The following placed on the defendant court file on Thursday 16th October 2008, including all correspondence (in full) marked 1 to 18, unfortunately during this hearing the defendant was advised that the Magistrates Court Act 1989 had been amended, which had affected the defendants defence, New laws regarding the Victorian Constitution Act 1975, may also hinder the defence. It was pointed that these changers to the court Act were made some time after the beginning of this matter, His Hon. said that makes no difference the New amendments are now in force.
Magistrates Court Horsham 22 Roberts Ave
Horsham 3400
Dear Clerk /Coordinator of Courts
Re: Case No. X00340105, Listed 16 October 2008,
Informant: Micheal A. Hobson
Defendant Leslie E McDonald
Charge 1. The Defendant at Burkes Flat on 30/01/08 did cultivate a narcotic plant, namely cannabis.
The Defendant reserves his plea on this charge,
Charge 2. The Defendant at Moliagul Flat on 30/01/08 did cultivate a narcotic plant, namely cannabis.
The Defendant request the Court to clarify the Jurisdiction of the Courts, over the Aboriginal People of Victoria,
Charge 3. The Defendant at Burkes Flat on September 2007 did use a drug of dependence namely cannabis
The Defendant admits that he used Cannabis in September 2007, when staying in South Australia, at that time,
As to assist the Court please find enclosed herewith relating to the issues of Jurisdiction over the Aboriginal people of Victoria
Documents and letters submitted be the Defendant, relevant to this matter, Number 1 to 18 which the Defendant is willing to swear on oath are to true and correct copies
Les McDonald ----------------------------------------
The following list of Documents and Letters in support of the Defendant
1994 Senior citizens raised and brought to the attention AEV, that in door grown cannabis had caused, them problems after using, Them had used cannabis regally of some years. and believed it was the Chemicals used when growing, it was noted.
1996 The Kennett Government, had formed The Premiers Drug Advisory Council. Chairman Professor David Peninton table his report on the 13th May, However the Government rejected recommendation 7.1 to 7.5 of the report. It appeared that the Government was more concerned about lawyers wealth then the peoples health, Considering over 10 $ Million is paid out each year by Victorian legal Aid legal defending cannabis users that Plead Guilty. (1)
6th August 1996 AEV to Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, "I write to request a copy of the "Current Act" the gave the Victorian Government power to make laws for peace order and good government for the Indigenous people. " (2)
26 August 1996 from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, to Les McDonald Chief Justice, Aboriginal Embassy Victoria, " I am unaware of any Act which gives the Victorian Government the Power to make laws for peace, order and good government for indigenous people. Signed Helen M. Mason Executive Officer ." (3)
2000. Organic grow Cannabis had almost extinct, Man adulterated Hydroponics grown cannabis had taken over, again Man had altered what the creator had provided, At this time many adults were reporting some mental effect after use, (which still is the case today), It was decided that the recommendation 7.1 and &.2 of Professor David Peninton report. be adopted to protect the mental well-being of our people, the Aboriginal people of Victoria.
8th June 2005, Media release from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Gavin Jennings, read as "From July 1 ATSIC regional councils end and there will be no formal representative structure in Victorian for Government to hear views of Indigenous People" (4)
20th February 2006 to The Premier of Victoria Steve Bracks, bringing to his attention, the current laws has inflicted an unnecessary tax on the people , mentally, physical and financially, The laws surrounding cannabis use, possession and cultivation do not support our present community needs and demands. and requesting to amend the Drugs Poisons and controlled substance Act 1981 (5)
13th November 2007 Aboriginal Advancement League "In the early nineties, we made it know to both Federal and State Governments, our concerns regarding the health risk associated with smoking cannabis that had been grown indoors, chemical enhanced, adulterated cannabis may cause a form of psychosis" (6)
4th December 2007 AEV found need to inform all know Aboriginal organization, that "The only way that we can remove the health risk facing our people, and the logical way is to change the current State Laws.." (7) :
1st January 2008 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 Act No. 43/2006 had came into affect, this is the first Act in Victoria (in part) Aboriginal persons hold distinct cultural rights and must not be denied the right, and to maintain their distinctive spiritual, material and economic relationship with the land and waters and other resources with which they have a connection under traditional laws and customs.
31st January 2008 To Lieutenant Governor of Victoria Chief Justice Mariln Warren, Notice, with in the Aboriginal People of Victoria . Signed Beryl Booth Ambassador (8)
5th February 2008 From in reply on behalf Lieutenant Governor of Victoria Chief Justice Mariln Warren, On behalf of the Chief Justice I thank you for your letter of 31 January 2008. signed Viveenne Macgillivary Executive Associate to the Chief Justice (9)
12th February 2008 AEV to Minister for Mental Health Ms. Lisa May Neville, Considering the State of Victoria, has no proper legislated power to make laws for the Aboriginal People of Victoria" ".. the Department of Health had been made aware in 1996 that hydroponics grown cannabis may cause some mental harm to some users of Cannabis." Knowingly causing and aiding a mental health risk on the Aboriginal people of Victoria " (10)
14th February 2008 in reply from Minister for Mental Health Ms. Lisa May Neville, "your letter is currently under consideration and a response will be forthcoming shortly. (11)
1st April 2008 AEV To Senior Constable Micheal Hobson, (7 enclosures) Considering the contents of the .. Which leaves open to question the Jurisdiction of the Courts in Victoria. Which I feel must be clarified in the first instance. (12)
8th April 2008 Marybrough Magistrates Court Informant Micheal Hobson, Defendant Les McDonald founder of bebuybac the Concerned Australians, Chief Lore Officer Aboriginal Embassy Victoria. In answer to Charge 1. the Defendant reserves his plea on this, Charge 2. The Defendant request the Court to clarify the Jurisdiction of the Courts over the Aboriginal People of Victoria. Charge 3. The Defendant admits that he used Cannabis in September 2007, when staying in South Australia. (13)
1st July To the Attorney-General Rob Hulls, Re Court Jurisdiction, 1. Has the Victorian Parliament the proper legislated power to make laws for the Aboriginal people of Victoria, 2. if the Courts Jurisdiction is question in the Magistrates Court, should the matter then be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria to address the Jurisdiction issue. (14)
21st July 2008 To Minister for Mental Health Ms. Lisa May Neville. "Letter of 12 February 2008 , which raised the doubt over the Victorian Parliament/Government powers to make laws for the indigenous people of Victoria" (15)
3rd August 2008 To the Attorney-General Rob Hulls, Re Court Jurisdiction, I write to bring to your attention that as yet I have not received any response to the urgent issues raised in my letter date July 2008. As this matter is most urgent and of growing public interest , It would be greatly appreciated if you attend to the matters raised at your earliest opportunity. (16)
13th August 2008 From Department of Justice on behalf of Attorney-General Rob Hulls... "Matters you raise are legal issues; neither the Attorney-General nor any public servant can provide you with legal advice about your matter" (17)
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 No. 43 of 2006 (18)
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 No. 43 of 2006
Division 3—Interpretation of laws
32 Interpretation
(1) So far as it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights.
(2) International law and the judgments of domestic, foreign and international courts and tribunals relevant to a human right may be considered in interpreting a statutory provision.
(3) This section does not affect the validity of—
(a) an Act or provision of an Act that is incompatible with a human right; or
(b) a subordinate instrument or provision of a subordinate instrument that is incompatible with a human right and is empowered to be so by the Act under which it is made.
33 Referral to Supreme Court
(1) If, in a proceeding before a court or tribunal, a question of law arises that relates to the application of this Charter or a question arises with respect to the interpretation of a statutory provision in accordance with this Charter, that question may be referred to the Supreme Court if—
(a) a party has made an application for referral; and
(b) the court or tribunal considers that the question is appropriate for determination by the Supreme Court.
(2) If a question has been referred to the Supreme Court under subsection (1), the court or tribunal referring the question must not—
(a) make a determination to which the question is relevant while the referral is pending; or
(b) proceed in a manner or make a determination that is inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court on the question.
(3) If a question is referred under subsection (1) by the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, the referral is to be made to the Court of Appeal.
(4) Despite anything contained in any other Act, if a question arises of a kind referred to in subsection (1), that question may only be referred to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section.
34 Attorney-General's right to intervene
s. 34
(1) The Attorney-General may intervene in, and may be joined as a party to, any proceeding before any court or tribunal in which a question of law arises that relates to the application of this Charter or a question arises with respect to the interpretation of a statutory provision in accordance with this Charter.
(2) If the Attorney-General intervenes in a proceeding under this section, then, for the purpose of the institution and prosecution of an appeal from an order made in that proceeding, the Attorney-General may be taken to be a party to the proceeding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment