Is Pot lawful in australia?

I was reading the posts in another section here from a big time guerilla grower in america. saying the guys who he didn't like were top of the list to "flip".
Which i assumed meant dobbing them into police, to save your own skin.
I hope he reads this, because he seemed like an otherwise decent guy. And if you claim state soverignty in america, you have access to the same law. And almost everything in Australia applies in Tennessee.
you need never "flip" anyone.

irish pig breeder went well lol. keep it going mate good read.

nice

Ok This post will hopefully wrap up the English history you need to know.

Its about who has the power to make law.

As i said earlier the Bill Of Rights is our foundational law.

Now the fact its called the bill of rights tells us a hell of alot about who has the power to make law. content notwithstanding.

Remembering that prior systems tried, included no monarch and rule by parliament. Which in practice was more oppressive than rule by a monarch.
that lesson has been learnt and catered to.

So the people have what in our law is divine right and only the people have the power to make new law.
This is done via referendum in australia.
And if you think about it for 2 minutes, you'll realise that if parliament had the power to make new law, then there would be absolutely no need for the device of a referendum.

Don't we vote on which party gains power every 4 years , and this gives them a mandate to make new law?
If that was true why on earth do we have referendum?

The truth of parliament's power is found in the title of the foundational law.

the bill of rights

What is a bill? A bill is a proposal put before parliament. It doesn't even pretend to have any power. The bill is considered and debated in parliament and either rejected, amended or accepted before it becomes legislation.

So why on earth is our foundational law given the name "bill" which on the surface would make it powerless.
The reason is that it was made law by the people. They were making the point that they were no more subject to parliament than they were to a monarch.

Or in other words, it was law upon writing it. Being passed by parliament is irrelevant. And they reinforced this by retaining the name "bill" of rights, even after it was enacted by parliament in 1689 and became an "act" of rights.

The people have the power in our law. Or divine right, if you prefer. and only we can make new law.
Parliament only has power to make legislation inside the law. But for 300 odd years have been trying like hell to assume power they simply don't lawfully have.

The importance of retaining the name "bill" of rights is reinforced by its use in the American law, by men who of course were already free under protestant English law prior to their revolution. And were familiar with the reason it was called a "bill".

There has been a war going on since 1688 in our law. to undermine it by those who suffered when the people gained divine right through revolution.

They being the catholics, the lords and so on of parliament and the monarchy.

And to that end they created theories of law.
One of the chief theorists was a man named Jeremy Bentham.
His opinion was that the people didn't have rights. that they should be ruled by masters.
And that process is best achieved by giving power to the parliament to legislate for the common good.

His opinion while having no weight behind it,( He didn't fight any war to make the law) Nevertheless has had enormous impact on our freedoms. As his theories have been put in practice by those who work for the temple.

Important to note that Bentham worked and lived at the middle temple, previously mentioned.
And upon his death bequeathed money to establish a university for catholics in england. ( catholics weren't allowed to go to university in his day)

Chief fairy of NSW 'justice' one Judge Spiegelman, is a good source of information regarding the influence of Bentham on our current set-up. Although naturally he's a fan of him.
Lawyers like to debate the law amongst themselves, pretending they have power as judges to decide what law is. And if you buy into it, then they're right.

don't buy into it. Now you know who lawyers serve and what they are. You can confidently reject them and their opinions with the force of law behind you.

If we consider how laws are made, what they are based on,as I explained at the beginning of this thread, we can see that Bentham simply did not have the right to influence our law as he did.

Its up to us to simply say no. you don't have the power to make law.
If challenged?
Well its explained why they don't at the beginning of this thread.


If you look at the set-up today you'll see its pretty much as Bentham postulated. Parliament making laws willy nilly for what they deem is the common good. and ignoring our rights in the interests of some faux moral or other such as SAFETY .

Well they don't have the power to do so, and they know it. So what they make instead of laws is administrative policy.

And then they have to con us into thinking it has the force of law. They do this through saturation advertising, control of cultural media , education and so on.

Actually i should also say that the King James bible is the supreme law, made so by protestants prior to 1688 but ratfied in 1688.
Until the papists have another war to change that law , its still the law.

And I think that should be sufficient English history.

Next I'll probably discuss the australian consitution .

Nope, wait.
something else that needs to be explained is these Knights of Malta aswell as being the hub from which the BAR association, extends throughout the protestest world, also monopolised western medicine.
Destroyed their competitors around 100 years ago.
And used their control of the courts, through their other arm, to license certain drugs aswell as prohibit others.

There is some circumstantial evidence that marijuana, which used to be an over the counter medicine, can cure cancer. And that cancer, which was almost unheard of prior to vaccination, may have been introduced intentionally.
Eradicating the cure would be a good idea if your intention was to quietly kill millions of protestants through cancer.

There are many theories on why marijuana was outlawed, and this one has no more merit than any other, as far as I know.

But this connection may prove useful to someone like Mr Mulloway, if he ever finds himself in front of a jury.

But the major point being, the BAR Association and Western medicine are run by the same people.That reside in a country noone has ever heard of. And has no lawful power in Australia to tell us what to do. Anymore than the Vatican does. But that's how they unify drug prohibition.

Western medicine being identifiable by its logo the cadaceus. Which also tells you who the temple is to. a temple being a place of worship of course.
But that might be an area too weird for most, and while being relevant in court to me, maybe too twilight zone for most.

Correction :marijuana wasn't outlawed it was made illegal.

i like this right on brother

the australian constitution.
I'm no expert on the constitution. And as its an Act of parliament, as explained earlier I can take it or leave it. (UK Parliament)
But as it says i own the country, I'm fairly partial to it, while not so keen on it in its entirety.
Besides my grandfather fought and died to uphold that law, so I suppose I should honour it.

and yes you can cherrypick most of these parliamentary acts, for what suits you.
You cant cherrypick the foundational laws though, naturally.
Because you're only subject to the law of the bible and laws made by the people.

Constitution is useful to us as pot growers because we will be subjected to Acts made by unconstitutional parliaments in an unconstitutional courts.

There are no constitutionally formed courts in Australia anymore. and no constitutionally formed parliaments.

So when the beak rattles of this or that from a "criminal" code it will be legislation written by an unconstitutionally formed parliament. none of your business. In fact following the directives of a defacto government is treason. Say so , and he will probably let you walk without putting up a fight.
If not, then the court itself is an unconstitutional court. They're actually privately owned businesses in australia today, posing as our courts.
They won't argue it. they should just ignore you as you turn and walk out.

Don't ask permission or wait for an ok. remember you're the government, you own the country and he is an imposter. Say what's what and walk out.

Remember no bail= no requirement to return to court.

So the Asutralian constitution is useful to you in that sense.

Ok now some more recent history. In 1973 while australian men had just been overseas fighting communism, Gough Whitlam ( a temple lawyer) quietly staged a communist coup in australia.

Firstly they abolished the Church of England, which played an important role in upholding protestant freedoms and they then stole the whole bloody country we own.

I'm indebted to Dick Yardley for this bit of history, by the way.

whitlam and Lance Barnard held an unprecedented 2 man parliament. (no other members were in the house,traitors through silence but probably didnt have the guts to do the dirty work)
And they passed the Names and Titles Act.
What this Act did was to transfer all the current commonwealth held entities into the ownership of a foreign corporation.
A counterfeit of our real self owned common wealth. with a similar name called the Commonwealth of Australia corporation.
Took control of the treasury and bullied and bribed the public service to switch allegiances.
(a public service dominated by catholics)
And since then no Acts of parliament have had anything to do with us, or our law.

This might explain why so many people, who weren't even alive when Whitlam was prime minister see him as a folk hero. All media hype by the catholic church.
the man is Australia's biggest traitor.
Communism was created by the catholic priests by the way and is still controlled by them today.

Some of you may be aware that this counterfeit government has control of our treasury and stolen all our publiclly owned assets, and the public service.
Some of you may not.
This info is freely available if you look for it online. The source info.

But you have a duty to disobey all Acts made by this treasonous defacto government.
Which include all Acts made since 1973.

and includes drug prohibition

this is probably the simplest and easy to use approach to not being convicted for growing/smoking/selling pot

It was the basis of my approach


How you do that in practicality is to simply state that it is treason to knowingly obey or honour defacto government.

treason is a hanging offence by the way.

After whitlam and barnard passed this treasonous Act, they then passed the death penalty Abolition act.
Which I'd do too , if i was them , but of course it has no force of law and the death penalty for treason is still in force.


Today instead of the 3 independant tiers of constitutional government, we have that one foreign owned corporation introduced by whitlam and every state parliament, court , branch of the public service is a subsidiary company of it.

I've had this confirmed by the Australian securities and Exchange in writing by the way.
Its as real as cancer.
And why I bothered giving away my edge, by explaining why pot being illegal doesnt matter.
and here's my spiel- what I want you rebellious pot growers to care about-

the country is being taken over by the catholic church.
Last time they had power they peeled the skin off protestants.
Us.
By the millions.
So we should be awake up to it and stand up to them.
Pretty bloody quickly.

Anyhow, enough of the preaching.

Now you know who all the players are when you get busted.
Their power.
Your power.
the real law versus policy made by a corporation
And the different levels that make you immune from drug prohibition

Right up to the simplest one. which once again is-
It would be treason for you to either obey the policies of this defacto coup or honour its courts.

Done it myself. Possibly the only guy to have succeeded in telling them to stick it up their jumper regarding prison and pot. Also did it this way after a raid by the tax department.

If you took the time to read the thread, and checked independantly whether I'm talking out my arse re:facts
you should now have the sand required to win in court .
and grow pot immune from prosecution

Genesis 1:29 of the supreme law of Australia

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

word

You sound like a dangerous individual...... We should have a beer some time...

Defacto government rules Australia

Defacto government rules Australia

Thank you for sharing all this with us isaih,, much appreciated mate!

I've been researching this subject for a little while now,, all the info is out there in the public domain,,
just waiting for people to find it & wake up (like myself).

I had no idea the Australian Coat of Arms is a registered trade mark of a company named COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

The company COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is registered in Washington DC at the US SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.

Business Address 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY WASHINGTON DC 20036

This is where the buck stops, literally.
If you want to read a company prospectus or annual report....
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-e...000805157&type=&dateb=&owner=include&count=20

So our money is siphoned off here, I'm assuming the share holders are foreign countries & private bankers.

cheers smurf &du420.
Yes there's alot of info on the corporation out there. Originally i believe it was a Queenslander named Dick Yardley who unearthed it.

Du420 , no im not dangerous. I'm a mild mannered protestant and now failed pot grower.
Not too popular with ASIO or the Jesuits though , for some peculiar reason.
Which can make life interesting at times.

It's taken me a while to read and digest what you have written isiah520, and it's slowly starting to sink in little bit by little bit, Thank You for your contributions on these matters
Too stoned and tired to read anymore, I will be back in the morning to keep reading and searching online.

Not too popular with ASIO or the Jesuits though , for some peculiar reason.

Click to expand...

To be honest with you I'm not surprised with what you've said,,
so the church has called in their military arm,, boy you must have pissed them off.

I'm just a minor nuisance to them I suppose. Or i wouldn't be here to share with you good folks how to grow pot with immunity.
I'm up for a beer du420 if your nearby.

Righto, I have offered very little in the way of proof, or relevant laws.

these days the internet is like having the biggest library in the world in the next room, and google is like having a 100 secretaries working for you to find what you're after.

But if that isn't enough for you and you're stumped or dubious. Ask about a specific point and I'll point you in the right direction as far as proving its veracity.

Smurf i think the queen owns the corporation in a private capacity. she is a papist. Thats high treason and she has earnt an axe to her neck.
The same set up in New Zealand is called The queen in her right to New Zealand corporation, or something similar. And I doubt she would allow that to exist if it had nothing to do with her.
Having said that I've been told the vatican owns a slice and i've been told its owned by the Crown corporation.
Doesn't make much difference as far as avoiding conviction for pot, to my mind.

hey dude leave the queen out of it please ! she is no different to you or i , if we would of be born into the same situation!

Somehow I just can't see myself chucking another bud on the barbie.