our email and letter dated 5th February 2007. (copy enclosed)
It appears to us that Australian Government is not committed by legislation or under the Australian Constitution 1901, to Protect the Australian People.
I ask is this correct or not?
This matter now most urgent, and of growing public interest.
I thank you
Yours sincerely
Les McDonald
Founder
BeBuyBac
Accountability for all an echoing call
Friday, April 13, 2007
Busted School "U" be the Judge
In light of the report by Matt Cunningham, Anthony Dowsley, and Miranda Rout in the:-Herald Sun (newspaper) Melbourne Ausrtalia on the Thursday April 12, 2007 starts with
"The parents of a boy thrown out of Xavier College for dealing drugs ...claimed he was the victim of the affair" ..."The teenager, who admits on his MySpace website to using drugs, would not comment"
"The Police spent an hour at the school yesterday and seized a small amount of cannabis. The drugs had been kept at the school since late February when they were confiscated from the year 11 student. Xavier deputy head Dominic Calipari told the Herald Sun on tuesday that the confiscated marijuana was still at the school and he was not sure what to do with it. He said he focused on addressing the problem with the student and their parents and did not consider calling police"
Herald Sun, "Sen-Sgt Tom Ebinger from the drug and alcohol strategy unit said ...."Victoria Police take the view that trafficking of a drug is a serious offence and should be reported to them" he said. "Victoria has protocols with Government schools requiring them to report any crime to police, but the protocols do not apply to private school". Premier Steve Bracks said he shared parents concerns about private schools failing to tell police of drug dealing on school grounds, but the policy was not a government matter. Mr Bracks said the school was entitled to decide whether or not it wanted police to investigate. Private schools are independent and private..."
I ask all blogers to consider the following 8 points and respond to such?
1. Was the student foolish by admitting, his using drugs on his web site?
2. How much time did the police spend at the school?
3. Do "U" know what drugs were seized?
4. About how long had the drugs been kept at the School?
5. Was the 11 year old student in possession of a small amount of Cannabis?
6. Did Xavier deputy head, Dominic Calipari confiscate the marijuana?
7. Did Xavier deputy head, Dominic Calipari know what do with the drugs?
8. Is there a law for (rich) private schools, and a law for (poor) public schools?
Considering the Herald-Sun report as evidence, the Victorian Police must charge Xavier deputy head, Dominic Calipari, of being in possession of an illegal substance, to wit Marijuana, as it is most likely he will be found guilty as charged
In support of Dominic Calipari character defence, He focused on addressing the problem with the student and their parents, which would be well appreciated many parents, He did not consider calling police, (it was only cannabis) I now ask, has Dominic Calipari, hindering and preventing the natural course of Justice? Is it Justice or Justus?
Warning. As experience revealsvmany thoughtful parents will inform the police of their children using drugs. This can have a devastating affect on the parents if the police delay or fail to act in a proper manner (for an example of it check out my Bali Nine post)
"U" be the Judge
"The parents of a boy thrown out of Xavier College for dealing drugs ...claimed he was the victim of the affair" ..."The teenager, who admits on his MySpace website to using drugs, would not comment"
"The Police spent an hour at the school yesterday and seized a small amount of cannabis. The drugs had been kept at the school since late February when they were confiscated from the year 11 student. Xavier deputy head Dominic Calipari told the Herald Sun on tuesday that the confiscated marijuana was still at the school and he was not sure what to do with it. He said he focused on addressing the problem with the student and their parents and did not consider calling police"
Herald Sun, "Sen-Sgt Tom Ebinger from the drug and alcohol strategy unit said ...."Victoria Police take the view that trafficking of a drug is a serious offence and should be reported to them" he said. "Victoria has protocols with Government schools requiring them to report any crime to police, but the protocols do not apply to private school". Premier Steve Bracks said he shared parents concerns about private schools failing to tell police of drug dealing on school grounds, but the policy was not a government matter. Mr Bracks said the school was entitled to decide whether or not it wanted police to investigate. Private schools are independent and private..."
I ask all blogers to consider the following 8 points and respond to such?
1. Was the student foolish by admitting, his using drugs on his web site?
2. How much time did the police spend at the school?
3. Do "U" know what drugs were seized?
4. About how long had the drugs been kept at the School?
5. Was the 11 year old student in possession of a small amount of Cannabis?
6. Did Xavier deputy head, Dominic Calipari confiscate the marijuana?
7. Did Xavier deputy head, Dominic Calipari know what do with the drugs?
8. Is there a law for (rich) private schools, and a law for (poor) public schools?
Considering the Herald-Sun report as evidence, the Victorian Police must charge Xavier deputy head, Dominic Calipari, of being in possession of an illegal substance, to wit Marijuana, as it is most likely he will be found guilty as charged
In support of Dominic Calipari character defence, He focused on addressing the problem with the student and their parents, which would be well appreciated many parents, He did not consider calling police, (it was only cannabis) I now ask, has Dominic Calipari, hindering and preventing the natural course of Justice? Is it Justice or Justus?
Warning. As experience revealsvmany thoughtful parents will inform the police of their children using drugs. This can have a devastating affect on the parents if the police delay or fail to act in a proper manner (for an example of it check out my Bali Nine post)
"U" be the Judge
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Black History Victoria
John Batman founder of Melbourne , Victoria married Eliza Callaghan (convict)
Eliza Callaghan who at the age of seventeen was convicted of trying to defraud the bank of England by passing a forged pound note. She was sentenced to death, the sentence was commuted to fourteen years transportation.
On arriving in Horbart Town goal she was assigned to the keeper, she spent three years with him as a wife, during that time, she absconded three times, She was recaptured each time and sentenced to periods in the stocks, At times she was forced to wear an iron collar, Finally she fled into the Tasmanian bush, Where she came open John Batman and he took her in.
In 1828 after she gave birth to three children with Batman he approach Governor Arthur for permission to marry her, and grant her a pardon (by the time this was granted 1833 the family had grown to six)
1836 John Batman arrived in Port Philip with his family, consisting of his wife, six daughters, a son and thirty servants, However Batman died 5th May 1839, His widow Eliza married William Willoughby, (an employee) in 1841,
Note. Wesleyan Church records trustees named as being George Lilly, William Whitton.(ie witton), John Jones Peers,Thomas Jennings, and William Willoughby. dated 21 September 1842
In 1843 Eliza Willoughby and her children, then said to be in pitiable condition; pettitioned Queen Victoria for a grant of a portion of the waste lands of the District; but their appeal was refused. (the extensive documentation may be consulted at the Public Records Office Victoria)
Eliza Willoughby moved to Geelong 1847, and was kicked to death by a druken mob in 1852.
William Willoughby took his Aboriginal wife and bore him two children - Hannah and Alfred. When he died in 1856, she walked back 400 Kilometers to Gunditjmara Country, with her two children. Susannah, her husband and his and her children lived in a humpy at Lake Condah.
Annie Rich is an Aboriginal woman from South Australia, married Alfred (Willoughby) McDonald.
and his sister Hannah (Willoughby) McDonald married Jamie Lovitt
Alfred McDonald and Annie (Rich) McDonald had 5 Children
Fiora 26/02/1884 dec 1885 14 Months
Susannah 19/06/1885
Allen McKinnon 04/10/1887
Euphemia 25/05/1889
George McDonald 26/11/1890
Jamie Lovitt and Hannah (Willoughby) Lovitt had 4 Children
Ebenezer James 28/05/1882
Charles Leonard 14/04/ 1884
Norman Gordon 03/03/1886
Fedderick Amos 23/03/1887
More to be posted, Batmans Blacks Treaty
Batmans Blackline war
Eliza Callaghan who at the age of seventeen was convicted of trying to defraud the bank of England by passing a forged pound note. She was sentenced to death, the sentence was commuted to fourteen years transportation.
On arriving in Horbart Town goal she was assigned to the keeper, she spent three years with him as a wife, during that time, she absconded three times, She was recaptured each time and sentenced to periods in the stocks, At times she was forced to wear an iron collar, Finally she fled into the Tasmanian bush, Where she came open John Batman and he took her in.
In 1828 after she gave birth to three children with Batman he approach Governor Arthur for permission to marry her, and grant her a pardon (by the time this was granted 1833 the family had grown to six)
1836 John Batman arrived in Port Philip with his family, consisting of his wife, six daughters, a son and thirty servants, However Batman died 5th May 1839, His widow Eliza married William Willoughby, (an employee) in 1841,
Note. Wesleyan Church records trustees named as being George Lilly, William Whitton.(ie witton), John Jones Peers,Thomas Jennings, and William Willoughby. dated 21 September 1842
In 1843 Eliza Willoughby and her children, then said to be in pitiable condition; pettitioned Queen Victoria for a grant of a portion of the waste lands of the District; but their appeal was refused. (the extensive documentation may be consulted at the Public Records Office Victoria)
Eliza Willoughby moved to Geelong 1847, and was kicked to death by a druken mob in 1852.
William Willoughby took his Aboriginal wife and bore him two children - Hannah and Alfred. When he died in 1856, she walked back 400 Kilometers to Gunditjmara Country, with her two children. Susannah, her husband and his and her children lived in a humpy at Lake Condah.
Annie Rich is an Aboriginal woman from South Australia, married Alfred (Willoughby) McDonald.
and his sister Hannah (Willoughby) McDonald married Jamie Lovitt
Alfred McDonald and Annie (Rich) McDonald had 5 Children
Fiora 26/02/1884 dec 1885 14 Months
Susannah 19/06/1885
Allen McKinnon 04/10/1887
Euphemia 25/05/1889
George McDonald 26/11/1890
Jamie Lovitt and Hannah (Willoughby) Lovitt had 4 Children
Ebenezer James 28/05/1882
Charles Leonard 14/04/ 1884
Norman Gordon 03/03/1886
Fedderick Amos 23/03/1887
More to be posted, Batmans Blacks Treaty
Batmans Blackline war
Drugs in sport
Re: "Age' Footy drugs testing finds 15 under the influence.
It is of great concern that all AFL players are subjected to The Australia Sports Drug Agency, out -of- competition testing system, which includes Marijuana.
Marijuana is a prohibited substance listed under ASDA in 2006 maintained by WADA. This must leave open to question the real motive behind both ASDA and WADA Marijuana, is not a performance-enhancing substance, in fact, reduces performance levels of the user.
Considering the millions of Australians that consume Marijuana reguarly, we can only assume that some AFL players are included in the numbers. The herb 'Cannabis' has been used for centuries for it's medicinal effects, Queen Victoria used the herb to relive minstrel pain. O'shaugnessy introduced cannabis to British medicine in the mid-nineteen century, Nahas in 1984 recommended its use for the relief of pain , muscle spasm, and convulsions occurring in tetanus, rabies, rheumatism and epilepsy. Others to numinous to mention (Ref. A.G.D.H. and Ageing, Series. 25)
Cannabis was used as a beverage or food additive in cakes and biscuits by a small part of our society. By 1970 "pot" use had increased, 1975 it retailed (home grown) at the astonishing of price $30 per ounce, this price forced many consumers to smoke "pot" for their recreational comforts, avoiding the social effects of alcohol =destruction=violence=death..We note from ASDA substance prohibited in particular sports alcohol is prohibited, in-competition only, being not over i.e. Aeronautic, (0.20) Archery, (0.10) Automobile, (0.10) Billiards, (0.20) Boules, (0.10) Karat (0.10) Modern Pentathlon, (0.10) Motorcycling (0.10) Power-boating (0.30). AFL players, in-competition have no limits on alcohol
Many young AFL players live at home with their parents, watching TV in an enclosed space his parents may smoke Marijuana, resulting in the young player showing a positive test to Marijuana, up until seven days after inhaling "passive smoke". I have enclosed herewith cut-out from the Melbourne "AGE" "Boxer set for final drug ban appeal ..".he was with relatives who were smoking marijuana, and that this caused his positive test".
We feel that all AFL clubs should but the players social welfare at the forefront, It would be within reason to request the ASDA and WADA to show cause and reason (the evidence)' why Marijuana is to remain in the prohibited list 2006. . ... Accountability, a must for all.
We all need, Straight answer to a Straight question
Yours sincerely, Les McDonald
It is of great concern that all AFL players are subjected to The Australia Sports Drug Agency, out -of- competition testing system, which includes Marijuana.
Marijuana is a prohibited substance listed under ASDA in 2006 maintained by WADA. This must leave open to question the real motive behind both ASDA and WADA Marijuana, is not a performance-enhancing substance, in fact, reduces performance levels of the user.
Considering the millions of Australians that consume Marijuana reguarly, we can only assume that some AFL players are included in the numbers. The herb 'Cannabis' has been used for centuries for it's medicinal effects, Queen Victoria used the herb to relive minstrel pain. O'shaugnessy introduced cannabis to British medicine in the mid-nineteen century, Nahas in 1984 recommended its use for the relief of pain , muscle spasm, and convulsions occurring in tetanus, rabies, rheumatism and epilepsy. Others to numinous to mention (Ref. A.G.D.H. and Ageing, Series. 25)
Cannabis was used as a beverage or food additive in cakes and biscuits by a small part of our society. By 1970 "pot" use had increased, 1975 it retailed (home grown) at the astonishing of price $30 per ounce, this price forced many consumers to smoke "pot" for their recreational comforts, avoiding the social effects of alcohol =destruction=violence=death..We note from ASDA substance prohibited in particular sports alcohol is prohibited, in-competition only, being not over i.e. Aeronautic, (0.20) Archery, (0.10) Automobile, (0.10) Billiards, (0.20) Boules, (0.10) Karat (0.10) Modern Pentathlon, (0.10) Motorcycling (0.10) Power-boating (0.30). AFL players, in-competition have no limits on alcohol
Many young AFL players live at home with their parents, watching TV in an enclosed space his parents may smoke Marijuana, resulting in the young player showing a positive test to Marijuana, up until seven days after inhaling "passive smoke". I have enclosed herewith cut-out from the Melbourne "AGE" "Boxer set for final drug ban appeal ..".he was with relatives who were smoking marijuana, and that this caused his positive test".
We feel that all AFL clubs should but the players social welfare at the forefront, It would be within reason to request the ASDA and WADA to show cause and reason (the evidence)' why Marijuana is to remain in the prohibited list 2006. . ... Accountability, a must for all.
We all need, Straight answer to a Straight question
Yours sincerely, Les McDonald
Violence in our Community
Alcohol is one of the main causes of domestic violence in Victorian homes, in 2005alone, there were 28,854 cases reported to police, an average of 2400 per month. A higher statistic than the previous year and one that is predicted to further increase by the end of the next financial year.
Assistant Police Commissioner, Leigh Gassner, said there was a dramatic peak in December and the beginning of the New Year, "clearly perpetrators are not getting the message that violence is unacceptable" Mary Noseda of Women Domestic Violence Services. said "It's around family times when people aren't at work and there's too much alcohol.." and "it was impossible to get help for every female victim of violence " Mr. Gassner said At the end of the day we wouldn't be accepting this in the street, we shouldn't accept it in the home.
At this point in time there are no statistics available relating to the alcohol induced violence within the wider community. However, almost daily we hear, read and see on TVs the violence, death and destruction with in our community caused by alcohol abuse. These figures are nothing new, this has been going on for such a long time that our society today is obvious to the facts, and has excepted that this is a normal way to live in Australia.
We see our sporting stars, community leaders, members of Parliament, Premiers and our Prime Minister John Howard, consuming and at times promoting alcohol use. This indicating to all, that alcohol is excepted as being OK to consume.
In the 1960s a small part of our society began to change their habits and recreation needs turned to using a herb substance "pot" or "grass" more commonly known today as Marijuana or Cannabis. as an alternative to alcohol for recreation hours. Today thousands of Victorians consume cannabis on a regular basis.
The Australian Government Department of Health National Drug Strategy series No.25 states "The major motive for the widespread recreational use of cannabis is the experience of a subjective "high" an altered state of consciousness which is characterised by emotional changes, such as mild euphoria and relaxation... When used in a social setting, the "high" is often accompanied by infectious laughter, talkativeness, and increased sociability"
Victorian Police, and health departments records for cannabis use relating to violence in the home or within the wider community is limited, to a degree of inconsequential value, It would within reason to claim cannabis use suppresses violence in the user, the home and the community. However. there is reported violence by retailers and cultivators of cannabis, When the homes have been raided and robbed by persons unknown, Cannabis is an illegal substance, Alcohol is a legal drug,
Conclusion. Man made beer, God made grass, whom should we put our trust in?
Les McDonald Founder, BeBuyBac
Assistant Police Commissioner, Leigh Gassner, said there was a dramatic peak in December and the beginning of the New Year, "clearly perpetrators are not getting the message that violence is unacceptable" Mary Noseda of Women Domestic Violence Services. said "It's around family times when people aren't at work and there's too much alcohol.." and "it was impossible to get help for every female victim of violence " Mr. Gassner said At the end of the day we wouldn't be accepting this in the street, we shouldn't accept it in the home.
At this point in time there are no statistics available relating to the alcohol induced violence within the wider community. However, almost daily we hear, read and see on TVs the violence, death and destruction with in our community caused by alcohol abuse. These figures are nothing new, this has been going on for such a long time that our society today is obvious to the facts, and has excepted that this is a normal way to live in Australia.
We see our sporting stars, community leaders, members of Parliament, Premiers and our Prime Minister John Howard, consuming and at times promoting alcohol use. This indicating to all, that alcohol is excepted as being OK to consume.
In the 1960s a small part of our society began to change their habits and recreation needs turned to using a herb substance "pot" or "grass" more commonly known today as Marijuana or Cannabis. as an alternative to alcohol for recreation hours. Today thousands of Victorians consume cannabis on a regular basis.
The Australian Government Department of Health National Drug Strategy series No.25 states "The major motive for the widespread recreational use of cannabis is the experience of a subjective "high" an altered state of consciousness which is characterised by emotional changes, such as mild euphoria and relaxation... When used in a social setting, the "high" is often accompanied by infectious laughter, talkativeness, and increased sociability"
Victorian Police, and health departments records for cannabis use relating to violence in the home or within the wider community is limited, to a degree of inconsequential value, It would within reason to claim cannabis use suppresses violence in the user, the home and the community. However. there is reported violence by retailers and cultivators of cannabis, When the homes have been raided and robbed by persons unknown, Cannabis is an illegal substance, Alcohol is a legal drug,
Conclusion. Man made beer, God made grass, whom should we put our trust in?
Les McDonald Founder, BeBuyBac
Captain Cooks Orders
The questions that needs to be considered on this page Q1. did captain Cook follow his Orders, Q2. did he break the law of the day. Do "U" know the answers.
Captain Cook's Orders, Given under the hands of the commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain & Co. dated 30th July. "you are also with the consent of the natives to take possession of convenient situation in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain; if you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his Majesty by setting up proper marks and Inscriptions, as Firsts discovers and Possessors"
On the 2nd August 1770, Captain Cook landed a party of Marines on Possession Island and claimed possession of the whole east coast of New Holland in the name of King of Great Britain, to this point in time (2007) there is no recorded evidence of any consent given by the Natives to take possession of the land, it is conceded that Possession Island could have been uninhabited at that time, this giving Cook's claim some legal credibility to that Island.
1787 Captain Philip sailed from Mother Bank England on the 13th May and soon after the convicts attempted to take over the Vessel, however they failed.
1788 Philip arrives at Botany Bay with two ships of war, three store ships, 212 Officers and Marines, 776 convicts 558 whom were male. encountered two French Ships sailed under La Perouse, boarded by the English, Charts and books taken by them.
1798 Bass and Flinders sailed around Van Diemans land in the Norfolk, confirmed that the Dutch have abandoned Van Diemans land, and he estimated that were 100,000 natives within Van Diemans land.
Your answer to Q1 and Q2 would be welcomed, "U" be the Judge
Captain Cook's Orders, Given under the hands of the commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain & Co. dated 30th July. "you are also with the consent of the natives to take possession of convenient situation in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain; if you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his Majesty by setting up proper marks and Inscriptions, as Firsts discovers and Possessors"
On the 2nd August 1770, Captain Cook landed a party of Marines on Possession Island and claimed possession of the whole east coast of New Holland in the name of King of Great Britain, to this point in time (2007) there is no recorded evidence of any consent given by the Natives to take possession of the land, it is conceded that Possession Island could have been uninhabited at that time, this giving Cook's claim some legal credibility to that Island.
1787 Captain Philip sailed from Mother Bank England on the 13th May and soon after the convicts attempted to take over the Vessel, however they failed.
1788 Philip arrives at Botany Bay with two ships of war, three store ships, 212 Officers and Marines, 776 convicts 558 whom were male. encountered two French Ships sailed under La Perouse, boarded by the English, Charts and books taken by them.
1798 Bass and Flinders sailed around Van Diemans land in the Norfolk, confirmed that the Dutch have abandoned Van Diemans land, and he estimated that were 100,000 natives within Van Diemans land.
What comes next
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Discovering Australia
The black history of Australia, do you know the Great Southern Land, was inhabited by natives, when Captain Cook visited in 1770, did he follow is orders? after concidering the following.
1504 "On the discovery of the new world ..the Chinese to whom no doubt belongs the honour of the first discovery of Australia Marco Polo charts indicated the position of a Great south Land In addition to the chart of Marco Polo another Chart now in the British Museum and bearing the date 1542
1606 The Dutch yacht Duyfen, on returning from an exploring expedition along the coast of new Guinea, touches upon the eastern shore of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Fernandez de Quiros sails from Peru and discovers the New Hebrides called by him "Australia del Espiritu Sancto" Vaes detorres, the Spanish Navigator passes through the Strait which bears his name, obtains a view of cape York, Northern Australia
1642 On the 24th November at about 4 O'clock in the afternoon Able Janz Tasman, with sixty men in the Heemskerck and Fifty in the Zeehaen, sights land with in the south seas unknown to any European nation, on the 2nd December 1642, they land at the entrance to Blackmans Bay and conferred on it the name Anthony Van Diemans landt, in honour of the Governor - General who instigated the discoverage voyage and named Van Diemans Land.
1663 Thevenot's Charts of the west coast of Hollandia Nova published
1767 Maps published in London, showed that practically all the coast of Australia from the inner side of the York Peninsula right around to about midway across the Gulf of Carpentaria also that part of Tasmania from Freyciner's Peninsula and the eastern shores of New Zealand, had been discovered.
1768 Captain Cook sails on his first voyage August 26th 1768.
1770 Captain Cook in the Endeavour had been appointed to prove that New Zealand was not part of the continent, and to discover whether Van Diemans land was part of the same. Point Hicks descried by Lieut. Hicks of the Endeavour April 19th 1770. Soon after Cook lands, discovers Botany Bay. Captain Cook passes through the Torres Straits, (Cook ignorant of Torres discovery) Busted Bay, Thirsty Sound, Endeavour River, visited and named by Cook.
Cook, On the 2nd August 1770, he landed a party of Marines on Possession Island and claimed possession of the land in name of King of Great Britain, George 111 (see Captain Cook's orders)
1504 "On the discovery of the new world ..the Chinese to whom no doubt belongs the honour of the first discovery of Australia Marco Polo charts indicated the position of a Great south Land In addition to the chart of Marco Polo another Chart now in the British Museum and bearing the date 1542
1606 The Dutch yacht Duyfen, on returning from an exploring expedition along the coast of new Guinea, touches upon the eastern shore of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Fernandez de Quiros sails from Peru and discovers the New Hebrides called by him "Australia del Espiritu Sancto" Vaes detorres, the Spanish Navigator passes through the Strait which bears his name, obtains a view of cape York, Northern Australia
1642 On the 24th November at about 4 O'clock in the afternoon Able Janz Tasman, with sixty men in the Heemskerck and Fifty in the Zeehaen, sights land with in the south seas unknown to any European nation, on the 2nd December 1642, they land at the entrance to Blackmans Bay and conferred on it the name Anthony Van Diemans landt, in honour of the Governor - General who instigated the discoverage voyage and named Van Diemans Land.
1663 Thevenot's Charts of the west coast of Hollandia Nova published
1767 Maps published in London, showed that practically all the coast of Australia from the inner side of the York Peninsula right around to about midway across the Gulf of Carpentaria also that part of Tasmania from Freyciner's Peninsula and the eastern shores of New Zealand, had been discovered.
1768 Captain Cook sails on his first voyage August 26th 1768.
1770 Captain Cook in the Endeavour had been appointed to prove that New Zealand was not part of the continent, and to discover whether Van Diemans land was part of the same. Point Hicks descried by Lieut. Hicks of the Endeavour April 19th 1770. Soon after Cook lands, discovers Botany Bay. Captain Cook passes through the Torres Straits, (Cook ignorant of Torres discovery) Busted Bay, Thirsty Sound, Endeavour River, visited and named by Cook.
Cook, On the 2nd August 1770, he landed a party of Marines on Possession Island and claimed possession of the land in name of King of Great Britain, George 111 (see Captain Cook's orders)
BALI NINE
The Bali Nine are guilty as charged. The Federal Police where made aware that drug (Heroin) deal was going to happen, the Australia Government informed the Indonesian Government police, that the nine were coming to Bali to obtain drugs, and bring them into Australia by way domestic air travel. Offenders, names and other revenant information were forwarded.
The Australian Police could have arrested the Nine when they landed on Australian soil, the evidence was strapped to some of their bodies, in turn the Australian Police would have got them convicted.
As the AFP role is to prevent crime, (illegal drug activities) then why did the AFP not hinder or stop the Bali Nine drug deal going a head, as they were well aware of the overall situation. We assume they had knowledge and understand of Indonesian laws and penalties. Knowingly placing young Australians lives at great risk.
Over the last 30 years or so we greatly appreciate and respect the effort AFP has done in preventing drugs coming in to Australia, Record hauls of hard drugs often make the headline, applauded by many concerned citizens that believe that Billions of dollars by Government will curtail the importation of drugs. However, as time has clearly demonstrated that war or drugs has not worked, Unfortunately causing a shadow of doubt over the integrity of our AFP, leaving open to question their motives, what final outcome they hoped to achieve?.
We don't wish to appear as being vindictive towards AFP as this is not the case, Disappointed yes! We understand that many people, support drugs pushers being exterminated, hanged, believing this action would deter others importing drugs, which is not the case. Considering the flow of hard drugs is still rampant, and the Australians that have been so far executed, yet we still find gullible young people tempted by the adventure or finical gain. Just how many people will be caught up in this game, destroyed, before the people of this country wake up!
Some years ago, we suggested to Government, that all Heroin users be registered, they would be supplied with Australian produced Heroin, at cost price, this making imported Heroin worth very little if anything. Have you a better suggestion to save a life?. The circumstance surrounding the Bali Nine has highlighted the fact that Australian Government has not proper legislated power to protect the people of Australia. Is Entrapment an illegal act.?
It may assist, if you write to your local Federal Member of Parliament, requesting to bring to Parliament attention, the urgent need to review the AFP duty in protecting the citizens of Australian, to assure in future, early prevention is more expectable then Entrapment.
Les McDonaldFounder
The Australian Police could have arrested the Nine when they landed on Australian soil, the evidence was strapped to some of their bodies, in turn the Australian Police would have got them convicted.
As the AFP role is to prevent crime, (illegal drug activities) then why did the AFP not hinder or stop the Bali Nine drug deal going a head, as they were well aware of the overall situation. We assume they had knowledge and understand of Indonesian laws and penalties. Knowingly placing young Australians lives at great risk.
Over the last 30 years or so we greatly appreciate and respect the effort AFP has done in preventing drugs coming in to Australia, Record hauls of hard drugs often make the headline, applauded by many concerned citizens that believe that Billions of dollars by Government will curtail the importation of drugs. However, as time has clearly demonstrated that war or drugs has not worked, Unfortunately causing a shadow of doubt over the integrity of our AFP, leaving open to question their motives, what final outcome they hoped to achieve?.
We don't wish to appear as being vindictive towards AFP as this is not the case, Disappointed yes! We understand that many people, support drugs pushers being exterminated, hanged, believing this action would deter others importing drugs, which is not the case. Considering the flow of hard drugs is still rampant, and the Australians that have been so far executed, yet we still find gullible young people tempted by the adventure or finical gain. Just how many people will be caught up in this game, destroyed, before the people of this country wake up!
Some years ago, we suggested to Government, that all Heroin users be registered, they would be supplied with Australian produced Heroin, at cost price, this making imported Heroin worth very little if anything. Have you a better suggestion to save a life?. The circumstance surrounding the Bali Nine has highlighted the fact that Australian Government has not proper legislated power to protect the people of Australia. Is Entrapment an illegal act.?
It may assist, if you write to your local Federal Member of Parliament, requesting to bring to Parliament attention, the urgent need to review the AFP duty in protecting the citizens of Australian, to assure in future, early prevention is more expectable then Entrapment.
Les McDonaldFounder
BeBuyBac Black History Lesson
Thought you learnt the right history at school? Here's the black facts you didn't get....
Here is lesson one, keep checking the Bebuybac blog for regular lessons in Australia's black history.
During the nineteenth century, various English institutions, paved the way and manner to control the people of this country. In 1901 the Australian Constitution enacted, thus giving the Australian Parliament (under s51) the power to make laws for peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-
"(xxvi) The people of any race; other than the Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."
The Australian people were required to vote, (as promoted) to allow the Aboriginal to be counted in the censors and the right to Vote. This referendum resulted in 92% of the population voting yes. for the Australian Constitution to be altered.
The Australian Constitution was altered in 1967 and the words "other than the Aboriginal race in any state" were deleted from the constitution The vast majority of people believed their 'yes' vote will give the Aboriginal the rights to vote, (which it legally did) . How many of you realize that only after the referendum did the Australian Parliament have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government for theAboriginal race? Which leaves open the question, just how many of the indigenous people were prosecuted before 1967 by a government that had no lawful rights to make laws for the Aboriginal people?
Their is growing concern within our community, that the power to protect the people is too
far removed from the elected Government, Parliament. The Law institute Act gives the lawyers the rights to regulate and maintain their own profession and to "protect the people" Considering what has transpired over the years into the current position of our peoples health and well-being, we feel it would be more accountable and assuring if the Government of Australia was obligated by legislation to protect the People of Australia.
Recent matters concerning Australians overseas (such as the David Hicks case) are prime examples of a Government that is not legally obligated to protect the citizens of this country, Guilty or Not, his birth rights were not protected by the Australian Government.
We feel it would be in the best interest of all Australians, if the power to protect the people was not in the hands of the powerful and wealthy private club, a form of union, whose main aim and ambitions may not necessary rest in the best interest and welfare of the Australia people.
Les McDonald, Chief Lore Officer, Aboriginal Embassy Victoria
Here is lesson one, keep checking the Bebuybac blog for regular lessons in Australia's black history.
During the nineteenth century, various English institutions, paved the way and manner to control the people of this country. In 1901 the Australian Constitution enacted, thus giving the Australian Parliament (under s51) the power to make laws for peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-
"(xxvi) The people of any race; other than the Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."
The Australian people were required to vote, (as promoted) to allow the Aboriginal to be counted in the censors and the right to Vote. This referendum resulted in 92% of the population voting yes. for the Australian Constitution to be altered.
The Australian Constitution was altered in 1967 and the words "other than the Aboriginal race in any state" were deleted from the constitution The vast majority of people believed their 'yes' vote will give the Aboriginal the rights to vote, (which it legally did) . How many of you realize that only after the referendum did the Australian Parliament have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government for theAboriginal race? Which leaves open the question, just how many of the indigenous people were prosecuted before 1967 by a government that had no lawful rights to make laws for the Aboriginal people?
Their is growing concern within our community, that the power to protect the people is too
far removed from the elected Government, Parliament. The Law institute Act gives the lawyers the rights to regulate and maintain their own profession and to "protect the people" Considering what has transpired over the years into the current position of our peoples health and well-being, we feel it would be more accountable and assuring if the Government of Australia was obligated by legislation to protect the People of Australia.
Recent matters concerning Australians overseas (such as the David Hicks case) are prime examples of a Government that is not legally obligated to protect the citizens of this country, Guilty or Not, his birth rights were not protected by the Australian Government.
We feel it would be in the best interest of all Australians, if the power to protect the people was not in the hands of the powerful and wealthy private club, a form of union, whose main aim and ambitions may not necessary rest in the best interest and welfare of the Australia people.
Les McDonald, Chief Lore Officer, Aboriginal Embassy Victoria
BEBUYBAC
Welcome to the Bebuybac blog. Check for regular posts relating to a range of pressing topics such as cannabis reform, aboriginal affairs, accountability of the legal system and all the news Bebuybac has aimed to deliver since 1975.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)