Friday, April 11, 2008

Possession justification 'nonsense'.

Peter Till, a medicinal cannabis user from Nimbin in New South Wales, Australia, has had his appeal over a conviction for possession last year thrown out of court.

Mr Till has been fighting the Queensland Government for the right to use cannabis to treat pain and headaches that he suffers as a result of a motorcycle accident in 1996.

Peter has been busted a number of times over the years, twice while attempting to take mature plants into court as evidence in his case/s. In his latest appeal over a two month suspended sentence received last year for bringing cannabis plants to court, he claimed immunity from the law because:

'I am a sovereign being living in a sovereign estate in the greater universe continuum. ... Sovereignty is not subject to law, it is the law, and its greatest claim to power is that IT and nothing else is the law...'

The judge rejected this as incoherent and unintelligible.

In an earlier appeal on March 11 this year, an unindentified person appealed on Peter's behalf. In reference to that appeal, the judge stated:

"Whoever it was said some things which were broadly consistent with the content of the outline of argument: that he was a sovereign being, that the prohibition on possession of cannabis did not apply to him, and that he had authorised himself to possess cannabis. After a time he announced he was going for a walk, and left the courtroom."
I spent some time in the early eighties living 'off the land' and still identify as a bit of a hippy. However, if I ever intend to defend myself in court, I think I'll try another tactic, rather than come across as a moon unit to the world in general. Sorry Peter, but the general populous just doesn't tolerate what is considered normal in alternative circles.


rock said...

hi peter ofthe faimly till here
the judge is a lier
checkout handsard of the pariletmentof australia 1919 sept to oct page 12167 when prime minster hughes states that australia is a soverien country
high court of australia (hill v sue)
king and prime minster of england in 1919 to 1921 gave soverienty to the australia people

also look up the word person in oxford dictionary,three types of person:1 persona actor clay mark, i walk in to court with a clay mask but i not the mask
2 artificial person which hjas duties and responcatiblies(faimly name or bussiness name)
3 natural person

if people assume a lot in life what is the chance that a judge assume im a artificial person which has duties and responcitablies?

want more info send email to
peace b with u
lv rock

Indica Man said...

My last census interrogation exposed me as a 'Devoted Happy'. That has been my religion since since 1980.
I also Bom Shankar, and Hare Krsna.
I see you, but they don't. They never will because they are too encased in an opaque mask of delusion.

The courts will never listen if they perceive that you are mocking them. They have no understanding of 'individuality'. If you don't dress in their 'required' dress, or speak in their 'required' language, they will not (cannot) listen.

They are the high end drones of a big hive of lost souls. Learn to speak bee and they will listen...maybe.
Peace and Enlightenment...